Conscious Since 77

Like you needed a reason...

2006-06-12T14:50:00.000-07:00

Just thought I would share the good word.

On a less serious note...

2006-05-23T15:51:00.000-07:00

A couple weekends ago Eilleen and I, along with several of our friends rented Jim's Party Trolly to celebrate Eilleen's BA, my second BA, Cindy's 21st B-day, and just to cause mayhem in general. It is basically a psychedelic, open-air, death trap of drunken madness!

Wanted: Retired Lawyer to Run Country Into Ground

2006-05-22T15:53:00.000-07:00

I have a dilemma. Recently I have been having discussions with people regarding the current state of affairs of our government, specifically on the federal level. My dilemma is this, if you cannot conscientiously support any of the candidates running for a given office is it better to choose who you consider to be the lesser of two evils (based on whatever criteria you may set) or to simply abstain from voting for either candidate? In the past couple of federal elections I have found myself doing the former, and not merely in terms of voting for president. It seems that there are valid reasons for choosing either option and while I have practiced one over the past several years I am becoming more and more convinced that perhaps I should reconsider my voting strategy and go with the other option (abstaining).

Many people would accuse me of being politically lazy or say that if I do adopt that strategy then I have no room to criticize our government, but I think that is a pretty short-sighted view of what it means to be politically active or to have a political voice. That view assumes that the only valuable political opinions are those that fall within the narrowly outlined platforms of the Republican or Democratic party, which is absurd (for more reasons than you might think, but I'll get to that later). It also does not take into consideration the power of passive resistance, or the refusal to cooperate with what is perceived to be a corrupt system. Also, as those who know me best will tell you, I am no political slouch. I follow politics very closely, I have worked on campaigns (for both Republicans and Democrats), and I have been involved in various types of political activity (letter writing, protests, etc.) for most of my adult life. However, I am also very careful about the people, movements, or agendas to which I lend my voice and my support.

Which leads me back to my dilemma. Why should I be forced to choose when neither option is really acceptable? Shouldn't I believe in the candidate I am voting for rather than simply voting to say that I have done my civic duty? And doesn't voting simply to say that I voted degrade the whole concept of civic duty anyway?

The problem is this, as I have followed politics over the past several years I have become increasingly disenchanted with our legislators and with our election system. Given all of the scandals and the overwhelming evidence that there is really very little difference between the two parties I have found it harder and harder to not be cynical about the whole thing. Both parties run on the same platitudinous platform (education, health care, military, national defense) and neither party ever delivers on anything. They run on whatever platform will get them elected in their particular state and then vote however the lobbyists want them to vote.

As I see it, the real root of the problem is that there is no honor, no higher purpose in being an elected official anymore. Taking a public office no longer means working toward the betterment of our society and our way of life. Rather, it is a way for the wealthiest among us to be paid to enact laws that will mostly benefit them and their cohorts, with little regard to what a vast majority of the citizens of this nation either want or need. Political office has become nothing more than what middle-aged lawyers do at the end of their careers.

This gets right to the heart of why I think we have one of the lowest voter turnout rates in the "free" world. I'm not one of these people who complains by saying, "my vote doesn't count anyway so why bother?" I have made it a point to vote whenever possible on the assumption that my vote does count. But I am becoming more and more convinced that my vote is only really counted in a quantitative sense. But that is the problem. People want to know that their vote is going to count in a qualitative sense, that the person they vote for has their best interests in mind and that they are going to fight for legislation that will help, not only their constituents, but all citizens. Unfortunately, that does not seem to be the state of affairs within our government. Honestly, I am ashamed of our government right now for so many reasons and I am sad that people have so little faith or trust in our government, myself included. But the truly sad part is that our government, as a whole, has given us no reason to believe otherwise.

Poor elephant

2005-12-21T14:55:00.000-08:00

This made me burst out laughing in my office:

Sagittarius November 22 - December 21

The pleasure you get from playing the two-finger waltz on the piano is astounding, especially considering it cost the life of an elephant.

I'm sure the other people near my office think I'm going crazy. Oh yeah, it's from the Onion.

