The Spectacle Blog
John: Much as I hate to agree with two of the people most responsible for our lack of a credible missile defense (Levin being the primary obstructionist) Carter and Perry are right. We need to strike the missile on the NK launch pad unless they agree, forthwith, to abide by the international convention on missile testing.
That convention requires international notices (NOTAM's -- notices to mariners and airmen) which publish time, distance and purpose of launch. If they don't, we should launch a cruise missile from a B-2 without notice to anyone.
Two Clinton DoD hands, Ashton Carter and William Perry, say that firing our missile defense system if North Korea tests its Taepodong-2 missile, as the Wall Street Journal and National Review have called for, is not enough: We should be prepared to stop the test from even taking place by bombing the launchpad.
You may have heard that the National Republican Senatorial Committee is behind the Democratic counterpart in fundraising. Hugh Hewitt speculates that it is because the NRSC supports an anti-war Republican. That's a solid guess.
Acceptably mild perjoratives just can't quite express the level of outrage that again and again is merited by the House leadership for its political cluelessness or its lack of principle of lack of ethics (sometimes all three at once). Every week, it seems, brings yet another example of how the leadership tries to use strong-arm tactics to substitute for serious policy debate and to overcome principled objections to its desired outcomes from either the left OR the right. The latest example is yesterday's dust-up over legislation to extend certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act, in which an expected vote on the subject was delayed after "rank-and-file Republicans revolted." The Washington Post story on the subject said that Speaker Dennis Hastert and his lieutenants were "surprised" by "the intensity of the complaints" about the legislation. If so, their surprise is just another indication of how (adjectival -- actually gerund -- expletives deleted) out of touch Hastert and Company are with the actualy policy implications of what they attempt to do for purely (and often badly judged) political reasons.
Dave, I'm equally baffled. First, the mystery is why Mark Tapscott, the Examiner's new editorial page editor, has been taken in by the pro-regulation nonsense. Has he forgotten his Heritage Foundation roots so quickly? (Or, given Heritage's support for RomneyCare, has Heritage forgotten its free market roots? You decide.)
Thankfully, there are still some clear thinkers at Heritage, like James Gattuso, whose excellent web memo on the topic Tapscott must have missed. Gattuso answers the Examiner's paranoia about the imagined crackdown on speech that could occur without "net neutrality."
The best timeline demonstrating the apparent correlation between Kos's public statements and Armstrong's business relationships is the work of Jim Geraghty.
Privately, Kos's response has been silence (until today). Earlier in the week, he instructed left-wing bloggers to stay silent, the New Republic reports.
Dave: I'm wondering if I'm missing something here. The DC Examiner editorial page comes out in favor of Net Neutrality by saying that "Congress should keep its hands off the Internet." Huh? If Congress were to "assure Net Neutrality", as the Examiner advocates, wouldn't that mean that Congress is getting its hands on the internet?
The rest of the editorial seems just as silly. For example, the editorialists argue:
If Congress doesn't require major cable and telephone companies that control access to the Internet to follow "Net neutrality," here's what could very well take place: The New York Times pays Verizon enough money to assure that its Web site loads more quickly than the Wall Street Journal.
The proper response to this is: So? If the Times is willing to pay and Verizon is willing to sell, what business is it of the Examiner or, more importantly, Congress?
And this seems like an equally puerile argument: