Posted on | March 2, 2013 | 40 Comments
This year’s CPAC is a done deal, with the usual kerfuffles about groups that are too sexuality-centric (GOProud) and too controversial (Pamela Geller). I’d favor an improvement in the Rules of Engagement that supports bringing in more people with whom I don’t necessarily agree, as long as there are ground rules about how we all disagree agreeably. If you really think the Apollo moonshot was a hoax, OK, set up your table. Just don’t be disruptive. As an academic exercise, I’d love to hear a full exposition on how Sharia finance works, and think it a shame that anyone feels unwelcome.
Then again, I’m not an organizer for the event. Maybe a follow-on event, DPAC, could be staged for those deemed too exotic, replete with a talk from Chopra.
- Have the Precious Bodily Fluids of the SCOTUS been terminally polluted?
- Should the entire Department of Justice be cashiered?
- If we started now, could we re-ratify the Constitution in 2037 for its 250th anniversary, legitimizing (some of) the Progressive drift over the last century, so that conservatives can relax?