Slashdot Mirror


Spectral Imaging Reveals Jefferson Nixed 'Subjects' for 'Citizens'

Jamie points out this excellent piece, well timed for America's Independence Day, that says spectrographic evidence has established that the one word Thomas Jefferson fully blotted out from an early draft of the Declaration of Independence was not "resident," or "patriot," but rather "subject." This, he replaced with "citizen."

360 comments

  1. When will the government ever learn... by Kaenneth · · Score: 5, Funny

    That redacting documents by simply putting a opaque block over them dosn't removing the unlaying data?

    1. Re:When will the government ever learn... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its a two step process
      1) block out the interesting text
      2) photocopy the *now* not so interesting document

    2. Re:When will the government ever learn... by put_it_down · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but it sure does make them look secret and official looking.

    3. Re:When will the government ever learn... by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I guess we'll have to add this "doesn't properly cnesor documents" will have to be listed to the other UNFAIR criticisms modern idiots like to level against Thomas Jefferson.

      And yes I know you were just joking but I'm making a point - People level criticisms against Jefferson that, in his day and age, were considered acceptable behavior. Like not allowing women the vote, or only limited suffrage to property owners. People should be judged by their own culture not by 2010 US culture.

      For me, despite his character flaws, Jefferson still remains the best president we've ever had.
      I can only wish I was as wise, intelligent, and pro-liberty as he was.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    4. Re:When will the government ever learn... by Rival · · Score: 1

      My hat's off to you, sir. A first post that was relevant and funny -- very well done!

    5. Re:When will the government ever learn... by skids · · Score: 1

      Seriously! Obama hasn't fixed this YET?!?

    6. Re:When will the government ever learn... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Funny

      That redacting documents by simply putting a opaque block over them dosn't removing the unlaying data?

      Hopefully never.

      On unrelated note, when will Slashdot get "-1 began a sentence in the subject" mod?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

  2. Don't worry by roman_mir · · Score: 5, Interesting

    they have correct that correction some time ago now, you are not citizens, you are consumers - inmates - terrorists - child molesters - unique serial numbers - organ donors.

    1. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      You misplaced organ donors in the wrong list.

    2. Re:Don't worry by roman_mir · · Score: 2, Funny

      No I didn't, or did you misread it as "voluntary organ donors"?

    3. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When is organ donation ever not voluntary?

    4. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hope you never need a transplant, then.

    5. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      When you're a Chinese criminal, for suitably bizarre values of "criminal".

    6. Re:Don't worry by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Every time, really, unless you make your intentions known beforehand and the authorities actually respect them once known. That is why the new NY law (I think it's NY) is so insidious: it changes the default option to "yes" which puts the onus on you to specifically go on record as opting-out, and means that any problems with the record keeping will mean you could donate anyway.

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    7. Re:Don't worry by retchdog · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What's wrong with automatic organ donation?

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    8. Re:Don't worry by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      ...And really why shouldn't it be that way? Lets face it, unless you have some religious opposition to it, and most religions welcome it, its a -good- thing for society, after all, unless you plan on returning as a vampire/zombie or want to be cryogenicly frozen for resurrection at a later date, you aren't going to be using them, but there is someone who could.

      Yes, there is always the question of letting you die to harvest your organs when your in the hospital, but wouldn't they neglect other patents who weren't organ donors too because if they don't need to keep the organs in good shape, whats the use of keeping you alive for longer?

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    9. Re:Don't worry by hedwards · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the charities that represent people needing transplants lie to get changes enacted to make it easier to take them without getting proper authorization. Typically they'll include not just the people that are on the list and able to take the transplant, but individuals who are on the list even if they're known to be ineligible. There's also been some disturbing changes made in that now rather than requiring the patient to be brain dead, cardiac death suffices. But probably the worst part of it is that there isn't any guarantee that the doctor responsible for saving the individuals life isn't also the doctor for the patient that needs the transplant.

      It's beyond disturbing and it's not particularly secretive either.

    10. Re:Don't worry by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Informative

      some people have religious objections or objections to the organ donation system itself.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    11. Re:Don't worry by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then they can opt-out. The fact is *most* people *don't* have "religious objects or objects to the organ donation system itself", so why the hell should the law assume they do, particularly if it means more lives saved due to an increase in available organs?

    12. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all for the greater good! Yay! The GREATER GOOD! WE COMPLY! Looks like they took your brain AND thinking ability already.

    13. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What do you mean, every time? You provided a very recent and famous example of one state: New York. For what it's worth, I'm not trying to refute anything. I've just never heard of nonvoluntary donation on my side of the country, in my entire life.

    14. Re:Don't worry by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2, Informative

      But probably the worst part of it is that there isn't any guarantee that the doctor responsible for saving the individuals life isn't also the doctor for the patient that needs the transplant.

      That would be extraordinarily unlikely. I suppose if you crashed your motorcycle into a barrier in front of the transplant hospital and they dragged your soon-to-be-lifeless body into the ER AND the transplant doc was moonlighting as the ER attending it could happen.

      But I would worry a lot more about going to some random bar and waking up next day missing a kidney. Or Elvis appearing in front of me. Or a balanced budget.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:Don't worry by Darkness404 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ok, because I'm really going to need my lungs, eyes, liver, heart, etc. after I'm DEAD? Look, I'm not sure what whacko belief you believe in, but once you are dead you don't breath, you don't think, your heart doesn't pump, your liver doesn't do anything other than rot.

      I'm a bit confused to what I need my organs for once I'm dead.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    16. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well the argument that it's your body is fairly strong one I think.

    17. Re:Don't worry by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      ...And really why shouldn't it be that way? Lets face it, unless you have some religious opposition to it, and most religions welcome it, its a -good- thing for society, after all, unless you plan on returning as a vampire/zombie or want to be cryogenicly frozen for resurrection at a later date, you aren't going to be using them, but there is someone who could.

      I think I want to return as a vampire zombie (no "or" slash between the two), hence, I opted out...

    18. Re:Don't worry by RobertM1968 · · Score: 1

      Ok, because I'm really going to need my lungs, eyes, liver, heart, etc. after I'm DEAD? Look, I'm not sure what whacko belief you believe in, but once you are dead you don't breath, YOU DON'T THINK, your heart doesn't pump, your liver doesn't do anything other than rot.

      I'm a bit confused to what I need my organs for once I'm dead.

      I bolded & capitalized one particular phrase that I dont think you should have included on your list, as it isnt really much difference from the operational states of most living humans in today's society - cant really use it to differentiate between a dead person and a living one. ;-)

    19. Re:Don't worry by FuckingNickName · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So it's morally justifiable if most people don't have objections.

      Excellent.

      Tomorrow morning you will find yourself sans property. Since, as is true of almost every man, "most people" don't even care whether you live or die, why the hell should the law assume they do?

      Particularly if it means I get to have a TV for my kitchen and a decent set of furniture for the new office.

      FWIW, the only time I'd consider not being on the organ register is if opt-in became automatic. I put my health where my mouth is: for example, I've opted out from central computerised health service records. In emergencies this might mean a doctor not being aware of my medical history, but it's far more important that I do not support a system ripe for abuse.

    20. Re:Don't worry by lisany · · Score: 3, Funny

      I prefer not to have my corpse desecrated and mutilated post mortem. It certainly doesn't matter after I die but having the comfort while living that my corpse will not be desecrated and mutilated is quite comforting indeed.

    21. Re:Don't worry by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      So it's morally justifiable if most people don't have objections.

      Excellent.

      Given the organ donation system in NYC is (apparently now) not compulsory, and simply opt-out, yes, precisely.

      Or were you trying to make some kind of point? Because if so, I'm afraid I've missed it.

    22. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Nature performs its own desecration. It's called rot. Or incineration. Or consumption. Any way you choose, you will be "mutilated." The difference between them is time, a concept that loses all meaning without life.

    23. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Could you or someone please post information on opting-out of the central computerised health service records, please? It would be greatly appreciated.

    24. Re:Don't worry by nu1x · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You assume default omni-directional compassion in a capitalist society where people not only jokingly, but some (many?) times actually, hate one another.

      I could kill my boss if it were legal and all that.

      Some people may be aesthetically displeased of a fat bastard they hate sporting their organs.

      --
      I have nothing to lose but my bindings.
    25. Re:Don't worry by Apple+Acolyte · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some religions (like Judaism) teach the sanctity of even dead bodies. The concept is that the body belongs to G-d even after death. Autopsy and other forms of desecration of the body after death are not in line with those beliefs, and society should respect that fact. (Judaism also teaches that whatever happens to the body after death has an impact on the soul that came from it, which is why religious Jews don't do organ donation or cremation.)

      --
      Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
    26. Re:Don't worry by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "I'm a bit confused to what I need my organs for once I'm dead."

      Um, co-located necrosis? :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    27. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because Doctors might not try do hard to save you if they know they can harvest your organs for cash.

    28. Re:Don't worry by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Is it within the realm of possibility that some nobody might be allowed to die so that his organs can be harvested for a prominent somebody? Ever think of that? Well - people who trust politicians, celebrities, the wealthy, and all medical personnel would never think of this possibility. Of course, I might call such people "gullible", or "tools", or - well, you get the idea.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    29. Re:Don't worry by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are there any citations to show that there is a real shortage of people on this planet? Maybe it would be good if we didn't save so many lives?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    30. Re:Don't worry by Sabriel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's not that you need your organs when you're dead, it's that other people want your organs and you becoming dead would be awfully convenient to that end.

      I'm on the voluntary donor registry myself, but my "whacko belief" is that our civilization isn't yet civilized enough to handle an opt-out scheme, let alone a mandatory one - and if it were we wouldn't need to!

    31. Re:Don't worry by Joe+Tie. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Keep in mind where this is. A pretty huge amount of people actually do believe that they might need those lungs again. Personally, I think they're almost clinically insane. But that's people for you. So in denial about their own mortality that they'll look at a rotting corpse and think that he might take a turn for the better any day now.

      --
      Everything will be taken away from you.
    32. Re:Don't worry by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow, I can't believe you asked that. Most people don't (that is Do Not) have any objections (religious or otherwise) when I ask to barrow their car for a day. If they normally don't care "why the hell should the law assume they do". I mean I shouldn't automatically be in trouble because I didn't ask to use your car, and who knows, you may be just like everyone one else I have asked and said you didn't mind, or you may be a prick and say no, especially seeing how you don't know me.

      Now it isn't just about religious objections. What about those people who think that if they are an organ donor that they won't save their life if they can harvest the organs? I mean it's not unheard of and the threat is even more real when you have death panels set up by the government to decide who is worthy of a life saving procedure or not. Especially when the president of the United States of America tells a person that her mom should have taken a pain pill instead of getting a life saving medical treatment that had extended her life by 5 years as of the time the question was asked.

    33. Re:Don't worry by drsmithy · · Score: 1

      some people have religious objections or objections to the organ donation system itself.

      In which case they opt-out. Simple.

    34. Re:Don't worry by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Troll

      Why wouldn't you worry about going in for your own procedure, something happening and you take a turn for the worse, and instead of the blood transfusion or expensive drug that will save your life, the doc decides to let you die because he can make money from the transplant he will be doing.

      I mean healthy people do have accidents and need surgeries sometimes. Those doctors performing the surgeries perform other surgeries. A buddy of mine wrecked his motorcycle similar to what you described, but it was two or three days before he got the most invasive surgery (had 3 total in the course of a 5 days). That's plenty of time to be out of the ER and possible into the hands of someone with a transplant patient.

    35. Re:Don't worry by retchdog · · Score: 1

      Yes I have considered this but it's a complete red herring here. We're only talking about the default option for something which is already a standard practice.

      --
      "They were pure niggers." – Noam Chomsky
    36. Re:Don't worry by Kijori · · Score: 1

      This isn't the masses tyrannising people like in your analogy, it's a better set of defaults.

      There are people who have strong feelings about organ donation - in both directions. These people will opt-in or out. There are also a majority of people who don't have strong feelings and don't mind the idea of donating organs but don't ever register. Changing the system to opt-out means that the default fits more peoples' wishes and also saves a large number of lives.

      When weighed against the life-saving benefits, the fact that a small number of people will be mildly inconvenienced seems a little paltry, doesn't it? Especially when you consider that there were plenty of people being inconvenienced by having to opt in.

    37. Re:Don't worry by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1
    38. Re:Don't worry by shentino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Is it still yours once you're dead?

    39. Re:Don't worry by shentino · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I just go on the assumption that any power strong enough to resurrect me is also strong enough to give me a spanking new set of lungs.

    40. Re:Don't worry by Kijori · · Score: 1

      Wow, I can't believe you asked that. Most people don't (that is Do Not) have any objections (religious or otherwise) when I ask to barrow their car for a day. If they normally don't care "why the hell should the law assume they do". I mean I shouldn't automatically be in trouble because I didn't ask to use your car, and who knows, you may be just like everyone one else I have asked and said you didn't mind, or you may be a prick and say no, especially seeing how you don't know me.

      I think you'll find that most people would object. Try going up to a random person and asking to borrow their car if you don't believe me...

      Now it isn't just about religious objections. What about those people who think that if they are an organ donor that they won't save their life if they can harvest the organs? I mean it's not unheard of and the threat is even more real when you have death panels set up by the government to decide who is worthy of a life saving procedure or not. Especially when the president of the United States of America tells a person that her mom should have taken a pain pill instead of getting a life saving medical treatment that had extended her life by 5 years as of the time the question was asked.

      Well, the people who are so gullible that they believe Limbaugh and the far-right corporate apologists when they create doctored videos, despite the fact that full videos and transcripts are available online, can just go and opt-out.

      You might want to look up the actual transcript so you can see that where your conservative idols have told you that Obama advocates euthanasia, death panels and all manner of other scary ideas what he actually said was that the old lady should have received her pacemaker faster without so much corporate money spinning from the insurers.

    41. Re:Don't worry by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      I'm on the voluntary donor registry myself, but my "whacko belief" is that our civilization isn't yet civilized enough to handle an opt-out scheme, let alone a mandatory one - and if it were we wouldn't need to!

      Half of Europe is on opt-out by now, and, last I checked, there hasn't been a mysterious epidemic of early deaths...

    42. Re:Don't worry by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

      Given the organ donation system in NYC is (apparently now) not compulsory, and simply opt-out, yes, precisely.

      You errant implications notwithstanding (moral universalism; law <=> moral majority), the donation system is compulsory: you must opt out unless you want your organs used. What is not compulsory is, quite specifically, for a rational adult informed of the relevant law (and all adults are informed of all laws relevant to them - this is why we don't need lawyers) to donate organs.

      Otherwise, everything the government requires you to do from paying taxes to doing time is, "not compulsory, and you simply have to X [if you want the government to not force Y]."

    43. Re:Don't worry by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      Now it isn't just about religious objections. What about those people who think that if they are an organ donor that they won't save their life if they can harvest the organs? I mean it's not unheard of and the threat is even more real when you have death panels set up by the government to decide who is worthy of a life saving procedure or not. Especially when the president of the United States of America tells a person that her mom should have taken a pain pill instead of getting a life saving medical treatment that had extended her life by 5 years as of the time the question was asked.

      And here, ladies and gentlemen, we see the Americanus Ignoramus in its natural habitat. And the best part? He too gets to vote.

      Who needs conspiracy theories about imaginary bad guys when there's folks like you out and about?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    44. Re:Don't worry by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what you are saying is that you don't think the US is as civilized as a good chunk of western europe? We've had opt-out donorship for quite a while now, and yet somehow our authoritation pinko commie cradle to grave goverments have yet to implement their "harvesting organs for fun and profit" programs.

      Fact of the matter is that most people can't be bothered to give it thought until the time when either they or one of their loved ones needs a donor organ. By making it opt-out the sheep/lazy folks(I fall into the latter category) don't have to give it any thought, and for those who consider it an issue there's the option to opt-out.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    45. Re:Don't worry by lga · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I think that anyone who either opts out, or doesn't opt in, to organ donation, should be last on the list to receive an organ should they need it.

    46. Re:Don't worry by Beautyon · · Score: 1

      And the WaPo article is completely off base in saying that American citizens had loyalty to each other instead of king George; that is completely FALSE. Americans were each sovereigns with loyalty to NO MAN.

      --
      ATH0 Bitcoin: 1DnwFLXczVZV8kLJbMYoheUrpqHesjxrSi
    47. Re:Don't worry by uglyMood · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Great idea; both logic and justice prevail. Of course it'll never happen because that would inconvenience selfish bastards, and selfish bastards must be appeased at every opportunity. This is truly a golden age for sociopaths. Not so much for the rest of us.

      --
      "No matter where you go, there you probably are." -- Buckaroo Heisenberg
    48. Re:Don't worry by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      the donation system is compulsory

      "Compulsory" and "you can opt out" are mutually fucking exclusive, jackass. Go look up the definition of compulsory, it seems you need to review what that term means.

      Otherwise, everything the government requires you to do from paying taxes to doing time is, "not compulsory, and you simply have to X [if you want the government to not force Y]."

      False analogy. Congratulations, you fit right in here at Slashdot.

      Those things are compulsory because if you don't do them, you're punished for it. The NY donation system doesn't punish you for not being an organ donor. They simply assume you want to be one unless you demonstrate otherwise.

    49. Re:Don't worry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's their choice to make, not yours. It's sick that you believe you can make that decision for anyone.

    50. Re:Don't worry by FuckingNickName · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Compulsory" and "you can opt out" are mutually fucking exclusive, jackass.

      No matter how angry you get, your handwaving won't increase the soundness of your argument. It is compulsory to follow an opt out procedure if you don't want your organs to be harvested, therefore the organ donation system is compulsory. You must get involved with the system whether you want to or not.

      By contrast, "compulsory" and "opt in" are likely to be mutually exclusive because you can do nothing and find yourself facing no obligations. The system adds no compulsion.

      The NY donation system doesn't punish you for not being an organ donor.

      The NY donation system punishes you if you do not have the ability and opportunity to learn the donation system and take the time to follow the appropriate bureaucratic procedure to opt out. It does this by harvesting organs from your dead body without your consent.

      Similarly, you gave my sheep consent to graze on your lawn because you didn't sign the opt-out form on my desk and advertised in the appropriate basement.

      You, Sir, ought to start a business as a spammer. According to part 419 of the Universal Spam Code, it's moral if you put a genuine opt-out link at the bottom, rite?

    51. Re:Don't worry by sumdumass · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Lol.. That was a funny comment.

      I especially like where you use Latin sounding names and words as if they were real to give the appearance that you were smart and exposing your IQ and not just a troll popping around message boards adding absolutely nothing to the conversation nor even mentioning part of the topic in order to elevate your measly existence of a life into something you are personally capable of accepting. I sure am glad that I am here to give you the chance to avoid killing yourself for one more day. Now go ahead and post something else that isn't even close to the topic so you can feel a little better about yourself. I bet it really hurt when your mom pointed out that they weren't laughing with you, they were laughing at you.

      Hey, I got an idea, why don't you wait until tomorrow to reply.. That way you will have the opportunity to attempt to put me down again and thereby elevating yourself while not even touching the topic on hand and then you have another reason not to walk into traffic on a busy interstate. Well, best wishes to you, and don't forget to wear your helmet on the short bus.

    52. Re:Don't worry by ultranova · · Score: 1

      The NY donation system doesn't punish you for not being an organ donor. They simply assume you want to be one unless you demonstrate otherwise.

      They don't assume that you want to be one. They simply assume that if you don't care about the issue enough to sign a paper forbidding it, it's okay to use your corpse to save other people's lives.

      Frankly, it's somewhat questionable whether dead guy's opinions should trump living people's survival, but oh well...

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    53. Re:Don't worry by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Are there any citations to show that there is a real shortage of people on this planet? Maybe it would be good if we didn't save so many lives?

      Since you managed to post that comment, it seems reasonable to assume that you have an electric socket. You are also likely capable of finding long, thin, metallic objects. Therefore, you have everything you need to put your money where your mouth is.

      Or was this another case of there being too many other people?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    54. Re:Don't worry by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find that most people would object. Try going up to a random person and asking to borrow their car if you don't believe me...

      I think you are missing the point. Your personal anecdotal evidence is meaningless when you are talking about the possessions of someone else completely. And yes, it's my liver, it's my eyes, it's my body parts whether I am dead or alive. If I'm dead, custody of my possessions go to my heirs, not the state or some fat bastard I couldn't stand when I was alive. Just like everything else, you need permission when the shit doesn't belong to you.

      Well, the people who are so gullible that they believe Limbaugh and the far-right corporate apologists when they create doctored videos, despite the fact that full videos and transcripts are available online, can just go and opt-out.

      I would have to ask you the same, why are you so gullible? I mean the full videos and transcripts are available online and Obama did say that they couldn't take the patient's spirit into consideration and there would be something set up to tell patients that this might not work, take the pain pill and die instead of the life saving treatment. Is that not correct? Because every full video and transcripts that are available online in which I can find says that. Then there are the sayings of Obama's aids and relatives of his aids which employ the use of death panels to decide who is or isn't worthy of a treatment. You have people like Robert Reich who basically said the old need to die and the young need to die younger when making a point on the health care reform. Then there is Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel, the brother of Obama's top adviser who was also close to Obama until news of his death pannels started going out, who open advocates "social justice" in treatment for patients- more particularly end of life treatment where he wants to give them a pill and worry about the young people.

      You might want to look up the actual transcript so you can see that where your conservative idols have told you that Obama advocates euthanasia, death panels and all manner of other scary ideas what he actually said was that the old lady should have received her pacemaker faster without so much corporate money spinning from the insurers.

      Perhaps it is you who should just stop believing what they are told and look it up on your own. Obama was not talking about speeding any process up, he was specifically talking about setting rules in place to tell patients that this procedure might not help, maybe you should just take a pill and die. He is talking about saving money instead of extending the life of some woman another 5 years and counting. Now the video makes that point clear, the transcripts make that point clear. How you thought it was about cutting red tape and getting the pacemaker fast is beyond me. Please point to where that is mentioned or even insinuated in the comment to the lady?

    55. Re:Don't worry by Runaway1956 · · Score: 0

      It was a comment on "saving people" - mostly from themselves. Try to understand - every time we muck around trying to break Darwin's laws, we are only screwing ourselves.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    56. Re:Don't worry by Kijori · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point. Your personal anecdotal evidence is meaningless when you are talking about the possessions of someone else completely. And yes, it's my liver, it's my eyes, it's my body parts whether I am dead or alive. If I'm dead, custody of my possessions go to my heirs, not the state or some fat bastard I couldn't stand when I was alive. Just like everything else, you need permission when the shit doesn't belong to you.

      It's not my anecdote, it's yours. If it doesn't show anything, fine, it doesn't show anything. But it's not me that was using it to make a point - it was you.

      I would have to ask you the same, why are you so gullible? I mean the full videos and transcripts are available online and Obama did say that they couldn't take the patient's spirit into consideration and there would be something set up to tell patients that this might not work, take the pain pill and die instead of the life saving treatment. Is that not correct? Because every full video and transcripts that are available online in which I can find says that.

      Not, that is not correct, and anyone that tells you it is is either very foolish or trying to mislead you. Here's what Obama said regarding woman's question about spirit:

      But, look, the first thing for all of us to understand is
      that we actually have some -- some choices to make about how we want to
      deal with our own end-of-life care.
      And that's one of the things I think that we can all promote, and
      this is not a big government program. This is something that each of us
      individually can do, is to draft and sign a living will so that we're
      very clear with our doctors about how we want to approach the end of life.
      I don't think that we can make judgments based on peoples' spirit.
      That would be a pretty subjective decision to be making. I think we
      have to have rules that say that we are going to provide good, quality
      care for all people.
      GIBSON: But the money may not have been there for her pacemaker or
      for your grandmother's hip replacement.
      OBAMA: Well, and -- and that's absolutely true. And end-of-life
      care is one of the most difficult sets of decisions that we're going to
      have to make.
      I don't want bureaucracies making those decisions, but understand
      that those decisions are already being made in one way or another. If
      they're not being made under Medicare and Medicaid, they're being made
      by private insurers.
      We don't always make those decisions explicitly. We often make
      those decisions by just letting people run out of money or making the
      deductibles so high or the out-of-pocket expenses so onerous that they
      just can't afford the care.
      And all we're suggesting -- and we're not going to solve every
      difficult problem in terms of end-of-life care. A lot of that is going
      to have to be, we as a culture and as a society starting to make better
      decisions within our own families and for ourselves.
      But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
      exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is
      loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
      shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
      doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't
      going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but
      taking the painkiller.
      And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and
      making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,
      and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,
      that's something we can achieve.

      If you read that you will see that Obama is not introducing some cutoff point, and he's certainly not advocating any death panels. He's just being honest: there will be decisions that have to be made about what care can be provided, but those decisions are being made already. There isn't an

    57. Re:Don't worry by ultranova · · Score: 1

      It was a comment on "saving people" - mostly from themselves.

      And you got a comment to it telling you to give up yours if you feel that live's aren't worth saving. Isn't it just amazing how people tend to react with some variety of that to such suggestions?

      Try to understand - every time we muck around trying to break Darwin's laws, we are only screwing ourselves.

      The inanity of this oft-repeated excuse for lack of compassion is obvious when you remember that compassion is an evolved trait.

      And, frankly, lately it's been psychopaths like you who've screwed us all. And not just lately but for the whole last century. And the one before that, and the one before that, and... You are to humanity as fleas are to dogs.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    58. Re:Don't worry by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      That would depend on which chunk and which measures of civilized we were comparing, but for the purposes of lazy generalization? Yes, I don't think it is.

      However I was actually speaking in a global sense rather than singling out any one country (or collection thereof), and if at least one part of the world is opt-out and handling it well, that pleases me and I hope others can follow that lead.

      (fwiw: I'm Australian, not American or European)

    59. Re:Don't worry by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      append to "Yes, I don't think it is": (anymore).

    60. Re:Don't worry by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      It's not my anecdote, it's yours. If it doesn't show anything, fine, it doesn't show anything. But it's not me that was using it to make a point - it was you.

      Your right, it's not your anecdote. However, it was the point of the GP that I was countering. He said "The fact is *most* people *don't* have "religious objects or objects to the organ donation system itself"". He has to be speaking from his personal experience seeing how every state allows you to become an organ donor when you renew your ID.

      Not, that is not correct, and anyone that tells you it is is either very foolish or trying to mislead you. Here's what Obama said regarding woman's question about spirit:

      Hmm.. It looks like he said exactly what I said he said. Your transcript is pretty much on the point, it lacks all the Ummm Umm Umm Uhh Uhh pauses while he reaches for the words but it appears accurate. In a response to a question concerning the treatment of a particular woman who wanted to live and got a Pace Maker, Obama said among other things,

      But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
      exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is
      loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
      shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
      doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't
      going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but
      taking the painkiller.

      And he follows up with some more but pay particular attention to a few key words.

      And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and
      making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,
      and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,
      that's something we can achieve.

      Notice how he says "those good decisions"? Presumably he doesn't care or is actively working against the not good decisions or perhaps even the bad decisions. This means that someone is going to have to determine what decisions are good and what are not good and this means that someone else will be making some of those decisions, perhaps against the patient's will. I'm not making this up, seriously, it's in what you cited.

      If I'm wrong on that, then please tell me what was meant by "those good decisions", and where we can find information backing that interpretation up? You see, Good is an descriptive word subject to interpretation. Well, unless he meant it to part of economics in which case Good and be a physical product that can be used to satisfy some desire or need. The problem is that Desire and Need are both subjective terms too so it won't eliminate someone evaluating you decisions and possibly overriding them. And that is after all, the big scare of an opt out system for organ donation, that someone or something will over ride your decision, and instead of taking every last chance possible to save you, they give up prematurely to save the organs for another use.

      If you read that you will see that Obama is not introducing some cutoff point, and he's certainly not advocating any death panels.

      The logic in that statement just doesn't parse with reality. OK, so there is a cut off point introduced, who decides when that cut off point is? If it is anyone other then the patient, then it's a panel that decides who dies under what circumstances. It's a damn death panel. Or do you have some other explanation to how someone other then the patient and immediate care physician making the decisions on when to stop saving someone's life is anything other then a death panel?

      He's just being honest: there will be decisi

    61. Re:Don't worry by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Let me ask - how much medical training and experience do you have? Have you ever stood in the middle of carnage, and had to decide which people to save, and which people to not bother with? I have. I'm not even a military medic, but I've had to do triage after accidents. I've had to decide to allow one person to die, so that I could work on other people whom I MIGHT save.

      I'm just a lowly EMT, whose training is decades out of date, so I don't have all the answers. But, compassion? Yes, I have it. I spent my time studying, getting certified, then I spent my own time and money on simple supplies so that I could help people. I have never been reimbursed for any time, or any supplies that I have used to treat people. Not one red cent. In fact, I've seldom heard a word of thanks from people I've saved, or their relatives.

      Compassion. How much compassion do you have for the injured? Have you gone down to your local community college, and paid hard cash for your EMT certification? When you have, and when you have been up to your elbows in blood and gore, when you have saved a few lives, and when you have decided that you cannot and/or will not help one or more dying person - THEN you can talk to me about compassion.

      Now - emotions aside - this earth is most definitely overpopulated. We need to stop making these heroic efforts to save people who cause their own injuries out of stupidity, maliciousness, and/or suicidal motivation. There is no shortage of people, we don't NEED to save every worthless drunk who runs off the road, and wraps his car around a tree. Screw him - he isn't worth the resources, let alone the investment of time and effort.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    62. Re:Don't worry by Compaqt · · Score: 1

      >Try to understand - every time we muck around trying to break Darwin's laws, we are only screwing ourselves.

      >>The inanity of this oft-repeated excuse for lack of compassion is obvious when you remember that compassion is an evolved trait.

      Wait, but isn't the propensity to encourage people to not break Darwin's laws (as in the comment you replied to) an evolved trait?

      --
      I'm not a lawyer, but I play one on the Internet. Blog
    63. Re:Don't worry by quanticle · · Score: 1

      There's a difference between that and organ donation. If you take my TV, you've taken something that I could and would have used in the future. If I'm dead, well, I'm not going to be using this body again. You may as well turn it into scrap and spare parts. Hell, if you look at it that way, salvaging whatever spare parts you can get is a hell of a better use of time and resources than burning me or sticking me in a box and burying me.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    64. Re:Don't worry by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

      Well the argument that it's your body is fairly strong one I think.

      Considering that there is zero evidence that there is a "you" once you're dead, I think the argument that it's "your body" is hilarious.

      I also think that if you're selfish enough as a living person to plan to deny someone else a working organ they're in need of once you're already dead from unrelated causes, you're really kind of a lowlife.

      The only real problem here -- and it is a serious issue -- is that if we allow mining of our dead bodies for reusable parts, as long as it's easier to get them from our bodies (as opposed to an extra-corporeally created organ), the risk exists that someone will make us dead in order to do said mining. So some care is called for.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    65. Re:Don't worry by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      That is not as bad as Mississippi where it defaults to no, even on renewal, and they are not allowed to ever mention organ donation. A significant fraction of people think they are organ donors, but are not because they were insufficiently vigilant in ensuring that they stayed organ donors and they were never informed that their decision was being changed for them while renewing their license.

    66. Re:Don't worry by digitig · · Score: 1

      Some people are concerned that in finely balanced life/death situations medical intervention could be more geared to preserving valuable organs than to preserving of life.

      --
      Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
    67. Re:Don't worry by Monchanger · · Score: 1

      which is why religious Jews don't do organ donation or cremation

      Cremation, no. But organ donation? Yes we most certainly do!

      Jewish law has long held life as precious and almost all law is bound by this sacred point (American Christians like to think they're the only people who care about life, but as is often the case, they're completely oblivious to anything outside their church). It's a much too complex problem for simple sheep who use "it's body desecration" arguments, because there are important questions such as whether donation is actually life-saving (bodies are not likely to be "donated to science") and a donor's "death" can also be defined in a religious manner. Though the Orthodox may be misguided, they're not stupid and do work through such difficult questions. Only the most extremist Jews are stupid enough to look at modern medicine and reflexively say "no thank you."

      Kindly don't spread misinformation which can result not only in ignorance but in loss of life.

    68. Re:Don't worry by GasparGMSwordsman · · Score: 1

      "Compulsory" means you have no option to do otherwise. If you have an option to do otherwise, regardless of your understanding, then it can not by definition be compulsory.

      Here for your use is the Merriam Webster definition:
      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/compulsory

    69. Re:Don't worry by kurzweilfreak · · Score: 1

      Why should we respect anyone's invisible man beliefs?

      --

      kurzweil_freak

      5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student

      Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.

  3. Considering the mindset of the era by linumax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Considering the mindset of the era, this actually is a good indicator of how Jefferson and other founding fathers understood that there was something wrong with the status quo and managed to change it.

    1. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by insufflate10mg · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Absolutely. You would think more people on /. would be replying seriously to this article. It's incredible to think that that one ink blot had such a profound effect on the US today. Think of how much of a core element the word "citizen" has become; it's like a symbol of our freedom and unity.

    2. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      ...nothing changed

    3. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Yes, but this is slashdot... home of the knee-jerk reactionary.

      Besides - most people here aren't citizens, they're subjects of whatever country they are from. We're constantly being reminded that slashdot is no longer an 'American' site, as if we are somehow to blame for them coming here.

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    4. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      ...And we still have the status quo today.

      But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.

      The History of the Present King of Great-Britain is a History of repeated Injuries and Usurpations, all having in direct Object the Establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid World.

      He has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

      Hm, sound like the immigration mess we have today?

      He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

      Hm, appointing unfair judges for life... Based on the will of ~0.000033667% of the people? Sound familiar?

      He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

      Sound familiar? DEA, Homeland Security, etc.?

      He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

      Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.

      For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

      Hm, people in the police force and the armed forces getting off easy for abuses of citizens, that of course has never happened in the USA... right?

      For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

      And today we have embargoes that not only harm our own citizens but keep some parts of the world in poverty because we disagree with their government... -cough- Cuba -cough-

      For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

      Lets see, Ben Franklin estimated taxes in the colonies at around 12.5%... Today we have a 15% income tax at the realistic minimum (unless you are like a kid at a summer job or something then its only 10%) and up to 35% if you are successful at what you do! Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)


      All the abuses of King George III on America are very similar to the abuses we suffer under our recent presidents and congresses.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    5. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well, I was going to say that with the Declaration, Jefferson DID change subjects into citizens, and I'm not talking about word replacement.

      --
      This space available.
    6. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not sure how this post is a troll, actually read the declaration and you will find striking similarities between the abuses of King George III and the abuses of congress today and the presidents of today. Look at the tax rates and you will see that we're taxed more today than we were under King George III! We still have taxation without representation in many ways, from taxes on minors who have no representation, to the lack of congressional representatives from territories and DC.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    7. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Besides - most people here aren't citizens, they're subjects of whatever country they are from.

      Most people who live in most countries are citizens rather than subjects. The use of the word "citizen" is hardly unique to the USA.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
    8. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by IorDMUX · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's incredible to think that that one ink blot had such a profound effect on the US today.

      I'm... not so sure about that. Jefferson's mindset had a profound impact on the formation of the US and its laws and liberties today, and this inkblot itself gives us insight into his thoughts, but the article itself notes that the entire line was removed from the final draft. The actual Declaration of Independence does not include this text, altered or otherwise, at all.

      --
      >> Standing on head makes smile of frown, but rest of face also upside down.
    9. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Hognoxious · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Jefferson DID change white male subjects into citizens, and I'm not talking about word replacement.

      FTFY.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    10. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by am+2k · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All the abuses of King George III on America are very similar to the abuses we suffer under our recent presidents and congresses.

      That's because the government structure is very similar. Back then, you had a king appointed by nobody that did whatever he wanted. Nowadays, you have two puppets up for a pseudo-election, while the real legislative power is directed by people most citizens don't even know about (see Bilderberg Group for example). Since they're operating in the dark and are not elected, they also can do whatever they want.

      Maybe that sounds a little bit tinfoil-hattish, but that's the most straight-forward way I could think of to explain the US government's behavior in the last decade.

    11. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by olivebridge · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Glad someone mentioned this. It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later... not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.

    12. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by noidentity · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Never mind this changed word; what about all the changes made in the drafts that existed only in the founding fathers' minds? Sure, this finding shows some of the thought processes going on at the time, but there were plenty more that never left such direct evidence on paper, and just as important.

    13. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      You don't even need to get sounding that paranoid to see it, one needs only to look at how our federal reserve was founded (yeah, "duck hunting"...) and the large amount of agencies with nearly unlimited powers with appointed positions (FCC, FTA, DEA, DHS, etc.)

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    14. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by larry+bagina · · Score: 3, Insightful

      in all fairness, there weren't many Japanese-Americans in 1776.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    15. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Volante3192 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And yet this does nothing to change Article 1, Section 8...

      If it wasn't income tax, it'd be something else, because the Constitution proper gives Congress the right to make and collect taxes.

      Honestly, it'd be one thing if Art. 1 Sec 8 didn't say anything, but people who keep picking nits about the 16th amendment make it sound like we wouldn't be taxed at all if it wasn't there, which is so off the mark it'd be laughable. Ok, fine, so we outlaw the income tax. Then what? I guess excise taxes and duties will have to go through the roof...they'll get passed on to us, the consumer, and we won't notice a single thing in the end except our paychecks will be larger...but so will our spending.

    16. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by CarpetShark · · Score: 1, Insightful

      We're constantly being reminded that slashdot is no longer an 'American' site, as if we are somehow to blame for them coming here.

      No, you're just expected to be civilised, worldly hosts. Acting like the US is the only country that exists on the internet is like inviting people to your house for dinner, ignoring them, and watching TV.

    17. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      One huge difference between the abuses of King George III and President George 43 is the critical matter of representation.
      If you don't like current immigration policies, vote accordingly.
      Or better yet, run for office.

      The Founding Fathers of the United States of America did not guarantee its citizens a perfect government. They worked to guarantee a representative government. Humans aren't perfect, and bureaucracies of humans will always have their shortcomings. But its always better to suffer for your own insufficiencies than to suffer for the whims of others.

    18. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by countertrolling · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ...our freedom and unity.

      Our what? We gave that up years ago as we timidly allow the government lead us into quagmire after quagmire and kowtow to corporate demands at the drop of a hat.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    19. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by JoshuaZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Much of what you said above takes things out of context or makes massive confusions about differences in scale. Let's look at two of them:

      He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

      Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.

      You are missing the point here. The primary objection is "kept among us"- this is an objection to quartering soldiers in private homes (which was then not allowed by the Third Amendment).

      He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices, and Amount and Payment of their Salaries.

      Hm, appointing unfair judges for life... Based on the will of ~0.000033667% of the people? Sound familiar?

      But that's not at all the same. The judges being objected to weren't appointed for life. They were appointed to serve at the pleasure of the King. That's a very different circumstance. Hence the phrasing " on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices."

      And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.

    20. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Jafafa+Hots · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, of course. It was a major change in philosophical mindset... it's PRACTICAL effect was much more limited, not the least of which because of the failings of the very same people who wrote it to implement it as they claimed they would.

      --
      This space available.
    21. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You are missing the point here. The primary objection is "kept among us"- this is an objection to quartering soldiers in private homes (which was then not allowed by the Third Amendment).

      So rather than having to quarter soldiers we instead have to pay expensive monetary fees to support our imperialistic presence in almost every single country. Another main difference is that the soldiers granted by the king not only were supposed to keep the colonists in line but also to protect them against the very real threat of native American attack rather than the very vague "threat" of "terrorism" and "drugs".

      So yes, we no longer have to house soldiers in our home, we have to essentially "house" soldiers in our paycheck. Don't get me wrong, I'm not in favor of abolishing any defense, but do we really need to waste taxpayer money having a massive army spread out in all corners of the globe when we are really not at war?

      But that's not at all the same. The judges being objected to weren't appointed for life. They were appointed to serve at the pleasure of the King. That's a very different circumstance. Hence the phrasing " on his Will alone, for the Tenure of their Offices."

      Fair enough of a distinction.

      And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.

      What made you think that the person I voted for made office? Other than local elections, almost none of the people who I voted for actually made it to office. In fact, no one in congress is a member of the Libertarian party which is the party that I choose to vote for. So, no, in fact none of the laws were really made by my consent, just by the majority which I was not a part of.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    22. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      in all fairness, there weren't many Japanese-Americans in 1776.

      There were plenty of Chinese getting screwed over in for most of the 1800s though.

    23. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by RobertM1968 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Glad someone mentioned this. It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later... not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.

      In all fairness to Jefferson, he did have that in mind (Constitution) - along with other things that did not make it in due to the mindset of the times and those others who had input into the matter.

    24. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why it is "government by the PEOPLE" not government by the various individuals. Everyone has their say, and majority rules. The rules were made by consent of ALL the people by virtue of having had an election.

    25. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by iceborer · · Score: 1

      Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)

      I think you have a slight misunderstanding of the Constitution. The Constitution is the original text plus all adopted amendments. Our progressive income tax would have been invalid under the Constitution as it existed at its signing, but that's not our Constitution nor has our income tax ever been unconstitutional (i.e. the Constitution allowed it at the time of the tax's inception).

    26. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That is a very dangerous mindset to have and a mindset that the founding fathers avoided like the plague. That is why we have the constitution (which is basically ignored which is why we have a government comparable to King George III which ignored the rights that colonists had as English citizens) to limit the government so it doesn't -matter- who is elected, in short the founding fathers had a version of the Debian Free Software Guidelines called the "tentacles of evil test"

      "The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the author is hired by a large evil corporation and, now in their thrall, attempts to do the worst to the users of the program: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using the program, to expose them to legal liability, to make the program non-free, to discover their secrets, etc. The same can happen to a corporation bought out by a larger corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The license cannot allow even the author to take away the required freedoms.

      Only the founding fathers changed it a bit with limited government with the constitution basically saying:

      "The Tentacles of Evil test". Imagine that the people have voted in a dictator and, now that he/she is elected, attempts to do the worst to the citizens of the USA: to make their lives miserable, to make them stop using their freedoms, to expose them to domestic or foreign harm, to make the citizens non-free, to expose all citizen's secrets, etc. The same can happen to a government bought out by a corporation bent on destroying free software in order to maintain its monopoly and extend its evil empire. The constitution cannot allow even the government to take away the required freedoms.

      If you look at dictators, a -lot- of them were voted in, the constitution is designed to prevent a voted-in dictator from taking freedoms. Our rights are natural rights, they should never be voted away like you are suggesting.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    27. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      nor has our income tax ever been unconstitutional (i.e. the Constitution allowed it at the time of the tax's inception).

      Wrong. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock_v._Farmers'_Loan_%26_Trust_Co. where the Supreme Court basically said direct taxes were unconstitutional.

      There is even some debate on if the 16th amendment really passed correctly.

      While legally it is part of the constitution, it was one of the few additions to the constitution that the Constitution completely opposed. One might make an argument about the 13th amendment, but the constitution never fully supported or rejected slavery, it simply accepted its existence without supporting it.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    28. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by CRCulver · · Score: 1

      Recent histories of the US have tried very hard to overturn the myth that the American Revolution was about a nation groaning under high taxes and yearning for freedom. As much as "taxation without representation" was a hook they could use to get the plebes on their side (and not all of the took it -- the country was quite divided), the founding fathers were essentially fighting for their own desire for money and power.

    29. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I'm not going to argue all of the points, either because I do agree with some, I'm simply uninformed, or I am apathetic. That said, I take issue with your characterization of the following ones.

      ...the Present King of Great-Britain...has endeavoured to prevent the Population of these States; for that Purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their Migrations hither, and raising the Conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

      Hm, sound like the immigration mess we have today?

      Nope. There's a big difference between a foreign power limiting immigration to a region, and the people of that region limiting immigration to it. We enjoy the latter today. I wouldn't say it's anything like the former.

      He has erected a Multitude of new Offices, and sent hither Swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their Substance.

      Sound familiar? DEA, Homeland Security, etc.?

      When was the last time you had to feed or house a federal agent against your will? For that matter, when was the last time you had one "sent hither" to any place you lived to "harass" you?

      He has kept among us, in Times of Peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our Legislature.

      Well, thats a bit different now, because we seem to think that there can't be any times of peace so instead we have a standing army always and find new conflicts to fight.

      Again, there's a big difference between a foreign power placing their armies in your region (i.e. an occupation force) and your own armies stationed locally or deployed abroad. It's surprising that this isn't obvious to you.

      For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from Punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

      Hm, people in the police force and the armed forces getting off easy for abuses of citizens, that of course has never happened in the USA... right?

      Happened? Yes. Let me ask you though: do you think there were more or less mock trials 100 years ago? 50 years ago? I'd say there's less today, a lot less, especially when you consider the South and just how things went down for a very long time. Sure, we're not perfect, but I'd say we've come a long way, and we're certainly better than we were at the time that document was written.

      For cutting off our Trade with all Parts of the World:

      And today we have embargoes that not only harm our own citizens but keep some parts of the world in poverty because we disagree with their government... -cough- Cuba -cough-

      Cuba is not being blockaded by us, as was the case back then with the colonies, nor are they prevented from trading with plenty of other countries. There's a big difference between cutting off trade with "all Parts of the World" and cutting off trade with those countries that refuse to trade with you.

    30. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Unproportional, based on population, direct taxes were unconstitutional.

      I.e., the Federal gov't could not tax someone in NY making $20k/year and someone in CT making $20k/year at the same rate, since the populations of the states are different.

      However, they could have taxed the NY person at X% and CT at Y% and be perfectly legal. (As long as X and Y are in proper proportion to the state's population...however that would have worked.)

    31. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      FTFY.

      Oh, fuck off. It wasn't perfect, but it was a vast improvement over the status quo and we're trying to work out the rest. So our 234-year-old document didn't perfectly conform to your modern ideals - when was the last time you wrote code that lasted more than two centuries with less than 30 patches?

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    32. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by QuantumLeaper · · Score: 2, Informative

      Tax evaders have tried that in the past and failed, by saying those augments.
      Why not read about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sixteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution/
      Case law from the court doesn't back up what your saying either...

    33. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by selven · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.

      The legislator I voted for? What if I voted against him and he still inflicted all the aforementioned infringements on freedom on me? There's nothing less wrong about having your rights taken away because 52% of the population like it that way than because one person likes it that way - your rights are gone either way. Democracy is supposed to prevent rights from being taken away in the first place, not to justify their removal.

    34. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by CAIMLAS · · Score: 1

      "Striking similarities?" Go read it: the little you will have to change for it to be synonymous to today will likely be name substitutions. Just the names. In the concise terms used, there is sadly little denial that pretty much everything on the list of grievances which do not apply today - between the States and/or Citizens and the Federal government. The "Colony Rebellion" occurred over much less than we have been putting up with for some time.

      (Note ,this doesn't just apply to Obama; it's the current Federal government as a whole, as its been performing for the past 20 years. Thought the rate of aggravation has certainly increased significantly in the last year than what it had been previously.)

      --
      ~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
    35. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      First of all, if you consider the average income at the time, the additional taxes were difficult to bear. Secondly, what angered the colonists wasn't simply the taxes themselves, but their effective status as second-class citizens. The closest thing I can compare it to is if the US today taxed Iraq for the cost of the war over there.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    36. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less than 100 years after the declaration was signed, hundreds of thousands died to give blacks freedom. You might have heard of it, it was called the Civil War. So not only are you a racist, you are lousy at math, and history.

      Now, thanks to some luddites, it did take 200 years to get some areas to live up to the promise of that all men are created equal. but we can't blame that on the document, or its drafters.

    37. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by otis+wildflower · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Most people who live in most countries are citizens rather than subjects.

      You're welcome.

    38. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Informative

      When was the last time you had to feed or house a federal agent against your will?

      The last time I received a paycheck and a sum of money was removed to pay federal agents. Trust me, I'd rather keep that than have my "property" taken to pay federal agents against my will. I understand your point. And you either miss the point or are being deliberately obtuse. It's not that they are being done today exactly as they were then, but that the complaints themselves are valid in regards to todays government, even if minor modifications to wording would need to be made. Yes, you don't have to keep them in your home, but you have to pay for theirs. Completely different, yet exactly the same.

    39. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Reziac · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's the internal army of agencies with essentially unlimited powers that bother me the most, along with gov't increasingly being "privatized" to give *private agencies power over other citizens*. (This is absolutely NOT the same as "privatizing" a function; it's more like setting up a gov't-sponsored mafia.)

      This is, as I've pointed out before, about where Rome was around 250AD, and was probably their point of no return. We're getting there a lot faster, probably thanks to modern communications.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    40. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Reziac · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "You should not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered, but in the light of the wrongs it would do and the harm it would cause if improperly administered."
          -- Lyndon Johnson, 36th President of the U.S.

      "The world needs to be reminded that all human ills are not curable by legislation, and that quantity of statutory enactment and excess of government offer no substitute for quality of citizenship."
          -- Warren G. Harding

      "The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one's time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed."
          -- H. L. Mencken

      "Formerly, we suffered from crimes. Now, we suffer from laws."
          -- Tacitus

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    41. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by unwastaken · · Score: 2, Informative

      It might be true that spending would be higher for some people. The difference is that an income tax is unavoidable, whereas you can't force people to spend their money (except for our new health care program...).

    42. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Hypotheticals are nice, but I find it difficult to grasp the concept that somehow one would be able to earn money and not spend it at all.