Followup to College Republican Story

2005-12-09T13:40:00.000-08:00

For those of you interested, here is a story published in the publication Inside Higher Ed about the mess with the College Republicans down here:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2005/12/09/newmex

Open Letter to the NMSU Community

2005-12-06T22:50:00.000-08:00

To the NMSU Community

I would like to bring to the attention of the NMSU community a dangerous and frightening trend that has been building within the organization of the NMSU College Republicans and within the Republican community at large in Dona Ana County. First of all, several months ago the Dona Ana County Republican Party (and more recently the NMSU College Republicans) elected to officially endorse the Minutemen as a means to police our borders and to ensure "homeland security". These are both extremely suspicious justifications given that we already have a government funded and operated organization policing the borders and that, historically speaking, none of the people who have carried out acts of terrorism have gained access to the United States by sneaking across the U.S.-Mexico border. Not to mention that, if they are truly interested in securing our borders from terrorists, they seem to spend little time on the much more extensive border to the north as well as our extensive coastlines, all of which seem just as vulnerable or likely to be used by terrorists attempting to sneak into our country. But I digress.

Another worrisome development within the local chapter of College Republicans is their stated intention to collect and publish the names and contact information of professors at NMSU whom they feel are too liberal or are using their classrooms as a bully pulpit from which to preach their leftist ideologies and to indoctrinate students. If carried out, this will be a blatant attack on the intellectual freedom afforded to all members of the NMSU community and can be seen only as an attempt to stifle opinions with which the College Republicans disagree.
While these are just two examples of the sorts of policies currently being considered by the NMSU College Republicans it is obvious, upon reflection, to see why such policies are dangerous and why we should be concerned about the proliferation of such ideas at NMSU. It was just these types of policies that led to atrocities like the holocaust of WWII and the murder of thousands of dissident students and educators in Argentina during the so-called "Dirty War", to name a few examples.

Given the nature of my letter I am sure that I will receive angry rebuttals and denials of the above stated allegations. However, the reason I decided to write this letter is because the NMSU College Republicans have now moved beyond mere rhetoric and vocal support of such policies and are now actively participating in stifling opposing opinions and expelling members from their group on the grounds of race. On the evening of Monday, November 7, 2005 all three of the Hispanic officers of NMSU College Republicans were impeached. For several reasons I believe that they were impeached illegitimately.

First of all, the impeachments themselves were not enacted in accordance with Robert's Rules of Order (the instruction guide for parliamentary procedure used by all NMSU organizations in the conduct of meetings). Robert's Rules of Order requires that any officer being impeached must be given prior notification of the intent to impeach, they must be presented with specific charges against them, and it requires a two-thirds vote for impeachment of all present, voting group members. The three impeached officers where never given notification of the intent impeach, but rather were subjected to an on the spot, up or down vote at the meeting. They were never given any reason for their impeachment, and the attending members voting for impeachment failed to meet the two-thirds requirement. But this is the least of the problems with the way in which these impeachments were carried out.

Second, the officers were not impeached on the grounds that they had in some way violated the charter of NMSU College Republicans, nor had they violated any local, state, or federal law. The call for impeachment was made when the two impeached officers who were in attendance refused to support an official endorsement of the Minutemen by NMSU College Republicans. In other words, the impeachment was used as a means of silencing opposition within the organization, which, as far as I can tell, is a blatant violation of the two dissenting officers' constitutional protection of free speech.

Finally, for a couple of different reasons I believe that the impeachments were racially motivated. First of all, the two impeached officers who were attending the meeting were subjected to personal attacks prior to the motions for impeachment. The legitimacy of their own citizenship was called into question as well as that of their families. They were also ridiculed and questioned about their religious and cultural beliefs. It should be noted that all three of the officers are natural born citizens of the United States. Another reason for believing that the impeachments were racially motivated is that one of the officers who was impeached was not even at the meeting. He was impeached on the basis of his ethnicity alone.

To many of you it may not come as much of a surprise that these sorts of actions would be perpetrated by Republicans. Many feel (myself included) that covert racism and overt anti-intellectualism have been staples of the Republican institution for decades. Some of you may be wondering why we should care what the Republican party does to its own members or why we should not just let them destroy themselves from the inside, given that that seems to be what is happening. My argument is that the political affiliation of those who have endured these injustices is irrelevant. It is exactly the indiscriminant nature of their actions that should give us the most cause for concern. The attacks against the three members of College Republicans were of a very personal and intentionally hurtful nature. They were singled out because of their ethnicity and were subjected to ridicule and were made to feel like pariahs within their own group. Since the impeachments the NMSU College Republicans have attempted to cover up their misdeeds. At the behest of the chairman of the Federation of New Mexico College Republicans (who obviously realized the gravity of their error) they have attempted to rescind the impeachments, not because they have had a sudden change of opinion about Hispanics but rather in an attempt to avoid any controversy. But the damage has been done. Even if the impeachments are rescinded the three impeached members will never feel respected as full members of the organization. They will be afraid to dissent on any matter, big or small, because a clear message has been sent about how dissenters will be dealt with. It has been made clear by their actions that Hispanics and anyone else who dissents from the majority opinion of the NMSU College Republicans will be chastised, ridiculed, and driven out of the organization. They have also shown that they will suppress opposition in any way possible, even if it means violating the rights of those with opposing opinions.

