June 15, 2005

Too Much Pain, No Gain
By Lady Liberty

I've been fascinated by tattoos for much of my life. By the time I was 14 or 15, I wanted one for myself. Once I was old enough to legally do so, however, I didn't. Why not? Because when I really thought about it, I wasn't entirely sure what I'd want displayed on my body forever.

Even at 18, I knew that some things weren't eternal. If I had gotten a tattoo as a teen, there's little doubt the art work would have had something to do with Elton John (I was a huge fan at the time, but remember that I was also very young and that young people sometimes lack in common sense). If I had walked into a tattoo parlor at 21, I probably would have gotten my future ex-husband's name etched on some tender body part. In fact, it took me until I was 30 to find just the right symbol. Once I had the design, though, the tattoo followed in very short order. (Read the rest here)

A Make-Over to Disguise Ugly U.S. Policy
By Ivan Eland

After defeating al Qaeda, at least in their own minds, top officials of the Bush administration are now contemplating a war against “violent extremism.” (I call it the WAVE.) Apparently, the already grandiose “Global War on Terrorism”—in bureaucratic jargon, the GWOT—just wasn’t extravagant enough for an administration that thinks really big. Although administration officials implicitly acknowledge the spreading conflagration of global Islamic jihad, they are oblivious to their own culpability in causing it.

The real problem is that the administration, in permanent campaign mode even after reelection, has always regarded the GWOT as a political marketing gimmick, both at home and abroad. President Bush kicked off the sales effort a month after 9/11 with a bombastic presidential directive that promised the “elimination of terrorism as a threat to our way of life. (Read the rest here)

Compulsion: It's What's for Dinner
by Sheldon Richman

Most recent free-speech controversies have been about government efforts to restrict someone’s right to express himself. So it is noteworthy that the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a case involving not stifled speech, but rather coerced speech. Alas, it decided the case wrongly.

Everyone has seen the generic TV commercials promoting beef (“It’s what’s for dinner”). Those ads are paid for by the beef cattlemen. But there’s a hitch. Ranchers must help pay the cost even if they don’t want to. Each ranch is assessed one dollar per head.

This should immediately raise a question: how can some cattlemen force other cattlemen to pay for something against their will? After all, you and I have no power to force others to help us buy television time, no matter how worthy the cause. If we tried, we would be charged with robbery. (Read the rest here)

Your Feedback and Comments
The Mailbag for Wednesday

Libertarian Commentary on The News
By Nathan A. Barton © 2005

Lots of silliness in the news yesterday and today, and a reminder that a republic is a fit form of government only for people worthy of it. Sadly, more and more the American people seem to demonstrate their complete lack of moral responsibility, common sense, or general ability to even clean up after themselves. At least that is my take, if not necessarily that of anyone else.

Stupid Government Tricks - Supreme Court Edition

Supreme Court bows out of illegal detention dispute
USA Today
"The Supreme Court refused Monday to be drawn into a dispute over President Bush's power to detain American terror suspects and deny them traditional legal rights. It would have been unusual for the court to take the case of 'dirty bomb' suspect Jose Padilla now, because a federal appeals court has not yet ruled on the issue. Arguments are scheduled for July 19 at the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond, Va. A year ago, the court ruled the Bush administration was out of line by locking up foreign terrorist suspects at the Navy base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, without access to lawyers and courts." (06/13/

This will, of course, be back - maybe they will look at it then. (Don't hold your breath.) Unlike many of the Gitmo detainees, these terror suspects are NOT enemy combatants (at least, not demonstrated or proven to be) and should, must, be treated as suspects and NOT enemy prisoners-of-war. (Read the rest here)

New At The Price of Liberty!
Liberty Bloggers We Know