      You don't have to *force* people to spend their money; most will do it willingly.

      (And if you decide to throw out the argument of the homeless, they don't earn enough to be taxed on their income in the first place.)

    43. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Alsee · · Score: 5, Funny

      when was the last time you wrote code that lasted more than two centuries with less than 30 patches?

      Six thousand years ago.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    44. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by couchslug · · Score: 1

      "It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later... not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc."

      Of course all history should be judged morally from your superior moral perspective, rather than evaluated by its actual effect on the world.

      BTW, the right of conquest was then perfectly normal practice (therefore not wrong, for "wrong" is subjective), and its practitioners included Native Americans (participants in the French and Indian War, etc) and Japanese, though the Japanese were busy with domestic affairs and had not yet met Commodore Perry. :)

      --
      "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
    45. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's only because you refuse to fix the bug report code!

    46. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Culture20 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Most people who live in most countries are citizens rather than subjects.

      You're welcome.

      Parent is not a troll. Parent is pointing out that at the time "subjects" was crossed out by Jefferson, Nearly everyone on the planet was subject to a King, or if not, were not living in a level of civilization where "citizen" would be an appropriate term. Following the American Colonies' example, many other English colonies and colonies of other countries threw off their shackles, and eventually the mother-countries followed suit.

    47. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Which wouldn't happen if gov't had to live within its means, just like the rest of us do. And in that case we wouldn't have a cancerous bureaucracy, either, because there'd be no funding to support it.

      So it was for the first 150 years or so...

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    48. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      GP's point appears to be that they are in his mind, rather, uninvited house guests.

      I don't happen to agree, but you should try to get his point a little harder.

    49. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your characterization of my opinions but agree with the general point you're trying to make.

      The passage we were talking about was narrowly referring to a problem that existed then but no longer exists, thanks to the third and fourth amendments. The founding fathers explicitly discuss taxation elsewhere, so I don't think I'm being obtuse in assuming that this separate passage is in regards to a separate issue, though clearly there is a lot of overlap in the principles behind the two ideas. So, on the issue of feeding or housing agents, I firmly disagree with the parent I responded to: the DEA and DoHS are nothing like what the colonists were facing back then.

      That said, I have no gripe with what the parent said regarding taxation, and, as you, I do not think that there's a difference between a government that unlawfully collects taxes and a group of agents unlawfully collecting property. If anything, I agree with both him and you on the taxation question. I'm not disputing that issue at all, I'm merely asking that you not confuse it with an entirely separate one. The two issues are distinct, and while one still exists today, the other went the way of the dodo long ago.

    50. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by dbIII · · Score: 1

      However a lot of places have been inspired by the USA over the last couple of hundred years, so, that's often where it comes from. I'm an Australian, and although our government comes from the Westminster system there were a lot of US inspired changes in 1901 when the current form of the government was set up, and a few since then.

    51. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by fotoguzzi · · Score: 1

      Yeah, it's hard to take the Ancient Greeks seriously, too. They should have just shut the hell up until they got it right.

      --
      Their they're doing there hair.
    52. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is only the utter misery of hell and the glowing wonder of utopia.

      No changes or improvements other than going straight from hell to utopia or utopia to hell are possible.

    53. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by yuhong · · Score: 1

      I think the biggest problem is corporate influence over the government using things like campaign donations.

    54. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Maybe that sounds a little bit tinfoil-hattish, but that's the most straight-forward way I could think of to explain the US government's behavior in the last decade.

      No, it actually sounds a lot tinfoil-hattish. The government has repeatedly demonstrated it's lack of ability to keep secrets. If there were truly some deep-set conspiracy, the first place you'd hear about it wouldn't be crack-pot, unreliable internet sites. If you are really having trouble understanding the government's behavior for the last decade, you need to look into history books, not conspiracy websites. Visit a library and learn to understand politics.

      --
      Qxe4
    55. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The vast majority of those Chinese were in California which didn't become a state until 1850 and was disputed territory and part of the Spanish American war a decade or so before that. If I remember right, most of the railroads had been built by then so the Chinese probably weren't screwed over for long by the US, just a state that got into the US.

    56. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by mjwx · · Score: 1

      And today we have embargoes that not only harm our own citizens but keep some parts of the world in poverty because we disagree with their government... -cough- Cuba -cough-

      To be fair, Cuba is not that bad off. Yes life would be better for the Cubans if the US stopped putting up trade barriers but many US friendly caribian nations are far worse off self sufficient Cuba.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    57. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by WinterSolstice · · Score: 1

      Uninvited might be a bit strong, but that's the gist, yes :)

      I'd say it's more like people with strong religious convictions going to a public beach. If you don't like the native beach attire (or think it might offend), you should probably avoid the beach.

      Cosmopolitanism goes both ways, you know :)

      I see this sort of thing in my state. I find people move here and try to make it like the place they came from. We'd rather you didn't - we like it the way it is (and if they don't... maybe they should go home?)

      --
      An operating system should be like a light switch... simple, effective, easy to use, and designed for everyone.
    58. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by diamondmagic · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I would agree that the Revolution wasn't about only about, or even started by, taxes, it was about so much more (Can you imagine the government forcing you to house and feed the military?). But which of the Framers were fighting for money and power? At best, maybe some of the southern delegates, maybe Hamilton - most all of them were passionately and honestly concerned for their own liberty (and therefore, by definition, everyone's). Documents like the Federalist and the constitutional convention debate notes are filled with these examples - one example that sticks out, Franklin argued public servants shouldn't receive a pay (New Hampshire today pays legislators $200/2 years). As for the Constitution, the ban on slave trade and the reduced representation that slave states got, free trade between states, limitations on taxes (wiped out by the 16th amendment), enumerations of specific powers the Federal government is limited to, and more.

    59. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

      Hm, appointing unfair judges for life... Based on the will of ~0.000033667% of the people? Sound familiar?

      That's exactly why judges are appointed for life, in the Constitution: So there is no political pressure to make a choice favorable to someone else, like a king. A better example would be the Supreme Court today, like FDR threatening to "pack the court" or simply the circus that appointing a new Supreme Court justice today is. In theory it's also possible to simply stop funding the courts, too.

      Lets see, Ben Franklin estimated taxes in the colonies at around 12.5%... Today we have a 15% income tax at the realistic minimum (unless you are like a kid at a summer job or something then its only 10%) and up to 35% if you are successful at what you do! Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)

      For better or worse, the world is well-adjusted to the lower standard of living that taxes affords us. But even more so, the issue is government spending, we don't see any direct victims of taxes because of all the tricks like inflation they spend money with.

    60. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      There are people - notably among the teabagging movement - that think the constitution is perfect and must be fixed for all time. You see them here defending drunk driving, on the grounds that the constitution doesn't say they can't.

      Way to miss the point.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    61. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by CarpetShark · · Score: 1

      Yes, I got that too, but I ignored it since it's plainly wrong for the vast majority of sites

    62. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Well, what do we know about US politics?

      • There's an invite-only group of very rich people meeting every now and then in the (not-quite-)secret and deciding about international politics called the Bilderberg Group.
      • Corporate "donations" are the main income of both parties, and most large corporations donate to both parties (red flag right there).
      • Many politicians are heavily invested in some of those companies (see GWB and Haliburton for example), thus creating a conflict-of-interest nobody seems to care about.
      • Policies don't seem to change, even though a major switch from Republicans to Democrats happened in recent years. A similar switch happened in the UK recently, and there laws get repealed left and right, and they're even setting up a way for people to vote on what laws should be removed. In Germany, a recent government switch caused the new internet site blacklist law to be effectively repealed. In the US, Obama continues to invest heavily in GWB's war he said he'd move out of just before the elections.

      These are all known facts. There doesn't need to be a deep-set conspiracy to point to the conclusion I gave. US policy is decided by very rich people and large corporations, both of which don't change when the elected officials change.

    63. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Kijori · · Score: 0

      A consumption tax is regressive, since only people who have plenty of money have the choice about whether to spend or save. If you're living paycheck to paycheck then you would have to pay more tax on your purchases to make up for the rich who, no longer paying tax on their income choose to save or invest to avoid a consumption tax. A tax system that moves the burden of taxation from the rich to the poor seems difficult to justify both morally and economically (who gets more benefit from Government services? The young mother who takes the bus to work or the millionaire whose business empire is possible only because of Government-provided services?)

    64. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by shentino · · Score: 1

      The income tax WAS unconstitutional.

      The amendment made it constitutional.

    65. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Garrett+Fox · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually no, they believe it has a meaning that should be obeyed, and that if you don't like it you should lawfully amend it rather than ignoring it and claiming unlimited power to do what you want.

      --
      Revive the Constitution.
    66. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by janimal · · Score: 1

      Cuba is not poor because of the embargo. I lived in communist Poland with no embargos, and toilet paper was SCARCE. Not kidding.

    67. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by shentino · · Score: 1

      That would be "tax protester"

      Tax evasion includes an element of fraud where you try to conceal your income or falsify records. If you're simply honest but being an ass and giving the bird to the IRS, that's not evasion.

    68. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As opposed to the current situation, where our paychecks are smaller (or nonexistent) and our spending is STILL larger.

      Just because an injustice may seem unavoidable, doesn't mean you should just throw up your hands and watch it happen while doing NOTHING.

    69. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 1

      No, it actually sounds a lot tinfoil-hattish. The government has repeatedly demonstrated it's lack of ability to keep secrets. If there were truly some deep-set conspiracy, the first place you'd hear about it wouldn't be crack-pot, unreliable internet sites. If you are really having trouble understanding the government's behavior for the last decade, you need to look into history books, not conspiracy websites. Visit a library and learn to understand politics.

      No tinfoil hat required. It takes hundreds of millions of dollars to have a shot at getting elected president. Therefore by definition whoever gets elected has a couple hundred million favors that need repaying, and there's only 4 years to repay them in. Capiche?

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    70. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The issue with tax wasn't just that they were being taxed. The issue was taxation without representation. That a foreign government was levying taxes on them to fund its own operations and that they had no say whatsoever in how those taxes were spent.

      The current system where an ostensibly democratically elected government collects and distributes taxes with the consent and instruction of the people is completely unobjectionable in this context.

    71. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The USA is a REPUBLIC, not a DEMOCRACY.

      Big big difference. But, I am not even an American and even I know that. Why don't Americans know this?

    72. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by selven · · Score: 1

      From Wikipedia:

      "The United States is the world's oldest surviving federation. It is a constitutional republic and representative democracy"

      It is a republic but it's a democratic republic.

    73. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by mr+exploiter · · Score: 1

      Well, I was going to say that with the Declaration, Jefferson DID change subjects into citizens, and I'm not talking about word replacement.

      You must be not American.
       
      /s

    74. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "Democracy is supposed to prevent rights from being taken away in the first place, not to justify their removal."

      Maybe, but that's a straw man. The U.S. is a constitutional republic.

    75. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the government structure is very similar. Back then, you had a king appointed by nobody that did whatever he wanted. ...

      Not exactly what he wanted. We British had a civil war, shortened one king and chased his grand-nephew off to France in support of the idea that kings had restricted powers. By Jefferson's time, the British monarchy was significantly constrained by the constitution.

    76. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in the Netherlands, and according to our Constitution I am a subject (onderdaan) of the kingdom, or the Crown to be precise, as opposed to a mere resident of the kingdom. I don't feel less free because of that, and the Netherlands ranks pretty high as far as its laws and liberties are concerned.

      Citizen of a kingdom would of course be stupid. I am a citizen (burger) of the town I live in.

    77. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>It's difficult for me to take the Declaration of Independence seriously when blacks didn't get rights until almost 200 years later

      False. "Freemen" had the same rights as whites, in states like Maryland, Pennsylvania, and other northern states. You see in its original condition the United States was a lot like the European Union - each state was sovereign and followed its own rules. Some had slavery - others did not.
      .

      >>>not to mention the plight of Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, etc.

      Native Americans were treated as conquered peoples, same way the Romans treated the Celts and Britons when they were conquered. i.e. An inferior, backward people that did not have rights. To us it seems wrong but at the time (1600s,1700s) that was the standard operating procedure of European society.

      Japanese- and German-Americans were imprisoned by a president many regard as a "hero" even today:
      FDR. Why someone would venerate this man makes no sense to me.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    78. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>There were plenty of Chinese getting screwed over in for most of the 1800s though.

      Yep. Look at how the British and French and Dutch treated the conquered mainland of China and Indochina. No wonder there's still an anti-european sentiment even today.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    79. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Failure?

      - The First successful republic since the Roman Republic.

      - A legal document that still stands today (nobody else has a ~250 year old written constitution)

      - And a Bill of Rights that still blocks politicians from being dicks.

      - Plus a level of religious freedom (worship whomever you want) that even modern societies like Europe do not enjoy. For example the UK still has an official, taxpayer-supported state religion. Those pro-religious freedom laws were passed by people like Adams and Jefferson during the 1810s and 20s.

      - Suffrage for blacks, women, and property-less citizens. True that was only available to a few northern states, but it was a start. It provided the foundation for later advances.

      Freedom doesn't come all at once. It happens bit by bit over time
      .

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    80. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>>when was the last time you wrote code that lasted more than two centuries with less than 30 patches?
      >>
      >>Six thousand years ago.

      Actually the bible has had thousands of patches over the years, including some chapters that were completely-and-totally expunged & burned on fires because they were heretical teachings, such as the Gospel of Mary Magdalene (a woman disciple equal to the male disciples). So they destroyed her work and falsely-labeled her a prostitute. Can't have a woman disciple can we? Jesus obviously made a mistake (so said the Romans).

      You'll need to think of a different example.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    81. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      +1

      Also outlawing drunk driving is a constitutional act, if you read Amendment 10 (powers reserved to the Member State governments). It's amazing how many people criticize the constitution and yet have no clue what it actually says.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    82. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      Which is why Jefferson immediately ran-out to a printer and had the original document (including the line about ending slavery) published by the printers. He didn't like the Congress-approved version - he preferred his original. You can find it here:

      http://www.constitution.org/tj/doi_rough.htm

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    83. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by olivebridge · · Score: 2, Informative

      False. "Freemen" had the same rights as whites

      False. Hate crimes, segregation and intimidation were common until the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s. My parents grew up in the 1950s when there were "whites only" restaurants, etc.

    84. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>the founding fathers were essentially fighting for their own desire for money and power.

      And what the hell is wrong with that? Every day we citizens drag ourselves out of bed and labor to earn money. What's wrong with being allowed to keep almost all that money for ourselves? And what is wrong with giving Power to the People, so they can be free to make their own personal decisions (I think I'll buy a new car) rather than have the decisions dictated by a nobility (You must buy a car from the UK only - no other nation).

      I don't see your remark as a criticism. I see it as a strength. If I were president I would immediately push for the US Income Tax to be 0% for the first $100,000. Let the common man keep the money he labored to earn. And I would next work to abolish monopolies so we can have a Pro-Choice solution to our problems, rather than being locked into just 1 or 2 choices. Money and Power to the people
      .

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    85. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love the Bilderberg Group. Any time someone mentions them in a serious context I know I can safely ignore that person as an idiot. I'm sure Jews did 9/11, too, eh?

    86. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by chameleon3 · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. You would think more people on /. would be replying seriously to this article. It's incredible to think that that one ink blot had such a profound effect on the US today. Think of how much of a core element the word "citizen" has become; it's like a symbol of our freedom and unity.

      Similarly, the American Psychological Association has forbidden the use of 'subject' in regards to people engaged in psychological data collection (they are now referred to as 'participants').

    87. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thats a nuanced viewpoint that many of the constitutional purists do *not* share. Don't overestimate the intelligence of the people on your side of the argument.

    88. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by olivebridge · · Score: 1

      Of course all history should be judged morally from your superior moral perspective, rather than evaluated by its actual effect on the world. BTW, the right of conquest was then perfectly normal practice (therefore not wrong, for "wrong" is subjective), and its practitioners included Native Americans (participants in the French and Indian War, etc) and Japanese, though the Japanese were busy with domestic affairs and had not yet met Commodore Perry. :)

      Not trying to sound superior, I merely was pointing out that many Americans were not included when rights were granted. You're right about Japanese-Americans but I included them because of their poor treatment during World War II.

      Happy Independence Day.

    89. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Less than 30 patches in THAT code? Sir, You are a numbskull. And I say that with the friendliest of intentions.

    90. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by merockstar · · Score: 1

      Lets see, Ben Franklin estimated taxes in the colonies at around 12.5%... Today we have a 15% income tax at the realistic minimum (unless you are like a kid at a summer job or something then its only 10%) and up to 35% if you are successful at what you do! Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)
       

      Sure the poor may pay that, but if the rich actually payed that much, and we invested it back into society as we should, nobody would be complaining about being poor.

    91. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What wouldn't happen, being taxed?

      There have *always* been taxes in the US. Even during the first 150 years. They were just excises and tariffs (which still get passed onto the consumer).

      Do you think judges grow on trees? Military aircraft? Customs? Ambassadors? There's certain things a nation needs to function, especially one of our size.

      If we wanted to cut the deficit, we just have to axe Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. Bam. Instant balanced budget.

    92. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Alsee · · Score: 1

      (1) You missed on the date. The Bible would be ~2000. 6000 implies the universe.
      (2) You missed the emphasized 'you' in the quote and implied 'I' of my answer.
      (3) You missed that I would never code into the universe anything as silly as talking snakes or magical fruit ;)

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    93. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Alsee · · Score: 4, Funny

      Platypus is closed as WONTFIX.
      All remaining bug reports are closed as PEBCAK.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    94. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Who has more to lose if the US is not defended? Who takes greater advantage of the court system? Copyrights, patents? Wall Street (SEC)?

      Sure, corporations might whine about their high taxes but who keeps wanting intellectual property protections?

    95. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yup, if that's the only conclusion you can reach based on those facts, then you need to pay attention to x-files less and history more. Conspiracy theories always appeal to those who are more familiar with how Hollywood works than with how reality works.

      --
      Qxe4
    96. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>False. Hate crimes, segregation and intimidation were common

      False. The right not to be insulted by your neighbors is NOT a right - if it were I could criminally-charge half my coworkers and former classmates. Do not falsely label things as rights that are not rights.

      And segregation didn't exist as a concept in 1600s, 1700s, or early 1800s america. The southern states treated blacks as slaves, and the northern states treated "freemen" blacks the same as whites, with full rights and responsibilities (like voting and property ownership). In fact some of the Founding Fathers (the lesser known ones) were black as well.

      You need to educate yourself on how the world ACTUALLY existed at the time of this nation's founding.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    97. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      You started off so well :S

      The democracy index (obviously not perfect) seems to put you in 18th in regards to strength on democracy.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

    98. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by mdarksbane · · Score: 1

      And in any case, Democracy does nothing to prevent rights from being taken away. That was one of core design requirements in the US government and in most modern systems - to have limitations on what the democratic majority was capable of doing to the minority.

    99. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by am+2k · · Score: 1

      I am eager to hear about your own conclusions instead of your ad-hominem attacks without substance.

    100. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Point was, the US got by just fine on tariffs and such, until the gov't began outgrowing its means. Then it started looking for other sources of income, which of course helped gov't grow, rinse and repeat. My goodness, look at all those wallets out there! If we had all that money, we could grow bloated wasteful programs like ... well, the ones you listed.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    101. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by timkar · · Score: 1

      Don't over-estimate the intelligence of the people on any side of any argument.

    102. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      President Thomas Jefferson is one of the hero characters in our Legend. That he and his peers even existed is so unlikely, quite mythological, and very very lucky for us. Today, we don't learn much about him or the rest of the Founders, but some have been curious enough, and generous to share the results of their research. One that intrigues me is the philosophical and political ramifications of the widespread promotion and cultivation of cannabis from pre-colonial times through the Civil War period (though laws didn't change aggressively until much later) An appropriate indicator of how cannabis was viewed for a long time was that one of the first laws in Jamestown, the first written laws written in the New World, long before our country existed, basically made it illegal NOT to plant it.

      Seems obvious to anyone that under oppression, intelligent men will join forces to break the oppression, but time and again it has been shown that it is far more likely NOT to happen even with a lot of help, and that if it does, there is something exceptional happening, not something necessarily natural, but statistically special, that when eventually the elements gathered will be just right, we have revolution, and stable republic. Otherwise, we have North Korea, and I exaggerate, but that seems to me far more "natural" or more likely political state considering how random groupings of humans sort of seem to end up, with the powerful in power, and the weak controlled and kept ignorant.

      The question is rarely raised that, all the way across the Atlantic, with all the land and resources anyone could ever want, just how oppressed were men like Jefferson and Washington? And if we are to believe the tired television public announcement warnings, that losers that smoke dope sit in the basement on a couch all day watching tv, playing video games and never amount to anything, just how the did the Founders do anything other than the current day equivalent, much less create the whole goddamn country during just a handful of lazy, and reportedly, smokey afternoons? The ironic and extremely plausible conclusion of the argument is that the United States wouldn't have been possible without grass; it allowed these otherwise ordinary men to discover the prescription that could transcend the comprehensions of time, allowed them to see beyond themselves to help shape trillions of lives (ok, a billion or so, over and over and over) in a way that sucks less than it would have otherwise. Politics is the science of religion, and they crafted an Arts and Crafts religion, the Declaration and Constitution and Amendments (all annoyingly irrelevantly drafted on paper made from cannabis) are the pages of it's Bible.

    103. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And of course almost all your objections ignore the fact that these events have all occurred with the consent of the legislator you voted for. That's very different then when things occur by an unelected monarch and a parliament which one can't vote.

      The legislator I voted for? What if I voted against him and he still inflicted all the aforementioned infringements on freedom on me? There's nothing less wrong about having your rights taken away because 52% of the population like it that way than because one person likes it that way - your rights are gone either way. A Republic is supposed to prevent rights from being taken away in the first place, not to justify their removal.

      There. I fixed that for you.

      "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. "-- Benjamin Franklin

    104. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by olivebridge · · Score: 1

      And segregation didn't exist as a concept in 1600s, 1700s, or early 1800s america. The southern states treated blacks as slaves, and the northern states treated "freemen" blacks the same as whites

      You mention the southern states as if they were a different country. I think you're exaggerating about how many free blacks there were, and about the rights they enjoyed. Free blacks were the exception, not the rule.

      A few states adopted "gradual emancipation" laws in the 1780s, and by 1800 only ten percent of blacks were free. This hardly sounds like racial equality.

      The scarcity of free blacks isn't surprising, however, considering that the vast majority of blacks were concentrated in the South until the Great Migration of the 20th century.

    105. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by PeterWone · · Score: 1
      A key point here is the difference between rights and privileges. Privileges can be arbitrarily revoked, rights cannot. If your government (or any other party) can take it away, it isn't a right, it is a privilege. Freedom in the USA became a right because ten thousand soldiers can dominate the daily doings of a million individuals, but not when
      • Provision of food, shelter etc is largely decentralised
      • They are spread across a huge continent
      • Many of them are well armed
      • Idiotic bright red uniforms render minions of the intending oppressor easily identified at a distance, in an newly dawned era of inexpensive range weapons

      While personally unfamiliar with that portion of Anglo-american history, I would be very surprised if there weren't quite a few British soldiers thinking, "Were one to take the target off off one's back and walk for two days, one need no longer risk shooting or shouting, or (in the unlikely event of unscathed retirement) smog and freezing rain." Possibly the mindset of people who insist their soldiers wear bright red, and march in columns, did not extend to intelligence gathering by infiltration. Or perhaps they were aware that the difference between infiltration and exfiltration is a vanishing chuckle.

    106. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Get a book about politics or political history; I suggest this one, it's been around for a while and has practically become a guidebook for American politics. In some places it is even used as a textbook in University classes. That's a good one but feel free to choose a different one. It will help you understand what is really going on and alleviate some of your confusion.

      --
      Qxe4
    107. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by grouchomarxist · · Score: 1

      we also tax resident aliens, illegal aliens, tourists, prisoners without giving them representation. although it is a issue, i don't think it is as big of a deal as you make it to be.

      if you take a trip outside of the U.S., you'll also be taxed without representation.

    108. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Richard+Dick+Head · · Score: 1

      Hate to break it to ya, "Whites only" restaurants still exist, albeit in small numbers and in small towns. As I understand it, as long as they're privately owned (e.g. not corporate), the owner can serve or turn away whomever he or she pleases for whatever reason. There's one not far from where I live. Great food, no spooks. :D (joking...)

    109. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think he was speaking as God per the Creationists beliefs. Wrote 'code' for existence, not the bible.

    110. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      Gee, on that note, you'd think they would take a closer look at the controlled substances act, and the patriot act, free speech zones, etc. No, they really don't believe in obeying the constitution nearly as much as obeying the bible.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    111. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Eli+Gottlieb · · Score: 1

      So the Constitution should be lawfully amended via a process designed to make sure that the Constitution can never be lawfully amended once the United States grew large enough?

    112. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>You mention the southern states as if they were a different country.

      Yes they were essentially - just like the southern states of the European Union were/are separate countries. Some EU states allow gay marriage; others don't. Similarly in the American Union some states allowed slavery while others banned it & treated blacks as equals.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    113. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Gee, on that note, you'd think they would take a closer look at the controlled substances act, and the patriot act, free speech zones, etc. No, they really don't believe in obeying the constitution nearly as much as obeying the bible.
      >>>

      And thus you demonstrate you really know nothing about Tea Partiers. Although there are a few religious-tyrannical types, most of them are libertarians and want to repeal all the laws you just mentioned, because not only are they unconstitutional, but also anti-liberty.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    114. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>So the Constitution should be lawfully amended via a process designed to make sure that the Constitution can never be lawfully amended once the United States grew large enough?

      What the fuck are you talking about??? The Constitution was just amended in the mid-90s. It's an easy enough process for people who aren't twits.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    115. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      So, you're saying the media is covering that up? I haven't seen a single story where they speak on those issues. On regular mass media, not a blog that might have 40 readers or so. Because if they really are for the repeal of prohibition, the legalization of prostitution, etc., they're not getting the point across very well.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    116. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The federal government's power to tax was extremely limited before the 16th amendment. In short... you have no idea what you're talking about.

    117. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by volpe · · Score: 1

      Plus, the income tax is actually unconstitutional! (Thats why they needed to pass a constitutional amendment for it to be in effect today)

      Section 8 - Powers of Congress

      The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

      Yes, there were some conditions related to the census that were later changed ("clarified") by the 16th ammendment, but at least the power to tax in general is written right there, prior to any ammendment. Also, by your line of reasoning, freedom of speech is unconstitutional because it, too, took an amendment to create. Care to amend your position?

    118. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      freestateproject.org (Libertarians who want to take over New Hampshire and repeal drug laws, nullify the Patriot Act, and so on)

      freedomwatchonfox.com (Judge Napolitano - a libertarian)

      campaignforliberty.com (these are the guys that started the Tea Parties in 2008)

      reason.com

      lp.org

      I could go on and on but you know how to use google. It isn't that hard to find people who obey the constitution and desire to see these anti-liberty laws repealed.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    119. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      I shouldn't have to, but I repeat, On regular mass media... You know, major networks, New york Times, FOX... The places where the vast, vast majority still get their info. The influence of the internet beyond the echo chamber is still insignificant to non existent.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    120. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd recommend you hit the history books, but I'm guessing that the Civil War is more complicated than what your simple mind can comprehend.

    121. Re:Considering the mindset of the era by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's nothing less wrong about having your rights taken away because 52% of the population like it that way than because one person likes it that way - your rights are gone either way. Democracy is supposed to prevent rights from being taken away in the first place, not to justify their removal.

      No, you see... Democracy *is* the 52% telling you what to do. I believe you're pining for a Republic designed to protect the rights of the people, which is what America had originally set out as.

  4. Very interesting. by doomcup · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If I recall correctly, they still considered themselves subjects of Britain that were being mistreated, but I can see why Jefferson changed it. It would be admitting that they were seceeding from a legitimate rule despite their grievances. And it's pretty cool how they found this too.

    1. Re:Very interesting. by Trepidity · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah, in that era "citizen" had strong republican (i.e. anti-monarchist) connotations, which would be made even clearer in the revolution a few years later in France, where "Citizen so-and-so" became the common mode of greeting (to emphasize that all titles were abolished, replaced by a single title, "Citizen", that everyone possessed), and was featured prominently in such texts as the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen.

      I don't believe it had quite as radical a connotation in 1776, but it was still a clear shift from "grievances of subjects who feel their king is unjust" (which was the sentiment of some of the colonists) to a more explicit declaration of anti-monarchism.

    2. Re:Very interesting. by anss123 · · Score: 1

      It is a curious thought that it is not enough to know the meaning of words 300 years ago to understand texts from those days, but their emotional baggage as well. Wonder if there's any dictionary defining that.

      Heh. On the subject of the revolutionary France. "The Committee for Public Safety" somehow managed to sound completely evil to me, even before knowing what they did.

  5. A reminder from the founders by Will+Steinhelm · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The editing of the word "subject" emphasizes the founders care to make sure that the US government be of the people, that we should not be subject to any tyranny but rather citizens with representation. Good time of year for the reminder.

    1. Re:A reminder from the founders by dzfoo · · Score: 1

      Actually, as some have pointed above, it's quite more mundane than that. If the Declaration Of Independence used the word "subjects," it would be an admission that they were only grievances against a legitimate monarchy, and as such the document would have far less impact than it currently has.

      By changing the term to "citizens," Jefferson elevated the text from a mere "bitch list" against an unpopular King, into a cry for dissolution from an unjust tyrant.

      It fits within the contention that the Declaration Of Independence, more than a statement of principle, was a tool of political eloquence; employed to justify to the rest of the world why the colonies should be free to do as they please, and in doing so gain legitimacy as a True Nation in the world stage at large.

      It is such nuanced use of language such as changing the word "subjects" into "citizens," that shows the brilliant rhetorical talents of Mr. Jefferson, and the success of the document is a testament to this.

              -dZ.

      --
      Carol vs. Ghost
      ...Can you save Christmas?
  6. Morphing by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

    Tthe task was made more difficult by the way Jefferson sought to match the lines and curves of the underlying smudged letters with the new letters he wrote on top of them.

    "It's quite amazing how he morphed 'subjects' into 'citizens,' " she said. "We did the reverse morphing back to 'subjects.' "

    Figures. The government has been trying to do that for years ...

    1. Re:Morphing by Alwin+Henseler · · Score: 1

      And it's working, too !!

  7. What he really should've done by PlasmaEye · · Score: 1

    Oh SH--! CTRL-Z! CTRL-Z!

    1. Re:What he really should've done by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Oh SH--! CTRL-Z! CTRL-Z!

      Suspend the entire process? That's a little drastic.

  8. Well... by djupedal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Since the actual ability within the populace to write went missing years ago (image the Constitution as a tweet), and since today's culture may not know this, let me be reiterate that the document was 'drafted', meaning the author wrote and thought at the same time. It used to be a common practice to write a statement, and then to consider it in context with the expectation that changes were likely to occur. This doesn't mean he f'd up or someone was holding a gun to his head forcing him to change his mind.

    Thinking about what you write and why and how it should be cached for your audience used to be a worthwhile goal.

    1. Re:Well... by hitmark · · Score: 2

      the constitution tweet would be a shortened url pointing to a pdf of the actual document.

      --
      comment first, facts later. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
    2. Re:Well... by Spykk · · Score: 0, Redundant

      image the Constitution as a tweet

      Better yet, imagine the sort of things that you see on twitter in the style of the constitution:

      We the people of Kappa Delta Phi, in order to procure more libations, absconded with a vehicle of an officer of justice, and did pilot said vehicle drunkenly into a telephone pole. Bummer.

    3. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm afraid it would be a docx.

    4. Re:Well... by Alsee · · Score: 1

      Containing a picture of a cat with the caption "I can haz cheezburger?"

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    5. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Imagine? It's been done:
      http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/016/721mjcvw.asp

    6. Re:Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since the actual ability within the populace to write went missing years ago (image the Constitution as a tweet), and since today's culture may not know this, let me be reiterate that the document was 'drafted', meaning the author wrote and thought at the same time. It used to be a common practice to write a statement, and then to consider it in context with the expectation that changes were likely to occur. This doesn't mean he f'd up or someone was holding a gun to his head forcing him to change his mind. Thinking about what you write and why and how it should be cached for your audience used to be a worthwhile goal.

      First of all, your response is to a thought nobody had other than yourself. Nobody in the article or in these threads is claiming Jefferson messed up or was forced by someone to change a word in that document. We're looking at this as insight into his thoughts while he drafted the Declaration.

      Second, it doesn't make sense to say "image [imagine?] the Constitution as a tweet." Considering literacy rates at the time were in the 60% while the rate in the United States is 99%, the Constitution is an example of what well-educated men can write. Regardless of the number of people we have today that can't tell the difference between "there" and "their", we still have plenty of people who are capable of writing extremely well. People with that ability have never been a majority.