Upon writing this I am reminded of one of the most horrific moments in Saddam Hussein's rule of Iraq. In one of his first party meetings as the undisputed leader of Iraq, Hussein called out the names of people within his own party who had vocally opposed his policies and had them escorted out of the building by the police. Many of these people were never seen nor heard from again and I can only imagine what became of them. We should also keep in mind that these actions represent a direct and open attack on some of the very principles upon which our nation was founded, namely our First Amendment protection of Free Speech, a respect for the rule of law, and a respect for diversity within our nation's institutions. As citizens who enjoy and respect such rights and principles we have an obligation to defend and protect them and to oppose any such violations, regardless of the affiliations of those who these violations are perpetrated against.

So what is the goal of all of this? Am I suggesting that the College Republicans be disbanded? No. Am I suggesting that we run the Republicans off of our campus and out of town? No. It would be hypocritical to argue that they not be allowed to hold or espouse whatever views they want. However, they should not be allowed to act on their beliefs if, in doing so, the end result is a violation of people's rights. What I am suggesting is that we as a community speak up and make it known that, while we respect their right to espouse whatever belief they may have regardless of how misguided we may think it is, we will neither tolerate nor condone any action that violates the above mentioned principles or any of the other basic rights and principles that we afford all people.

Sincerely

Jason Wyatt
Undergraduate, Senior, Dept. of Psychology

College Republican Madness in LC and Beyond

2005-12-06T22:01:00.000-08:00

As many of you may have read on Joe's blog (here and here)I have recently been involved in some political activity regarding the impeachment of three hispanics in the local College Republican organization. They were the only three hispanic officers in the organization and they were impeached under questionable circumstances. One of them has written on her blog about the situation. As far as I and many others are concerned they were impeached for no other reason than that they were hispanic and disagreed with the organization's intention to officially endorse the minutemen (a citizen group that has taken it upon themselves to "protect" the US-Mexico border).

After hearing the details of the situation and the story surrounding the incident I decided that something should be done. As a first step I decided to write a letter discussing the issue and disseminate it as widely as possible. I sent it to newspapers, professors, the university president and a host of other political organizations and individuals. I have also discussed possible courses of action with an activist friend of mine.

I sent the letter out about ten days ago and since that time I have received a much larger and more positive response than I ever could have imagined, which is encouraging. I have received supportive letters from professors, political organizations, and activists. I was informed that my letter has been distributed and read at the meeting of an organization concerned with civil rights. I have also learned that that actions undertaken by the local Republicans is not an isolated event but is rather a part of a larger agenda of silencing opposition through scare tactics such as blacklisting professors and (as we have seen here) expelling members with opposing opinions.

In order to give those of you who may be interested in more specific details and insight into what is going on I have decided to publish the letter I sent on my blog. Do with it what you will.

Back in the Pop Culture Swing of Things

2005-11-17T22:58:00.000-08:00

You know it is much easier to update your blog on a regular basis when you have an internet connection at your house. This may come as a surprise to some of you (given that I have worked in the tech industry for almost six years) but I have not had an internet connection at my house in almost 3 years. Not to mention this is the first time ever that I have had a high-speed connection at a place of residence (yes, ever). For the time being it is still a novelty and I can't get enough of it. For the past two days I have been almost obsessively working on my computer trying to get it back up to speed, installing security updates, new software, etc. It was ridiculous how many security updates I had to install, it literally took me almost four hours to get my computer completely updated (stupid microsoft). It was insane, within literally seconds of connecting my computer to the cable modem and configuring it to connect I was getting pop-ups. Literally, seconds (stupid microsoft). Luckily I have not had any since updating and installing various software to stop them but it was just ridiculous how quickly they started.

