| Stephen Cox is
editor of Liberty.
|
|
Buckshot blunder — It's typical of
the behavior of this administration that when the Vice President managed to shoot
somebody, it was by accident and it was a fellow Republican. — Stephen
Cox
| David Friedman
is a professor of economics at Santa Clara University, and the author of "The
Machinery of Freedom" and "Law's Order." |
|
Prosecutor, indict thyself! — In
18th century England, criminal cases were privately prosecuted, usually by the
victim, although by law any Englishman could prosecute any crime. In an old
article on that system, I suggested a possible reason. Over the previous century,
England had gone through a civil war, a military dictatorship, and two successful
coups. It may have occurred to people that, if the crown controlled prosecution,
the king's friends could get away with murder. Under the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act, intercepting communications in ways not permitted
by the act, or using information obtained by such interceptions, is a criminal
offense punishable by up to five years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. It
is a crime — but only the state can prosecute it. Would anyone like
to estimate the probability that either Bush, who by his own admission has been
using information thus obtained, or the people who obtained it for him, end up
facing criminal prosecution? — David Friedman
| Bruce Ramsey is
a journalist in Seattle. |
|
What's not done is done — The
cartoon crisis brings out a blind spot in libertarians. The best example is Virginia Postrel's blog, with which I
generally agree. But while embassies burned, Postrel posted the inflammatory
caricature of Muhammad: "My response to this nonsense is to wonder why Muslims
don't grow up. If your co-religionists are going to take political stands, and
blow up innocent people in the name of Islam, political cartoonists are going to
occasionally take satirical swipes at your religion. Those swipes may not be
nuanced, but they're what you can expect when you live in a free society, where
you, too, can hold views others find offensive. If you don't like it, move to
Saudi Arabia."
I disagree. Liberty is about what the government does. I
agree that the government should not enforce standards of religious blasphemy,
but there is more to the cartoon calamity than that. There is an issue of decency
and respect. In America, at least, you do not attack the other fellow's religion
— at least, not unless he's signaled that he's open to it. That is not the
law, but it is the custom, and helps make freedom of religion work. An image of a
bearded man in a turban, with a bomb on his head, is not objectionable as such;
label it Muhammad and it is. I worked for a Muslim managing editor once,
and I learned that. The editors in Copenhagen knew the page of cartoons was, to
Muslim eyes, blasphemous. Certainly the French and German papers who reprinted
the cartoons knew it. They printed them anyway, as if to say, "Hey, look here.
How ya like this, you silly believer?" We don't show images of Jesus with his
pants down or the Pope embracing a prostitute, or — well, you can imagine a
hundred things that are not done, whether you have a free press or not. In a
world where there are Muslims, showing cartoons of the Prophet is one of them.
That some Muslims are violent, and burn down buildings, or are fanatical and have
failed states or believe in what you call "Islamofascism" is totally beside the
point. The images don't single out those Muslims; they attack all Muslims, and
that is not done. — Bruce Ramsey
| Tim Slagle is a
stand-up comedian living in Chicago whose website is timslagle.com.
|
|
A use for the NEA — Twelve cartoons
of Muhammad published in a Danish magazine sent Muslim fundamentalists into a
frenzy. It is blasphemous to make any drawing of Muhammad, even if it is
flattering; even though some of the drawings were almost illegible, and others
didn't even depict the Prophet, the cartoonists responsible were forced into
hiding. Very few Americans ever saw the cartoons because the American media
refused to reprint them. It was unclear if their refusal was based on fear or
political correctness. Over in Moscow, a brave gallery owner has agreed to
stage an exhibit of the original drawings. No word if the art show will ever find
its way to the U.S. Not long ago, a clamor was raised here in America over
National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) funding of Robert Mapplethorpe's erotic
photos and Andres Serrano's urine- soaked crucifix. Despite the previous
insistence of the arts community that controversial art is important in a free
society, I doubt there will ever be an offer to host an exhibit of the Muhammad
cartoons here in the States. Perhaps gallery owners in the former Soviet Union
are more sensitive to censorship of the arts, and have a stronger will to stand
up against their oppressors. If we really want to fight terror in this
country, we should stand up to those who terrorize artists as well. Although I am
normally opposed to any NEA funding, I think that it might be appropriate to
provide an NEA grant to any gallery owner brave enough to host an exhibit of
these drawings. Since defense of liberty has always been a legitimate function of
government, defense of ideas from an encroaching new Dark Age should be a
legitimate government expense. — Tim Slagle
| Fred L. Smith,
Jr. is president of the Competitive Enterprise Institute.
|
|
Congress' silk purse — During the
Capitol Hill budget debates, many spectators must have found the use of the term
"earmarking" somewhat strange. What does it have to do with budgeting? The
term refers to the practice of specifying that a portion of a generalized
spending bill will be used for a certain purpose — for example, a bridge in
Alaska. In theory, this practice reduces the power of the bureaucracy and
requires Congress to become more accountable for spending decisions. In practice,
the degree of specificity makes it easier to create alliances to increase overall
spending. I'll back your bridge, if you back my convention center — on and
on. When I grew up in rural Louisiana, "earmarking" was something we did
to our pigs. There wasn't a lot of money to purchase feed, so a few weeks after a
sow delivered her litter, we'd cut a pattern in the ears of the piglets and
release them into the woods. As in many tribal cultures, the woods were the
commons, used by all for common pasturage (pigs are omnivores, eating roots,
nuts, and almost anything else). A few years later, we and our neighbors would
get our hog-hunting dogs and we'd all traipse out to the woods to round up the
pigs. The "earmarks" would allow them to be sorted out. That's the logic
behind linking the term "earmark" to spending policies on Capitol Hill: everyone
tosses pork in, and retrieves it once it's fattened up enough to take home.
— Fred L. Smith, Jr.
| | | | |
