Donald Sensing, on the absurd mental gymnastics that Democrats must perform to want to end a war that doesn’t exist. As he says, one side can start a war, but it takes both to end it. And Al Qaeda, either in Afghanistan or Iraq, isn’t ready to quit. Particularly when, based on the actions of the Dems, they think they’re winning.
End It, Don’t Win It
Donald Sensing, on the absurd mental gymnastics that Democrats must perform to want to end a war that doesn’t exist. As he says, one side can start a war, but it takes both to end it. And Al Qaeda, either in Afghanistan or Iraq, isn’t ready to quit. Particularly when, based on the actions of the Dems, they think they’re winning.
End It, Don’t Win It
Donald Sensing, on the absurd mental gymnastics that Democrats must perform to want to end a war that doesn’t exist. As he says, one side can start a war, but it takes both to end it. And Al Qaeda, either in Afghanistan or Iraq, isn’t ready to quit. Particularly when, based on the actions of the Dems, they think they’re winning.
A Missing Question
This seems like kind of a strange symposium:
There is a growing debate among conservative thinkers and pundits about whether Darwinian theory helps or harms conservatism and its public policy agenda. Some have argued forcefully that Darwin’s theory provides support for conservative positions on family life, economics, bioethics, and other issues, while others have countered that the effort to justify conservative policy positions on Darwinian grounds is fundamentally flawed. Does Darwin’s theory help defend or undermine traditional morality and family life? Does it encourage or discredit economic freedom? Is it a spur or a brake to utopian schemes to re-engineer human nature?
Doesn’t it matter whether or not the theory is valid? Is it only something to be discussed in terms of its effects on conservatism (or for that matter progressivism)? If it turns out that it somehow is harmful to traditional morality and family life (I’m not sure that the empirical evidence bears this out, even if it does in theory), does that mean that it shouldn’t be taught in science classes, even if it’s the best scientific explanation for the fossil record (and human behavior)? What is the point of this symposium?
Why I Link
Just in case there was any confusion, like Glenn, I link to things that I find interesting, and/or think that my readers might find interesting. A link doesn’t mean that I agree with everything found at the link, or even anything found at the link. A link does not constitute an endorsement, unless I…errrrr…endorse it. If I have useful thoughts on it, positive or negative, I will express them.
[Update mid morning]
Jonah Goldberg has related thoughts. Also a follow up here.
Lunar Rock Throwing
A Stalinist Show Trial
Move along, folks, no suppression of dissent to see here.
The Enemy Of My Enemy Is My Friend
Lee Smith says that the Democrats are waging a proxie war against the Bush administration–in the Middle East, many of whom refuse to believe that we’re at war (simultaneously while thinking that we should end the war that we’re not in–talk about cognitive dissonance). I think that’s exactly what’s happening, even if they don’t realize it themselves.
It Worked For Reagan
I wrote earlier this morning that whatever I (and a lot of other people) voted for last fall, it wasn’t surrender. Here’s an interesting approach to the war, that seems beyond the Democrats. We win, they lose. Go sign the petition.
As If We Needed Another Reason
Here’s another reason for Gonzales to resign.