Since I got a cable connection I also got cable television to go with it. For me this is the really weird part. I have not had cable television since 1999 (I think). I have been in pop culture overload for the past two days. I have watched movies that I don't think I would ever watch under normal circumstances. I have seen television shows that I have only heard about in newspapers and magazines. It occured to me today how long and to what extent I have been separated from pop culture. There have been entire sitcoms, successful by any tv exec's standards, that I had never heard of and that have come and gone without my ever knowing they even existed. Entire careers of actors that I have never heard of have been made and broken since I last had cable. I originally got rid of cable because I was spending a lot of money and never watching anything. Usually I would just put it on one of the music channels and go about my business. Now I have the opposite problem. Now the first thing I do when I get home is turn on the tv and crank up the computer (I am watching a show about vampires as I write this). I AM OBSESSED!

Oh well, I'm sure it will work itself out. The internet connection is useful but I will have to see how the tv thing goes. If in a couple of months I am still obsessed with tv, or, on the other hand, have stopped watching it at all again I will probably just have it disconnected. But, in the meantime, I am going to soak up as much pop culture as I can get! ;)

It has been said that man is a rational animal.

2005-05-19T08:17:00.000-07:00

“I wish to propose for the reader’s favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true.” Bertrand Russell
(From “Introduction: On the Value of Scepticism”, Sceptical Essays [London: Allen & Unwin, 1928])

Yesterday was Bertrand Russell's birthday. In my opinion Russell was one of the most important thinkers of the 20th century. His writings encompassed nearly every facet of philosophy and he approached philosophy with little regard for the ridicule he recieved in response to many of his views. In fact, he was imprisoned for his anti-war stance during WWI. As well as being a great philosopher Russell was a master mathematician, a Nobel Laureate in Literature (he never wrote fiction but the story is they wanted to recognize him for his contributions in academia as well as his extensive humanitarian efforts), and a great humanitarian. I attribute my own passion for philosophy, in great part, to reading Russell early on in my academic career.

Russell had a very clear, elegant, and understandable writing style and I encourage anyone interested to read his work (given the broad range of topics covered by his writings I can almost guarantee you will find something that suits your own personal interests). Agree with him or not, Russell's ideas are always well stated and always thought provoking.

Finally, someone who understands

2005-05-08T14:52:00.000-07:00

Ok, so the title is a little misleading. Plenty of people understand why I have chosen to structure my education the way I have (BA in Philosophy/Psychology, MA in Psychology, PhD in Philosophy, at least that is the plan as it stands right now), but I had never actually met anyone who had not only followed a similar path but for surprisingly similar reasons. I guess I should explain a little. At some point during my initial degree in philosophy I became extremely interested in Philosophy of Mind which led ultimately to a great interest in Cognitive Psychology.

My idea was this, in order to take a legitimate stab at the problems of Philosophy of Mind (consciousness, mind/body interaction, etc.) it would be necessary to have at least a basic knowledge and understanding of the current research in psychology, neurophysiology, etc. But the more I delved into psychology I came to the conclusion that many of the problems associated with determining the nature of the mind were not so much rooted in psychology itself but were more fundamental to the actual structure of the research being done. They were problems that fell squarely in the realm of the Philosophy of Science. It was (and is) my belief that in order to overcome many of the hurdles associated with Philosophy of Mind and Cognitive Psychology it will be necessary to evaluate such things as the ways in which we describe the elements of the mind. In other words, the vocabulary and structure of our hypotheses must be conducive to answering the questions at hand. Of course, at this point I have no idea what this entails, specifically, but I certainly have some ideas and hunches as to what some of the solutions may be.

So back to my story. A few days ago I was at my favorite local coffee shop, Milagro Coffee y Espresso, discussing Christian Theology with another person sitting at a table near me. At one point I was trying to recall the name of the professor under whom I had studied Philosophy of Religion (it was Dr. Burnett, but for some reason it was escaping me at that moment). In the middle of this an elderly man walked up to us, having overheard our discussion, and asked if we studied Philosophy at NMSU. I told him that, in fact, I have a BA in Philosophy from NMSU.