  9. The Irony is.... by Tangential · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Now we have made the transition from Citizens back to Subjects of our Federal Empire. In many cases we can't even travel within our own state's boundaries without having to present our identification and travel papers to a Federal Officer and get their permission to make the trip. We could probably solve the energy crisis if we could tap into the founding fathers continuous spinning in their graves....

    --
    Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
    1. Re:The Irony is.... by insufflate10mg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      LOL, really? When has a "Federal Officer" ever stopped you as you were travelling within the state and asserted his authority to make you turn around and go home?

    2. Re:The Irony is.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 2, Informative
      The founding fathers (particularly Jefferson) knew that this would happen, from including the second amendment which, contrary to popular belief didn't give us the right to bear arms because the founding fathers wanted us to go deer hunting but rather as a last resort to oppose government force. In fact Jefferson was reported to say that every generation needed its own revolution along with quotes such as

      The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.

      and

      I say, the earth belongs to each of these generations during its course, fully and in its own right. The second generation receives it clear of the debts and incumbrances of the first, the third of the second, and so on. For if the first could charge it with a debt, then the earth would belong to the dead and not to the living generation. Then, no generation can contract debts greater than may be paid during the course of its own existence.

      The founding fathers knew that this apathy would happen because it did, it was the entire reason why they believed they had to gain independence from Britain.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    3. Re:The Irony is.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Look at the Arizona immigration bill which pretty much forces people who look Mexican to keep papers on them at all times asserting that they are here legally whether they are or not.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    4. Re:The Irony is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure you can. Drive.

    5. Re:The Irony is.... by Abcd1234 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      What the hell does that have to do with a "Federal empire"? Christ, that's *specifically* a state-level law, enacted by a state, on behalf of the state's people. It's literally the antithesis of federalism (as the term is typically used in the US).

    6. Re:The Irony is.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      Because if you ask supporters of the Arizona law they specifically point out that it is to get Arizona's laws up to the level of the federal laws. Whether or not you really believe them or not is one story but if you ask the supporters of it, that is what they say.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    7. Re:The Irony is.... by Volante3192 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Look at the US Code, says the same thing (except it's just not enforced.)

      http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode08/usc_sec_08_00001304----000-.html
        1304. Forms for registration and fingerprinting

      (e) Personal possession of registration or receipt card; penalties

      Every alien, eighteen years of age and over, shall at all times carry with him and have in his personal possession any certificate of alien registration or alien registration receipt card issued to him pursuant to subsection (d) of this section.

    8. Re:The Irony is.... by Tangential · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They demand my 'papers' any time I arrived at the Atlanta airport to fly to Savannah or anywhere else in Georgia. If I fail to produce ID that satisfies the Federal Official, I don't travel.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
    9. Re:The Irony is.... by IANAAC · · Score: 1

      Because if you ask supporters of the Arizona law they specifically point out that it is to get Arizona's laws up to the level of the federal laws. Whether or not you really believe them or not is one story but if you ask the supporters of it, that is what they say.

      Got a link or anything to back that up?

      My understanding is that Arizona supports could give a rip about any federal law. They are interested in Arizona law, not federal. And really, why should they be interested in what another state is doing/want to do WRT illegal immigration?

      Most likely what you're thinking is the national-level ultra-conservative (US sense) tea party movement, as they're reacting favorably to the new AZ law. The rest of the federal government, from what I've read, aren't really interested in promoting that nationally. They believe, as many other people do, that it should remain a state law.

      I'm too lazy to look it up right now, but I seem to remember some fairly comprehensive coverage in the Washington post back in May, regarding the federal government's thoughts on the matter.

    10. Re:The Irony is.... by religious+freak · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I really despise this type of hyperbole.

      When you compare something like a security checkpoint prior to plane boarding (which is what you're trying to refer to here, I assume?) to something like being a subject of your government, you really dilute the value of making such a comparison in the future.

      --
      If you can read this... 01110101 01110010 00100000 01100001 00100000 01100111 01100101 01100101 01101011
    11. Re:The Irony is.... by Darkness404 · · Score: 1

      http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1707500&cid=32788680 that poster at least thinks so and has a link.

      --
      Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
    12. Re:The Irony is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Try going from South Texas northward.. mandatory federal checkpoints on the only 2 north/south bound routes (which applies going north, but not going south).

    13. Re:The Irony is.... by Tangential · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, First, I think using the term 'security' in relation to a TSA checkpoint shows an incredible level of naivete. They exist for theatre and pacification of the ignorant masses (and of course to keep TSA personnel employed) but not in reality for security. Second, its a incredibly valid example of the Federal government's steady push to supercede the rights and responsibilities of the states, just like the Department of Education, FDA, etc... None of these has any basis in the Constitution. There's no reasonable basis for the Federal government to have any involvement in transportation that stays strictly within a state's border.

      --
      Suppose you were an idiot. And suppose you were a member of congress. But then I repeat myself. -- Mark Twain
    14. Re:The Irony is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you read the Arizona law you will realize that it is more or less drafted from the current Federal legislation. So, really, there is no need to get Arizona's laws "up to that level."

    15. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      No. Wrong. The law states that an officer can only do so during the course of a "lawful encounter", and they amended it to clarify that it must be something like a traffic stop, police responding to a domestic disturbance call, etc; in other words, a situation in which you would need to show ID anyway. Second, a driver's license will suffice for ID. So, if you're driving, ipso facto, you ought to have your license with you. Third, AFAIK foreigners who are legal residents are supposed to carry their green card with them anyway.

      The law is not that big a deal. It requires officers to enforce federal laws already on the books, and quite frankly, if they aren't already doing that, they probably ought to be fired.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    16. Re:The Irony is.... by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      If you read the Arizona law you will realize that it is more or less drafted from the current Federal legislation. So, really, there is no need to get Arizona's laws "up to that level."

      There is if Arizona wants to make sure there is enforcement.

    17. Re:The Irony is.... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Look at the Arizona immigration bill which pretty much forces people who look Mexican to keep papers on them at all times asserting that they are here legally whether they are or not.

      Excuse me, the Arizona law explicitly states that the officer must have another reason to stop the person in question. Additionally, the officer must have an explicit reason the believe that the person was in the country illegally. So for example, if someone was riding in a car that was pulled over for a traffic violation, if they sat quietly and the driver had their driver's license, there would be no reason for the officer to ask for their ID under the Arizona law ( I have my doubts that the failure of the driver to have their driver's license would be sufficient for the officer to request ID from passengers).
      You know you really shouldn't rely on the description of the law by its opponents.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    18. Re:The Irony is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Antithesis? It's an pure example of federalism (in its true meaning).

    19. Re:The Irony is.... by Reziac · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And as to the hoorah coming out of the pro-illegals in California, this was posted elswhere:

      ======
      WITH THE FUROR IN CALIFORNIA AND ELSEWHERE OVER THE ARIZONA LAW, IT BEHOOVES ME TO POINT OUT THE FOLLOWING FROM THE CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE.

      TO WIT:

      Section 834b in the California Penal Code:

      (a) Every law enforcement agency in California shall fully cooperate with the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service regarding any person who is arrested if he or she is suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws. (b) With respect to any such person who is arrested, and suspected of being present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws, every law enforcement agency shall do the following: (1) Attempt to verify the legal status of such person as a citizen of the United States, an alien lawfully admitted as a permanent resident, an alien lawfully admitted for a temporary period of time or as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of immigration laws. The verification process may include, but shall not be limited to, questioning the person regarding his or her date and place of birth, and entry into the United States, and demanding documentation to indicate his or her legal status. (2) Notify the person of his or her apparent status as an alien who is present in the United States in violation of federal immigration laws and inform him or her that, apart from any criminal justice proceedings, he or she must either obtain legal status or leave the United States. (3) Notify the Attorney General of California and the United States Immigration and Naturalization Service of the apparent illegal status and provide any additional information that may be requested by any other public entity. (c) Any legislative, administrative, or other action by a city, county, or other legally authorized local governmental entity with jurisdictional boundaries, or by a law enforcement agency, to prevent or limit the cooperation required by subdivision (a) is expressly prohibited.
      =======

      Pot, kettle, hello??

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    20. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The difference is that Arizona wrote the law to allow stopping someone and demanding ID to determine their status. The US law is essentially that they are required to carry it, but enforcement is such it's essentially an additional charge, and not something people are stopped routinely for. The greatest offense in the AZ law is that it requires citizens, who aren't required to prove citizenship, to prove citizenship to prove they aren't breaking the law. The suspicion is that it will be used to harass Mexican-looking people regardless of citizenship. But a federal law that is used once a non-citizen is already in custody for something else isn't onerous.

    21. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Drivers licenses don't include citizenship status, do they? So what does a cop do if the person provides a driver's license but not a green card and the cop suspects the person is not a citizen? What would be factors in determining if they think the person pulled over was not a citizen?

    22. Re:The Irony is.... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      The US law is essentially that they are required to carry it, but enforcement is such it's essentially an additional charge, and not something people are stopped routinely for.

      Whether or not the Federal law is enforced like the AZ law is wasn't the point. The point is there IS a Federal statute on the books that mirrors the AZ law.

      And how it will be enforced is still an unknown.

    23. Re:The Irony is.... by aaarrrgggh · · Score: 1

      But that does not cover citizens, hence the gripe. If you "look like an alien," you are considered to be one in the eyes of the AZ law.

    24. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You'll have to correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that the AZ law allows the police to demand proof of citizenship of non-citizens. As a result, some citizens, mistakenly thought to be non-citizens would be citizens required to prove their citizenship. The federal law just says that if they don't have it on them, there can be penalties. There are no "powers" to stop, test, or verify citizenship. There are explicit statements regarding enforcement, not just punishment, in the AZ law, thus making a distinction between the two.

    25. Re:The Irony is.... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Or you can go, "I'm a citizen." Since, as a citizen, you don't have to carry paperwork proving you are, they have to take you at your word.

      The beautiful thing about this law is the police are likely going to be very diligent about following the letter and spirit of it. They know the entire nations (along with a few additional nations) are watching them. I guarentee there are citizens in AZ praying they get caught by this law just to file suits against anyone they can stick it to.

    26. Re:The Irony is.... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Not from what I remember. From what I remember, citizens don't have to provide proof of citizenship so all an illegal would technically have to do is say they're a citizen.

      About the only thing I can find concrete about the AZ law is that there's wording in it that equates to wording in the US Code. So much misinformation and extreme interpretations, I just can't sift the wheat from the chaff at this point.

      Isn't it great when emotions run politics?...someone get me a cold, emotionless summary of a law any day.

    27. Re:The Irony is.... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Interesting, normally cites with penal code numbers are valid, and I saw the thing on some law-related forum. Regardless... some CA cities are using a snippet of federal law to make themselves into arms of the INS, which has essentially the same effect. There's a whole list of local LE depts on the INS site that have opted in, a couple being state police (saving local LE the trouble of being individually certified for the program).

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    28. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I looked it up myself. http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

      "B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON."

      Aside from the fact that the second conviction of not carrying ID is a felony (that seem extreme, was it calculated to claim that the committed a felony to kick out more legal aliens for just not carrying ID?), it doesn't seem different from the US law. Except that this law has the lowest legal standard "reasonable suspicion" for holding citizens for unstated periods of time until their citizenship can be determined. And it's not a "may" wording, but essentially requires that a cop that suspects someone is an illegal alien is required to check. But wait, isn't this about making sure people are following the law, and the federal law requires *all* aliens have ID. And to specifically state illegal aliens in the law explicitly differs from the federal law of the same type. And the punishment is more harsh. And the enforcement is more permissive (in that the cops have more power to hold people to check, even when there is no probable cause or other "real" cause, just "reasonable suspicion" which could exist for anyone that doesn't speak English like a native.

      So, for all they claim, this is nothing like the US law and seems crafted for political purposes other than having the AZ police enforce federal law.

    29. Re:The Irony is.... by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      But wait, isn't this about making sure people are following the law, and the federal law requires *all* aliens have ID.

      Even the illegal ones?

    30. Re:The Irony is.... by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Just wanted to clarify that it is not any divers license. It must be a drivers license from a state that verifies citizenship before issuing a drivers license.

    31. Re:The Irony is.... by xero314 · · Score: 1

      Drivers licenses don't include citizenship status, do they?

      This depends on the state. To be fair, the Law in question does state very specifically that only Identification which requires proof of citizenship to obtain will be accepted. Some states require proof of citizenship to obtain a drivers license, Arizona is one of them, some do not. So yes in the relationship to the actual law and accepted Id, a Drivers license may include proof of citizenship.

      Here is the important line from the bill "A PERSON IS PRESUMED TO NOT BE AN ALIEN WHO IS UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES IF THE PERSON PROVIDES TO THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR AGENCY..IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION."

    32. Re:The Irony is.... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Look at the Arizona immigration bill which pretty much forces people who look Mexican to keep papers on them at all times asserting that they are here legally whether they are or not.

      Excuse me, the Arizona law explicitly states that the officer must have another reason to stop the person in question.

      The decision as to whether to keep papers on yourself before leaving the house in the morning can't be made with knowledge that no cop will find some reason to stop you that day. Just telling non-whites "don't worry, you have to do something first" is hardly reassuring. The law is worded innocently as if it applies equally to all citizens, but white non-citizens really don't have to worry as much about this law than non-white citizens. It makes it more important for non-whites (citizens or not) to run around with identification. An argument can be made that this is an unavoidable, unintended consequence of the law. But the consequences were widely known (or at least widely believed) at time of passage. These were seldom acknowledged except by the most cretinous, but they clearly provided the bill with additional impetus.

      Additionally, the officer must have an explicit reason the believe that the person was in the country illegally.

      That's actually its offensive aspect. If this law isn't going to favor whites, then everyone with a busted taillight has to automatically have their citizenship checked. Either check everybody or nobody. (I vote nobody.) There shouldn't need to be an "explicit reason" needed at all. "Explicit reasons" are automatically suspect. The required level of explicitness called for here is subjective and ill-defined, and is obviously going to be strongly affected by skin color to the benefit of white people. I mean, get real, we can all see that. Even with the purest of pure intentions, cops are still prone to selection bias, because they are human beings, and it is well known that most white people in Arizona tend to be citizens. Who really wants to waste time bugging white people about their citizenship credentials?

      So for example, if someone was riding in a car that was pulled over for a traffic violation, if they sat quietly and the driver had their driver's license, there would be no reason for the officer to ask for their ID under the Arizona law

      OK, I'm having a little problem understanding this scenario. The driver just showed him his driver's license. Why is the officer asking for ID now? Isn't a driver's license ID? What more do you need in your glove compartment, a birth certificate?

      More like, if someone were riding in a car pulled over for a traffic violation- if they sat quietly and the driver did NOT have his driver's license, BUT was a white guy, there will be no explicit reason for the officer to ask for their ID under this law. [Maybe because it's because I'm out of state, this scenario still makes no sense to me because the first thing they ask for is your driver's license, which I think would be ID, and even citizens get arrested for driving without one.]

      ( I have my doubts that the failure of the driver to have their driver's license would be sufficient for the officer to request ID from passengers).

      I have my doubts of your doubts.

      You know you really shouldn't rely on the description of the law by its opponents.

      Actually its literal description is generally not in dispute by either side. A lot of people are arguing whether Arizona laws preempt federal legislation (answer: no). But I think what is really at issue here are two competing judicial philosophies: whether or not a law constitutes a violation of the equal protection clause, when the spirit of the law reflects an obvious intent at time of passage to undermine equal protections based on transparently predictable de facto effects, even though the letter of the law is carefully designed to do no such thing.

    33. Re:The Irony is.... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      Actually I didn't word that last part right. A malicious intent to undermine constitutional protections here isn't required. It's more a question of whether or not a law is constitutional if its passage reflects indifference to unavoidable but predictable side-effects that undermine them, even if the letter of the law and the intent behind the spirit of the law are on their face constitutional. That's a more precise way of putting it.

      Meaning, no matter what our racial impulses are, there's nothing wrong necessarily with a bill designed specifically to target illegal aliens. That's an acceptable intent (no matter how important you think it is and why). But if we all know that this is unavoidably going to affect different races of people differently, undermining constitutional protections, is it enough to argue that isn't what the law is designed or intended to do?

    34. Re:The Irony is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, First, I think using the term 'security' in relation to a TSA checkpoint shows an incredible level of naivete. They exist for theatre and pacification of the ignorant masses (and of course to keep TSA personnel employed) but not in reality for security. Second, its a incredibly valid example of the Federal government's steady push to supercede the rights and responsibilities of the states, just like the Department of Education, FDA, etc... None of these has any basis in the Constitution. There's no reasonable basis for the Federal government to have any involvement in transportation that stays strictly within a state's border.

      Um, what? I don't know about you, but almost every single time I board a plane (and thus go through a TSA security checkpoint), I am planning to cross a state's border while on that plane.

