Choices

The Air Force says that if an amendment to the defense funding bill that extends the operational life of the A-10 makes it into the final budget, it’ll have to mothball a bunch of F-16s or maybe delay deployment of the F-35.

The F-35 is overpriced and undercapabled. I vote for delaying that—or cancelling it altogether.

Or a choice not currently on the table: the F-22 is even more overpriced than the F-35, and it’s even less capable; albeit it’s less capable in an air-to-air environment rather than the A-10’s or F-35’s air-to-mud milieu. Cancel that albatross, too.

Wrong Answer

The nation’s largest mass transit system is preparing to ban all political advertising on its subways and buses after a judge ruled that a pro-Israel group was allowed to display an advertisement containing the phrase “Hamas Killing Jews” on New York City buses.

New York City’s MTA is afraid that some such advertising would incite violence. Its answer, then, is to do its part to stifle free speech completely.

No. The right answer is to work toward the goal that violence isn’t the answer to unpleasant, or even incendiary, speech. Stifling speech just does even more violence. Words don’t force people into violence; they do that, as they do anything, of their own volition.

Loud disagreement, zealously put, is the noisiness of democracy. It’s the inherent noisiness of free speech. It’s the noisiness of a free people. What’s to be afraid of in that?