Whoa, reality check, please! New Republic is actually admitting that we were right about the perils of ding-bat relativism?
Has New Republic really published an intelligent article with which I find myself, in large measure, in accord?
And has gobucks actually posted said article, which makes the same compelling case I've argued--that ID is appalling chicanery, using liberal 'special pleading' to assault science and education, and thereby does great damage to genuine conservative issues?
Will you people please stop messing with my mind like this!
...Hey, hang on just a minute here...
...Am I on Candid Camera?
Every now and then, someone blunders into the truth. When he doesn't realize it, that makes the tableau all the more enjoyable.
The important thing is to remember the article's reasoning. It's bang on.
LOL! Now, just take deep, slow breaths. You will be fine...
Here's the cause of some of the confusion. It seems that The New Republic isn't your father's Oldsmobile. From this source: The New Republic, From Wikipedia:
In 1975, the magazine was bought by Harvard lecturer Martin Peretz, who transformed TNR into its current incarnation. Peretz was a veteran of the New Left who had broken with that movement over its support of various Third World liberationist movements, particularly the Palestine Liberation Organization. Under Peretz TNR has advocated both strong U.S. support for Israel and a muscular U.S. foreign policy. During the 1980s the magazine generally supported President Reagan's anti-Communist foreign policy, including provision of aid to the Contras. It has also supported both Gulf Wars and, reflecting its belief in the moral efficacy of American power, intervention in "humanitarian" crises, such as those in Bosnia and Kosovo during the Yugoslav wars. ... Domestically, TNR supports policies first associated with the Democratic Leadership Council and such "New Democrats" as former-President Bill Clinton. These policies, while seeking to achieve the ends of traditional social welfare programs, often use market solutions as their means, and so are often called "business-friendly".In other words, they're still liberal, but not flaming, kool-aid drinking insane liberal. Kinda like John Kennedy liberals, is how I see it (but they could be worse than that). Anyway, they're capable of publishing an intelligent article from time to time.