Tax dollars approved for 'spot? removal

|tab|

As advertised last week, this topic comes from my so-called "notebook" of column ideas that accumulated while I was away. Granted, a few misguided readers may not read every column shame on them. I may be forced to give pop quizzes to ensure they read their assignments. For their benefit I repeat that the notebook consists of scribbles on whatever paper I can lay hands on at the moment ideas come to me.|ret||ret||tab|

One item has been in the notebook long enough to make it old news. Had I been the Rusty Saber bard instead of lollygagging in Maui, this column would have been written as soon as I ran across a news item.|ret||ret||tab|

It was nothing more than a blurb in a section of a newspaper given over to lighter news items. It reported that Congress had allocated a small amount of money for I do not jest here tattoo removal. |ret||ret||tab|

As I recall, the allocation was only a few hundred thousand dollars, loose change indeed. One could likely find more under couch cushions in Con-gressional offices.|ret||ret||tab|

The news article in question contained almost no information beyond the declaration that taxpayers would be paying to remove some tattoos. Actually, that is about all I need to know.|ret||ret||tab|

I am unsure who might qualify for this government program. Having tattoos is more re-spectable today than in the past. Truth be told, in some circles, it is the "in" thing to do.|ret||ret||tab|

When I was in the Navy, it was said then that a sailor without a tattoo had never been drunk enough to get one. I don't have a tattoo: Draw your own conclusion. Assuredly, lots of people with tattoos like them and don't want them removed. Some tattoos are tasteful and inoffensive to all but the most ardent of tattoo haters. |ret||ret||tab|

Attractive tattoos on the up-per arm or near the ankle are in vogue. I know of a married couple who have each other's names tattooed on their ankles. Some have tattoos in out-of-the-way places on the body that are visible to the general public only when wearing the briefest of brief bathing suits.|ret||ret||tab|

Some professional basketball players must spend big chunks of their multimillion-dollar sal-aries on tattoos covering every part of their bodies visible when wearing basketball uniforms. Some could be poster children for the tattoo industry. |ret||ret||tab|

I hope they won't qualify for government-funded skin erasures.|ret||ret||tab|

There are other possible candidates. For instance, a man with a tattoo on his chest of a bright red heart surrounded by cupids shooting arrows at the heart where the name Mary is superimposed might be in the market for removal if his current wife, Betty, isn't fond of it. A bloody sword with a snake wrapped around it, emblazoned with "Death Before Dishonor," might not be the image a middle-aged businessman wants to project; a tattooed naked lady on the other arm wouldn't do much to enhance his image.|ret||ret||tab|

If you are like me, you may be asking why the government has entered into tattoo eradication, regardless of how small the allocation of tax dollars may be? |ret||ret||tab|

Unless I'm terribly confused (a distinct possibility), individuals freely make the choice to get a tattoo; and they are free to elect to have them removed. I surely hope I am not politically incorrect in pointing out that they paid to put them on and they should pay to have them taken off. The notion of government tattoo removal may have legs. I predict it will manifest itself like this: Once in the budget, it will stay there for-evermore, with yearly increases. It will become a given that all American citizens and immigrants, legal or illegal, have a Constitutional right to federally funded tattoo removal. |ret||ret||tab|

A department of tattoos will be established to oversee the massive program.|ret||ret||tab|

Civil libertarians will rise up to unearth a gross injustice. Since government-funded tattoo removal has become an entitlement, they will say, those without tattoos are being discriminated against; the government must pay for all who want tattoos. |ret||ret||tab|

In the end, with the massive government funding for giving and taking away tattoos, the U.S. Department of Tattoos will become a cabinet-level department ...|ret||ret||tab|

(Joe McAdoo is former chairman of the communication department at Drury Un-iversity.)[[In-content Ad]]