      It's pretty common. Most flights are interstate or international.

    35. Re:The Irony is.... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      which, contrary to popular belief didn't give us the right to bear arms because the founding fathers wanted us to go deer hunting but rather as a last resort to oppose government force.

      Really? where does it say that in the constitution?

      You do realise the second amendment was ratified by a lot of people, who all had their own reasons for believing it to be important, don't you?

    36. Re:The Irony is.... by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      If you are a driver pulled over by the police, your driver's license is sufficient evidence of being in the country legally. Actually, in any case under this law, your driver's license is sufficient evidence of being in the country legally.
      My example was for a person riding in a car, as opposed to driving the car.
      Basically, you are saying that the Arizona law is unconstitutional because Arizona law enforcement officers are bigots.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    37. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Some states require proof of citizenship to obtain a drivers license, Arizona is one of them, some do not.

      How does that work? Do you mean lawful residency, or actual citizenship? Are you saying that an H1B visa holder couldn't drive in Arizona? They don't have citizenship, but they have proper residency papers and will be in the US well past the 30 days (or so) grace period of people that move there. That seems like an absurd requirement in a country where pubic transport sucks. If they require proper residency papers to get a license, then what happens if the H1B overstays his visa and the license is still valid? They could just make them expire when the residency expires, if there's an expiration, but if they don't, then overstays would have a free pass when "wetbacks" don't. And if that's the case, then it seems to solidify my opinion that this is an anti-Mexican issue, and not about "immigration" at all, but fear/hate of brown people who talk funny.

      So, any clue whether Arizona will give a 4 year (or whatever their standard issue date is) license to someone in the US on an H1B visa good for one year?

    38. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1
      Pretty much what xero314 said. Driver's license isn't proof of citizenship per se, but it is valid government issued ID, which is what the AZ law requires. Legal residents can acquire them as well.

      So what does a cop do if the person provides a driver's license but not a green card and the cop suspects the person is not a citizen?

      My guess is that if the person in question has provided valid ID, they are cleared. If the ID comes back as stolen or counterfeit, that's probably one of the things LE looks out for when determining whether someone is legally here or not; they'll dig deeper.

      What would be factors in determining if they think the person pulled over was not a citizen?

      The law specifically rules out race as a factor LE can use in considering someone a possible illegal alien. I don't know exactly what other criteria remain after that, but I would hope that police would be looking for behavior patterns and other discrepancies, like the fake ID scenario above.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    39. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      My sister-in-law had a legal driver's license here long before she was a citizen, so yes, legal residents can get them. I don't know what information is collected at the DMV if the license applicant is foreign, and I don't know if some states expire the license on the exit date of someone's visa (seems like a bad idea; a visa extension would create a lot of extra work renewing the license, etc). Since laws vary from state to state, I suspect that presents a sizeable loophole for H1B holders, people here on student visas, and other similar "overstays".

      In my opinion, that's probably not intentional. I don't think the AZ government is looking to give any illegal a free ride or loophole. It's more likely the result of compromises in crafting the ID portion of the legislation, as well as a fundamental difference between overstays and "wetbacks"; an overstay was at one time legally here. There is a documentation trail somewhere for that person. Someone who crossed illegally never had that paper trail to follow.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    40. Re:The Irony is.... by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      If you can find a quote from one of the drafters or writers specifying that the second amendment pertains to hunting, I'll consider that a valid counterpoint to the grandparent post. Otherwise, his point stands. The second amendment is a means to overthrow tyranny.

    41. Re:The Irony is.... by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I never said it was about hunting. However, I can find a quote or two that suggest that it's purely for national security (including the preamble itself). There are plenty of quotes from various members backing that up. The fact that a couple of the framers also felt it was important for overthrowing the government is largely irrelevant.

    42. Re:The Irony is.... by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1
      OK, for passengers it makes more sense- so a better example of a trigger offense might be something like creating a public disturbance, with no car involved.

      Basically, you are saying that the Arizona law is unconstitutional because Arizona law enforcement officers are bigots.

      Although it's not PC in the U.S. anymore to say anything that sounds bad about soldiers or cops, that doesn't automatically mean they're all supermen. Some are going to be better at this than others.

      The law is unconstitutional because it applies an ill-defined standard for "explicit reason". It's too vague, too broad, and relies too much on a law enforcement officer's discretion. They don't like having to apply discretion; they want explicit instructions like "check everyone's credentials automatically". When they're forced to apply discretion they often get in trouble. And like I said, even if they have the purest of pure intentions, who really wants to waste time bugging white people about their citizenship credentials? I probably wouldn't either if I were a cop. It would be really naive to assume that white and non-white citizens are equally likely to be harassed for citizenship credentials under this law- even by Hispanic police.

    43. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      My point is that using an ID that proves legality at the time of issuance as proof of legal residency when the two are not directly related seems to me to be further proof that this law wasn't about "illegal immigration" (which is legal to enforce) but "anti-Mexican" which should fall afoul of anti-discrimination rules at the federal level. They never ask for anything that proves current legal status of an alien.

    44. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The law specifically rules out race as a factor LE can use in considering someone a possible illegal alien.

      http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf

      There's the bill. Show me where is says race can't be used to determine reasonable suspicion. I glanced and didn't see it.

      I don't know exactly what other criteria remain after that,

      Race doesn't work, but inability to speak as a native isn't race related (but yet could be directly racially related, as long as the officer uses it as such). Or clothing. Or loitering in areas where loitering is legal. things which wouldn't attract attention if they were white, but will be a big issue with the Mexican-looking folk. From the Wikipedia article on it, "In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers." It seems that if Arizona wanted to enforce immigration laws, they'd be looking for visa overstayers as much as those entering illegally. Yet the law seems specifically crafted to address one and only one of the problems while ignoring the other. That wouldn't be bad if they were truthful with their statements about the intentions and effects. But they lie and say "immigration" and mean "Mexicans" and to me, that means it is illegally racist. No one is less qualified to write laws than the lawmakers. They are so worried about impressions that they ignore the substance. At least when industry writes their own laws, it does what they say it will...

    45. Re:The Irony is.... by xero314 · · Score: 1

      I think you are missing the point of the legislation. The purpose is to curtail the illegal immigration of undocumented aliens. It's an important clarification because curtailing people from overstaying their legally issued visas is very easy. When a person who is here on a visa provides law enforcement any legal identification, the agent can check their current legal status. If it turns out that they have over stayed the visa then the agent can take the appropriate action.

      The ability to track a persons legal status in the country is not available on undocumented aliens. The only thing this law is saying is if, in the course of a legal encounter with a person in the state of arizona, an agent has reason to believe that the person may be in violation of federal immigration laws, the agent is authorized to request identification and detain the person until their legal status can be affirmed.

      This law is not specifically targeting Mexicans, other than by the virtue that the vast majority of undocumented aliens in the state of AZ are from the Mexican country (and other Latin American Countries).

    46. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      When a person who is here on a visa provides law enforcement any legal identification, the agent can check their current legal status. If it turns out that they have over stayed the visa then the agent can take the appropriate action.

      I don't believe you. From my reading of the law, presentation of a valid state-issued ID is sufficient to prove residency. From my experience getting an ID, you do not re-present documentation on renewal, and the initial issuance period is longer than almost all visas (if not all visas). There is nothing I know of that correlates a license with legal residency, other than the person was legal when it was issued. And, in any case, that wouldn't be accepted by the feds as sufficient. The feds require the green card. So why doesn't AZ? Are they not allowed ot demand it? Or do they not want to do the job they assert they are doing in verifying lawful residency?

      So anyone that gets a drivers license then overstays, they will be essentially immune to getting caught in AZ unless someone accidentally checks with the feds, because the drivers license is defined by law as demonstrating legal residency.

      This law is not specifically targeting Mexicans, other than by the virtue that the vast majority of undocumented aliens in the state of AZ are from the Mexican country (and other Latin American Countries).

      From the numbers I have seen (a little old, but close enough), there are more people who become "illegal aliens" through visa overstay than crossing without documentation. If they wanted to address illegal immigration, they'd address both, or the one that's the majority of the problem. Instead, they are addressing a visible minority. And doing so with laws that are so racist in appearance that they had to repeatedly assert they aren't racist. If they have to deny it that much, then they are missing the point.

    47. Re:The Irony is.... by xero314 · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand the law and it's intention. The law is not attempting to stop people from overstaying a legal visa. People who come to this country legally through any one of our many immigration options are already in a system which is able to track their status. A person on an H1B for example has their employer well documented, and tracking the person down would be a very simple task. There is no need to add another legislation to handle immigrates that have fallen out of legal status.

      The law is targeting Undocumented Immigrants. Those immigrants are far harder to track and otherwise bring to appropriate justice according to the law.

      Now you can disagree with legislation, and wether or not we should be targeting undocumented aliens, that's certainly your prerogative. To claim that they legislation choice in accepted identification does not address the issue is clearly not the case. To claim that the legislation is racist, is wholly unfounded. Feel free to make points that show otherwise, but I'm certain you will find no mentioning of race in the legislation and no clear allusion to race.

    48. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You misunderstand the law and it's intention.

      You misunderstand my misunderstanding. The law was purposefully sold as an anti-illegal immigration that specifically didn't target Mexicans (in a manner that triggers Shakespeare flashbacks - me thinks the lady doth protest too much), and does, as you explicitly state, target the type of immigration violations that Mexicans are most likely to commit and not the most common types of immigration violations. In addition, the specifically non-Mexican law was sold as being anti-immigration in the manner that will affect Mexicans disproportionately. And the non-official supporters point to it specifically as a good first step in getting Mexicans out. I fully understand, and I think they are liars. My "misunderstanding" is that I'm not agreeing with their stated goals because the law doesn't actually do what they said it would.

      The law is targeting Undocumented Immigrants.

      I thought it was against illegal immigrants. I am not in AZ so I didn't get all the rhetoric. Did they sell it as only against undocumented illegal immigrants and purposefully crafted to not address documented illegal immigrants?

      Now you can disagree with legislation, and wether or not we should be targeting undocumented aliens, that's certainly your prerogative.

      I specifically stated that there are more immigration violations that are from documented than undocumented aliens, so addressing illegal immigration should start with the easier and more common documented cases.

      To claim that they legislation choice in accepted identification does not address the issue is clearly not the case.

      Most immigration violations are from those who are documented, so addressing illegal immigration by accepting that ID will not address the most common version of immigration violations.

      To claim that the legislation is racist, is wholly unfounded.

      Your opinion is unfounded. Something specifically crafted to target Mexicans is, de facto, racist. You've stated it's purposefully crafted to ignore the largest number of immigration violations, and aim for the version that is dominated by Mexicans. And you think that's a random coincidence? You are either stupid or lying. You defend the practice of ignoring the most common immigration violations to go after a smaller category. Why? Even the crafters of the bill expect that it could be considered racist, so to claim that such claims are "unfounded" is, at best, grossly naive, and more likely purposefully deceitful.

      Feel free to make points that show otherwise, but I'm certain you will find no mentioning of race in the legislation and no clear allusion to race.

      So a cop that beats every black person they see and no white people isn't racist unless he calls someone a nigger? They purposefully crafted it with the intent of targeting Mexicans, and said as much in what I've seen about it published. To claim otherwise is either purposefully obtuse (a lie), or indicating that you are so stupid that this is a worthless conversation.

    49. Re:The Irony is.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most likely what you're thinking is the national-level ultra-conservative (US sense) tea party movement, as they're reacting favorably to the new AZ law.

      Polls have consistently shown that most Americans favor the AZ law. Nice try implying that supporters aren't mainstream though. Personally, I think it's sad that the AZ law is necessary. The federal government needs to secure the border. There are now parts of Arizona that are no longer under the control of any US government entity. Instead, they are under the control of violent Mexican drug gangs. The Obama administration, rather than fixing the problem, put up warning signs, warning US citizens away.

      Just to simplify this a little: Violent Mexican gangs are coming into the US and killing US citizens. The Obama administration's response was to put up warning signs and sue Arizona.

    50. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      From my reading of the law, presentation of a valid state-issued ID is sufficient to prove residency.

      IANAL, are you? Could your reading of the law be somewhat misinformed? It seems that they are using the ID as proof of identity, not necessarily proof of legal residency. My impression is that a valid state-issued ID like a driver's license gives the officer something to start a background check with. I doubt it is proof itself of legal status.

      Or do they not want to do the job they assert they are doing in verifying lawful residency?

      What's wrong with accepting valid government issued ID as proof of identity?

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    51. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      I specifically stated that there are more immigration violations that are from documented than undocumented aliens, so addressing illegal immigration should start with the easier and more common documented cases.

      You stated it but you did not offer a citation. I'd be interested in seeing those numbers. I'd also be interested to see where those numbers are drawn from. That might well be true in New York City, but I suspect that AZ is different.

      Your opinion [that the law is not racist] is unfounded.

      You are the one alleging racism. Prove it. Simply having an opinion isn't proof.

      Something specifically crafted to target Mexicans is, de facto, racist.

      It is crafted to target anyone in AZ illegally. Anyone. Ecuadorian, Columbian, Venezuelan, Yemeni, French, whatever. However, with that being said, let's not all act surprised that the border international border AZ has is with Mexico, and that the vast majority of undocumented aliens in AZ are entering from Mexico. Keep in mind, "entering from Mexico" doesn't imply that someone is Mexican. Illegals from other parts of south and central America cross into the US there too.

      If AZ had bordered Canada, and millions of Canadians were migrating into and through AZ, would you argue that the law was racist against white people?

      Furthermore, if the AZ law simply read that "All illegal aliens shall be treated in the same manner that US citizens would be treated in their country, if found there illegally", would you view that as racist? Because I've got to tell you, getting caught illegally in Mexico will get you far harsher treatment there than when their citizens get caught up here.

      To claim otherwise is either purposefully obtuse (a lie), or indicating that you are so stupid that this is a worthless conversation.

      No. To claim otherwise is to disagree with your dearly held opinion. Your statement is a failed attempt to prove your point through simple rhetorical fallacy.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    52. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Show me where is says race can't be used to determine reasonable suspicion. I glanced and didn't see it.

      http://www.keytlaw.com/blog/2010/04/anti-illegal-immigration-law-part-2/

      Are you unable or unwilling to do a simple Google search?

      In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.

      I'd love for you to post the source article for that. I searched and found this:

      In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.

      Did you cherry-pick your numbers just to support your own biases?

      Or clothing. Or loitering ( ... other unfounded assumptions ... )

      The law states that the officer can only do this in conjunction with a legal stop, detention, or arrest. So FIRST the person in question has to break the law, or be suspected of doing so, in which case they have to show ID anyway. Clothing has ZERO to do with it, until AZ brings is the Fashion police to deal with law, order and colors that match.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    53. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1
      From the law (posted earlier in this thread) is "IF THE ENTITY REQUIRES PROOF OF LEGAL PRESENCE IN THE UNITED STATES BEFORE ISSUANCE, ANY VALID UNITED STATES FEDERAL, STATE OR LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUED IDENTIFICATION." That means that AZ will accept an Arizona ID as proof of residency. That's what the law says. That's what the people selling the law said.

      Could your reading of the law be somewhat misinformed?

      Did you read the law before posting that? If you did, then you should have posted from the law something that contradicted me, or would have notices what I posted was in there. If you haven't, then how can you assert that my reading is flawed and yours isn't when you've never read it?

      Or do they not want to do the job they assert they are doing in verifying lawful residency?

      What's wrong with accepting valid government issued ID as proof of identity?

      Are you even reading what I say? They accept it as proof of lawful residency. I never stated anything about it being used properly or improperly as proof of identity. Are you not understanding basic English, or did you realize that you are wrong and I'm right, so you are trying to pester me? Your statements aren't related to what I'm saying at even the most basic level.

    54. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You stated it but you did not offer a citation.

      I did offer a citation.

      I'd be interested in seeing those numbers.

      Then check my citation.

      That might well be true in New York City, but I suspect that AZ is different.

      Wait, are you stating that AZ is tailoring their law towards Mexicans? If so, isn't that racist? I thought you said it wasn't targeting Mexicans.

      If AZ had bordered Canada, and millions of Canadians were migrating into and through AZ, would you argue that the law was racist against white people?

      Yes. Is something done based on race somehow not based on race if that race is "white"? Someone specifically targeting a race with a law is racist, whether that race is Mexican or Canadian (or whatever race you like to associate with either of those groups).

      Furthermore, if the AZ law simply read that "All illegal aliens shall be treated in the same manner that US citizens would be treated in their country, if found there illegally", would you view that as racist?

