Obvious Objections

Whilst we're (briefly) on the subject of warmonger for hire Charles Krauthammer, his latest column makes me once again of alternative editorial systems.  In a perfect world, anyone wanting to write a piece of political commentary would be forced to answer one question on what they'd written.  The question would be determined by vote, and failing to answer the question would result in your piece being pulled.  I'd be quite happy suggesting this idea across the political spectrum; the immediate curtailment of the careers of Krauthammer, William Kristol, David Brooks et al would surely be worth whomever we might lose on the left.

Regarding Krauthammer's ridiculous lament over the scaling-back of US space-power (which naturally isn't just stupid but actively misleading), I'm struggling to decide between Kevin Drum's "would you still argue this if rich people's taxes were raised to pay for it?", and Daniel Larison's "How does planning to do something 56 years after America managed it qualify as 'overtaking'?", but the universe would be a less frustrating place if people were required to place opinions in context, and whilst using the actual meaning of words.  You'd think that would be an editor's job, actually, but here we are anyway.

Right, I'm off to take my Corsa to the northern Mediterranean, drive round Circuit de Monaco, and therefore overtake Stirling Moss and win the 1956 Grand Prix.  That'll be a great result to have, though of course I can't be sure I'll retain it until we reach 2068.