He then proceeded to name various philosophy professors in an attempt to help me remember my professor's name (he obviously had some direct association with the department). He then asked me if it might have been Professor Alan Keaton. I told him I was not familiar with Dr. Keaton and that he must have been before my time. He then extended his hand and introduced himself, Dr. Alan Keaton, retired NMSU Philosophy Professor. I asked what he had researched and written about and he said mainly Philosophy of Science but that he had also been interested in Philosophy of Mind and Cognition. He then asked what my interests were and so I launched into the speel above. He thought it was interesting, especially since he himself had obtained an MA in Psychology before proceeding with his PhD. We had a wonderful discussion about philosophy, psychology, politics, and science. He also gave me a reading list that he thought would help me with my project. He then gave me his phone number and offered to discuss any problems or ideas I might have about the readings, to be a mentor of sorts.

Of the books he suggested most of them were simply to help me in philosophy and science in general, but one of the books he suggested that I read immediately. It was "Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain", by Antonio Damasio. In it Damasio argues that while people typically think of emotions as clouding our ability to reason, reasoning, especially in social situations, does not occur independently of emotions or feelings but that, in fact, these are all intimately related. His theory has many interesting implications about psychology and even ethics as far as I can tell. (I will discuss all of this in a later post when I am more than a mere four chapters into the book).

At various times I have questioned whether I was actually pursuing a viable path in terms of my educational and research interests. I guess it was just a confidence builder to know that someone with Dr. Keaton's background, experience, and knowledge took enough interest in my proposed research interests to offer to guide me and help me see my project through.

Dead Rose...Again

2005-04-28T14:20:00.000-07:00

Gonna go see the Dead Rose Sinclair again tonight. I think I'm addicted. They run these crazy videos produced by their guitarist for each of there songs. I find myself just staring at the videos. Creepy stuff; Barbie dolls, bloody water, pecan trees. Freaky.

The Wisdom of the Barn

2005-04-25T18:00:00.000-07:00

"...I'm a rebel on a mission baby, to live and die by my smile."
-Ed Kowalczyk

So, I went to a party in a barn Saturdya night. Yes a barn. It was out in the middle of nowhere about 11 miles outside of Las Cruces next to a pecan orchard. It was great! There were about 300 people, food, beer, and some of the best bands in Las Cruces played (including one of my personal favorites, the Dead Rose Sinclair). However, even though I had a great time the significance of this party didn't really strike me until later that weekend when I was discussing it with a friend.

So what was the significance of the party, you ask? Well, the music scene is exploding right now in Las Cruces. On any night of the week you can see any of a number of local bands, of all genres, at any number of locations (bars, coffee shops, barns, etc.). Many of the groups even help to bring in bands from elsewhere just to help promote Las Cruces as an epicenter of indie rock. And one of the greatest things about it is that, for the most part, the bands in town are a pretty tight community (they even have a community website where you can find band info, shows, etc, called lcscene.com).

But, while it is rather significant that the Las Cruces music community is turning itself into a hotbed of punk and indie music, that wasn't exactly what struck me about the party. What struck me about it was that they, as a community, have chosen to do this right here in the good old LC. They have realized what many of my closest friends and I have struggled with over the past several years, at various times. They have realized that more often then not, location is not nearly as important as attitude and approach. Any number of these bands could have decided to try to make a name for themselves by moving to a bigger city such as Austin, New York, or L.A. But they didn't. They decided to make the best of the community they have right here, and let the music world come to them.

Like I said, this holds a great deal of significance for me given the events of the past few years within my circle of friends. Recently, I went through a terrible breakup that I took very hard. Almost immediately the thought occurred to me that I should get the hell out of this town and start a new life. I was certain that that would solve all of my problems. But, upon reflection, I realized that it would not. I have seen numerous friends fall prey to this belief over the past few years. Luckily, most of them are now in a more happy and contented state of mind, but NONE of them attribute this to their current city of residence. All of them have told me that it has been a change in attitude in the face of adversity (dare I say life in general) that has ultimately brought about these changes in them.

From the perspective of psychology it is very common for we as humans to try to blame external forces when something bad happens or when we fail and we rarely have an initial reaction to a bad situation in which we blame ourselves outright, or at the very least, recognize our own amount of responsibility that ultimately led to our failure. I am not saying that we should constantly blame ourselves when something bad happens, but what I am saying is that wallowing in depression and cynicism won't help. We have to realize that this desire to move on is, more often then not, escapism, pure and simple. That is why simply changing locations hardly ever solves our problems. Of course we have to be mindful enough to realize when a situation is hopeless and cannot be resolved given the current circumstances. But the fact is that these circumstances rarely have to do with our locale and more often have to do with the mindsets of ourselves and those around us. We must realize our own faults and strengths and deal with them or use them accordingly. In these situations we have a choice, to remain cynical or to make the best of what we have and strive to make things better, ala the LC musicians.

I know this may be a weird analogy but that is the way my mind works and I think my point is fairly clear. While a new location may serve to give novelty to your life and to invigorate you in some way, there is still no guarantee of hapiness or success in your new location, especially given that usually the things that are making us unhappy or unsuccessful are internal and bare little if any relation to our physical location. Some people will choose to be miserable and negative about any situation or any location, and will move on thinking that that will solve their problem. It is up to us to see the value in our current situation and to make the most of it.

Back to the Blogging

2005-04-22T18:40:00.000-07:00

Well I've been away for awhile but I'm back and I think this time I'm just going to force myself to be a more consistent blogger. After making my first post I kind of got scared of baring myself so openly to the whole world. But then various things occurred to me. One, most of the people who are likely to read this thing are people who know me and probably won't be that suprised at anything I write. Two, I realised that I shouldn't be afraid of my own ideas. If I am concerned about my beliefs then perhaps the thing I need is an open forum for critcism.

That being said, I do have some reservations about the blog in general as a forum for sharing ideas. As I see it there is something very one sided about expressing your ideas in a blog. It is really up to the blogger to respond to any remarks and those remarks are hardly ever on the same page as the blog. As a way to vent or showcase ideas it seems like the perfect venue but it takes real effort to make your other readers aware of those criticisms. Of course, not everything on a blog has to be contoversial and I intend to put more mundane stuff on here as well (just to warn everyone). I had originally intended this to be a storehouse for my philosophical ideas but I realized just what I have been talking about. But not to worry, there will be plenty of that here as well.

But, enough metablogging. I'm back and I am going to make a genuine effort to keep up with it this time.

The Relativist Twist

2004-11-24T14:33:00.000-08:00

So I guess I should start this thing with something that has been bothering me for some time. But first a little back story is necessary to set up the situation and to introduce the problem. Last night I was sitting at my favorite locally owned and operated coffee shop with some friends, having a discussion about the morallity of prostitution (like shooting fish in a barrell really). I was arguing that the immorality of prostitution lies in the fact that it is detrimental to society (not an extremely contoversial opinion). This argument led to a discussion on metaethics and what I take to be the correct moral system. My answer to this question is really irrelevant for this discussion but it should just be known that I do tend to take a pretty objective view of ethics. That is to say that I am not a relativist and that I think that there are some actions that are inherently wrong.

Needless to say, a person at a nearby table overheard what we were discussing and felt it necessary to comment on our discussion, or more accurately to attack my position and accuse me of, among other things, being a christian and being a conservative. I guess he couldn't fathom that a person could consider themselves to be a fairly liberal person and still have an objective view of morality. In fact, his opinion seemed to be that in order to be considered a liberal a person has to believe that all morality is relative and that no judgement can be made about what any person other than oneself believes to be a right action.

To me this seems to be a problematic opinion for several reasons. First, I'm pretty positive that there is no necessary connection between objective morality and either A) being a conservative or B) being religious. I was in no way making an argument from the position of a divine command theorist, which as far as I know is the only moral theory that would necessarily warrant the accusations against me. In fact I was making a pragmatic and utilitarian argument, which made no mention of god and in no way implied that I was using some form of stare decisis in deriving my argument (as was implied by the conservative accusation).

Second, it seems to me that a relative system of morality is necessarily contrary to what I take to be the tenets of contemporary liberalism (ie. interest in the well-being of all humanity, reverence for liberty, refraining from causing undue harm to other beings, etc.). People who consider themselves liberals while espousing relativism seem to have no way to rebut when confronted with a situation or behavior that seems to be opposed to these tenets. While their liberal tendencies will compel them to denounce the situation or behavior as wrong, the belief that morality is subjective and depends solely on the values of the individual performing the action makes it impossible for them to pass this judgment of wrongdoing (I understand that there are other, more sophisticated forms of relativism but this is the one that the person at the coffee shop was using). In fact, they are compelled to argue that the actor is justified in his actions because of his values. Assuming that this person is interested in alleviating contradictory beliefs then one of the two tendencies must be dropped.

Well, that's my abridged rant on relativism. If you want more then respond to the post or send me an e-mail and I will gladly debate this issue.