      What, losing the battle talking about what does exist, so you are making up different unrelated things to talk about? Thanks, but I'll stick to the actual facts, rather than your fabricated tangents. The law was crafted in regards to a specific subset of illegal immigration to target a specific race. The supporters say that. The detractors say that. You are disagreeing with everyone, not just me. When you win their argument against all of them, let me know and I'll concede. Otherwise I'm going to ignore someone who ignores the facts because he finds them inconvenient.

    55. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Are you unable or unwilling to do a simple Google search?

      I am. Are you unable to read? There is nowhere in the law where the "reasonable suspicion" required to hold someone until immigration status states race can't be used. For the trespass law, there is such a thing, but I have so far kept my comments as narrowly focused on the ID portion as possible, and there is absolutely no such constraint.

      I'd love for you to post the source article for that. I searched and found this: In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers [...]

      Ah,so I'm right, and you are wrong, and you don't like that I was right. Are you asserting that in 1994 that more than half of illegal immigrants were not visa overstayers? Otherwise, you've proven me right. And asserted that I'm a bad person for being right. You are wrong. You've never stated anything correct. You don't understand how laws work (if in a trespassing law they aren't allowed to use race, that doesn't mean that clause applies to all other laws ever passed). And yet you sit there lecturing me based on whatever blog happens to say something you agree with, rather than learning for yourself and forming an opinion. Life's much easier when you form your opinion and force it on everything you see, rather than go through life with an open mind.

      The law states that the officer can only do this in conjunction with a legal stop, detention, or arrest.

      The law passed states "lawful contact." If you are going to say what the law states, then say what it says. I have the law http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf as passed, and it doesn't use what you say. However, it does appear that the law was so crappy that between the time it was passed and before enforced, they've already changed it again. So your statements may be correct for AZ law, but are 100% incorrect to the question of SB1070. But then, you state that appearances have nothing to do with legal stops, and that shows that you know nothing about how the law is enforced.

    56. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Could your reading of the law be somewhat misinformed?

      Did you read the law before posting that?

      Yes, but I'm not a lawyer - as I stated earlier. Are you a lawyer? If the answer is no, is it possible that your interpretation of a law is inaccurate? I was asking a very neutral question. Honestly, if you aren't a lawyer, I would guess that your interpretation of the statute is fallible - as is mine.

      Are you not understanding basic English

      Thanks for asking. Yes, I understand English perfectly well. You are not understanding me. You said:

      And, in any case, that [state driver's license] wouldn't be accepted by the feds as sufficient. The feds require the green card. So why doesn't AZ? Are they not allowed ot demand it? Or do they not want to do the job they assert they are doing in verifying lawful residency?

      I responded to "Or do they not want ... residency?" by saying

      What's wrong with accepting valid government issued ID as proof of identity?

      My point in doing so was to highlight that a) the AZ licenses are valid government ID, and b) they were using a more liberal interpretation of "proper identification" than you credit even the federal government with, and leaves a lower legal threshold to meet. That flies in the face of the argument that the law is draconian or severe or discriminatory.

      so you are trying to pester me

      No, and if you feel I am, feel free to disengage. I'm here to ask questions, perhaps learn something. If I wanted to troll, I'd have a far easier time of it that this.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    57. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Honestly, if you aren't a lawyer, I would guess that your interpretation of the statute is fallible - as is mine

      For one, a lawyer wouldn't make statements either of us are. Aside from PR statements, they wouldn't say anything. Why? Because if someone takes it as legal advice, they could be sued. Also, a lawyer doesn't know what it means any better than anyone else. Why? Because everyone, from both sides, expects this to make it to federal court. As such, it is the judges, not the lawyers, that will be deciding this one.

      My point in doing so was to highlight that a) the AZ licenses are valid government ID, and b) they were using a more liberal interpretation of "proper identification" than you credit even the federal government with, and leaves a lower legal threshold to meet. That flies in the face of the argument that the law is draconian or severe or discriminatory.

      I've looked for and was unable to determine if it would or wouldn't be legal for the state to require production of federal ID. Aliens are required to have their ID with them, or they commit a federal misdemeanor. So why, if mimicking federal law, did they not require that federal ID? Is it illegal? Or was there some other reason? And, if it is illegal, then perhaps they used the most restrictive they were allowed to use, not a more permissive, as you suggest.

    58. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      In 1994, more than half of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.

      I noticed that you can't bring yourself to admit that this is the full quote. You can't admit publicly that you got caught cherry-picking half a Wikipedia quote to support your untenable position. You willfully avoided quoting the last half of the sentence which directly refuted your assertion:

      whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.

      Say it. "Less that half." Admit it.

      Are you unable to read? There is nowhere in the law where ... race can't be used.
      ...
      The law passed states "lawful contact." If you are going to say what the law states, then say what it says.

      I did read it. It has been amended; you need to keep up. See here.

      Changes to the bill language will actually remove the word "solely" from the sentence, "The attorney general or county attorney shall not investigate complaints that are based solely on race, color or national origin."

      In other words, as amended, the law states that race cannot be used.

      Another change replaces the phrase "lawful contact" with "lawful stop, detention or arrest" to apparently clarify that officers don't need to question a victim or witness about their legal status.

      Just like I said.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    59. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Then check my citation.

      Where is it? I read back through many of the comments you posted recently, and saw no link to an external site with that information.

      What, losing the battle talking about what does exist, so you are making up different unrelated things to talk about?

      Losing? Hardly. Logic and facts so far are on my side. Regardless, I like looking at things from a different angle. Who says we have to restrict ourselves to the original question?

      I noticed that you didn't bother answering the question though. The answer is that it's pretty ugly for a gringo who gets caught south of the border illegally; certainly worse for him than for a Mexicano north of the border. Where is all your anti-racist outrage at their laws which are demonstrably more draconian?

      Under Mexican law, it is a felony to be an illegal alien in Mexico.

      I seem to remember that you (in one of your other posts) thought that a felony on the second offense was harsh.

      I'll tell you what. Go to http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=14632 and read through it. You are no obligation to believe everything there, or defend it, or attack it, or anything. Just take a few minutes and think about the relative balance of justice that the US is trying to strike with its neighbors, and ask yourself if this AZ law really goes overboard.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    60. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1
      Lawyers spend their years of law school learning not just the law, but the very specific legal meaning of the words the law is made of. They can look at a statute and read more there than you or I could. That was pretty much my whole point about lawyers.

      And, if it is illegal, then perhaps they used the most restrictive they were allowed to use, not a more permissive, as you suggest.

      No. The statute allows for more forms of ID than the federal statute you refer to, therefore it is more liberal rather than restrictive in terms of the ID required.

      IF (set A=(1, 2, 3))
      AND (set B=(set A, 4, 5, 6))
      THEN set B is more inclusive than A.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    61. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Just like I said.

      Like you said, HB1070 was such shit that it was amended before it was ever even enacted. Yes, I fully understand and agree.

    62. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Regardless, I like looking at things from a different angle. Who says we have to restrict ourselves to the original question?

      Feel free to change it all you want, but asserting that I'm not playing your game by not addressing the new tangent unrelated to my points seems silly. I don't care what the penalties are for illegal aliens in Mexico. I only care about whether the Arizona law is unconstitutional, and the expectation is that it will be tested in federal court, so there isn't much need to discuss it at this point. The people with the actual legal authority will determine whether it's illegally racist. Oh, and the Mexican immigration laws look a lot like ours. It's just ours aren't enforced because that's politically inconvenient, not because the laws themselves are weak.

    63. Re:The Irony is.... by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Lawyers spend their years of law school learning not just the law, but the very specific legal meaning of the words the law is made of. They can look at a statute and read more there than you or I could. That was pretty much my whole point about lawyers.

      Oh, then you should have asked whether I've been to law school. That's a separate question, and one which I could have answered "yes" to.

    64. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      Do you practice law? Or did you attend and then decide to do something else? I'm not being snarky; someone close to me went to law school, graduated near the top of her class, and then decided not to become a lawyer, so I know people make these decisions.

      To be frank, you do possess a rather lawyer-like tendency to avoid discussing any points on which your opponent is on solid ground. However, your rhetorical approach is rather simplistic, full of fallacies like ad hominem attacks, false dilemmas, and the like. I can't figure out whether that is part of your approach on purpose, because it is probably effective on many opponents and audiences, or if it is an unintentional defect.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    65. Re:The Irony is.... by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1
      You can't even quote the law correctly, and when faced with the facts you can't even admit an error - or worse, a deliberate lie or omission.

      whereas in 2006, about 45% of illegal immigrants were Visa overstayers.

      Less than half. Admit you cherry picked half that sentence from Wikipedia or GTFO.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
    66. Re:The Irony is.... by xero314 · · Score: 1

      The law... target(s) the type of immigration violations that Mexicans are most likely to commit and not the most common types of immigration violations.

      This does not make it racist. This is no more racist than saying that hate crime laws are racist toward whites, or organized crime laws are racist toward Italians, or that homicide laws are racist toward African-Americans. Just because one group is more likely to commit a certain crime does not mean that a law that targets that crime is inherently racist. But clearly when you go looking for racism, you will find it, wether it is there or not.

      I specifically stated that there are more immigration violations that are from documented than undocumented aliens, so addressing illegal immigration should start with the easier and more common documented cases.

      Yes you have stated this, but that neither makes it true, nor specifically applicable to the state of Arizona. As I have stated many times, there are already multiple ways that law enforcement can address the issue of documented yet illegal immigrants. The fact that we do not enforce the procedures is an issue, but that does not make SB 1070 any less important or viable. Don't confuse the issues.

      You've stated it's purposefully crafted to ignore the largest number of immigration violations, and aim for the version that is dominated by Mexicans.

      So by your reasoning, if I got together with a couple million other people of my race and started violating a certain law, lets say rape, so that my racial group would have a significantly disproportionately higher occurrence of committing this crime, that the legislature would have no right to amend the legal statute pertaining to this crime because it would disproportionately target my race. If that's the case we might as well abolish all laws because I'm willing to bet that there is no crime where in all races violate the law equally. Unlike you, luckily, most americans will not excuse one group from committing crime just because they are the most likely group to be committing them.

      So a cop that beats every black person they see and no white people isn't racist unless he calls someone a nigger?

      I don't recall saying any such thing. It would depend entirely on why the cop was beating people. If it happens that the cop was working a very high crime neighborhood populated entirely by black people and it happens that he was attempting to intercept multiple crimes in progress then it would not be racist in anyway. On the other hand, if he was targeting black people because of their skin color then he certainly is being racist. But in neither case does this have anything to do with the law, unless you have a law that says "cops can beat black people (and only black people) indiscriminately". Cops can be racist regardless of law, last I checked racial profiling was still pretty prolific around the country, but again that has nothing to do with the legislation, it has to do with individual's actions.

      But again I will reiterate, please point out the lines in SB 1070 that are racist in nature, without including your own personal racist bias.

    67. Re:The Irony is.... by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      "I can find a quote or two that suggest that it's purely for national security"

      Please do.

  10. free-born are inhabitants: denizens, not citizens. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    As well,

    a state Citizen is not a subject but the original paramount title of the several nation-states, not the States of the United States because they exist in parallel dis-united to The 48 *u*nited States of America. Thomas Jefferson created that secondary citizen-subject for the rebellion States of the Union that separated from Brittain. Citizen under the Republic-states are more privileged than the nobility in the original estates of nobility because they have supplements exceeding their capacity in limited liability that only work in theory but more expensive obviously.

    That's why there is such a fuss about the 14th Amendment because the United States arrived in 1754 as a moorish nation that was not allowed into America, so the Illuminati Freemasons captured that moorish nation in 1775 and layed it doormant while erecting a non-class non-body politic Style (an idea) known as The United States of America. The United States in that regard has been trying to amend it's own documents to overlay onto the states of America to integrate itself as an acceptable style to diversif citizenry in the administrative districts created by Washington and Indian/Endemic/endian territories (yes, free-born are indian too). That new style didn't encumber the Several nation-states, but those that declared independence as The 48 United States of America which can be named as California (state of America, not CA of the United States) all the way down the list of admitted nationalities in the Government Printing Office that expressly doesn't recognize 14th Amendment citizens of the United States because that is a debt charter of a corporation in the District of Columbia (read Uniform Commercial Code Article 9 "Location of Debtor: United States is located in DC", and USC 28 3002 15(a) where "United States is a federal Corporation").

    I'm free-born as well as a few others. It's hell on earth, because on this continent I can't get a driver license with my family Bible and crest yet I can prove in Statutory law that I can un-drive without a license because "All roads are open as a Matter of Right to Public Vehicular Travel" (but the incompetants attorney COPS and Patrols take me to court once a month for me to school them on the law and THEIR CODE.

  11. He should have kept the paragraph banning slavery by jayveekay · · Score: 3, Insightful

    How would history be different if the paragraph condemning the evil of slavery had been kept in the declaration, instead of being removed?

    From Wikipedia: "although Jefferson had included a paragraph in his initial draft that strongly indicted Britain's role in the slave trade, this was deleted from the final version"

  12. Back in the UK ... by TopSpin · · Score: 3, Informative

    ... citizens stopped being 'subjects' in 1983, apparently.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1981

    --
    Lurking at the bottom of the gravity well, getting old
    1. Re:Back in the UK ... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Considering the direction the UK has taken since then, this does not seem to be entirely a good thing. Maybe it was the proximity to 1984.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    2. Re:Back in the UK ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      ... citizens stopped being 'subjects' in 1983, apparently.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Nationality_Act_1981

      You do realize that the UK still has a King/Queen, right?

  13. Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If he kept in the paragraph banning slavery, we probably would have 13 independent countries rather than any sort of union, especially for the southern states which required the extra labor for agriculture. The founding fathers all had to make compromises in order to get the thing passed, otherwise we would still be a confederacy of independent states. (No, I'm not talking about the CSA, I'm talking about having 13 independent nations with a loose affiliation)

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  14. Re:free-born are inhabitants: denizens, not citize by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 2, Funny

    Slashdot needs a "-1:Tinfoil Hat" mod option.

    --
    This ain't rocket surgery.
  15. Surprising for Jefferson by Improv · · Score: 1

    We'd more expect this kind of thing from Adams, Washington, or others on the Federalist side of the first party system.

    --
    For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
  16. I like it by alonkori · · Score: 1

    very cool!

  17. And in 2010, Citizen is Nixed for Consumer by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And in recent times, citizens are referred to as "consumers"; those who don't consume, effectively don't exist.

    To digress a bit, but related to this topic, many organizations, instead of saying they offer programs / activities / education, now often just use the word "programming" - seems very Orwellian to me.

    Ron

    1. Re:And in 2010, Citizen is Nixed for Consumer by Alomex · · Score: 1

      or taxpayers, which is even worse. It tries to argue that the main relationship between government and subject is tax collection. In a normal State that relationship would be provider of social services and keeper of the public order.

      A consequence of this is the absurd situation of Americans screaming for less taxes (already among lowest in the world) while streets are full of potholes, police can't respond to calls, public schools are a disgrace and the debt is ballooning.

    2. Re:And in 2010, Citizen is Nixed for Consumer by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Taxes aren't low in the US. The US has some of the highest property tax anywhere. The income tax rates are higher than some "socialist countries." And then there's sales taxes and such.

      Taxes are high, and services are much lower. Why? Because the USA has a massive standing military and a massive debt service. Cut those two, and our taxes would be almost half what they are now.

    3. Re:And in 2010, Citizen is Nixed for Consumer by Alomex · · Score: 1

      The income tax rates are higher than some "socialist countries."

      US income tax rates are among the lowest in the world (http://moneycentral.msn.com/content/taxes/p148855.asp). Sales tax is also much lower than in the rest of the world, where it is usually in the 15-25% range.

      Taxes were too high around the time of JFK and they've been come down ever since, starting with Kennedy's reforms. They have been ridiculously low since the mid 80s, but every one likes the sound of the "taxes are too high" meme so it gets passed along, truth be damned.

    4. Re:And in 2010, Citizen is Nixed for Consumer by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Hmm, I look at places like New Zealand and see that they have sales tax about the same as Chicago and a top tax rate under what you'd pay in Chicago as well. And I'd guess the property tax to be between 1/4 and 1/2 Chicago rates. And New Zealand has socialized medicine and such (not to mention heavily subsidized education so that things like med school are under $10k per year, well below the costs in the US).

      Sure, you can cherry pick places with higher taxes. But you can also pick them to be under the US.

    5. Re:And in 2010, Citizen is Nixed for Consumer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it's not Orwellian. It's New-Ageian neuro-linguistic programming (see?) to make you, the subjected consumer, realize you know nothing, are entitled to nothing and should be grateful you're being forced to do a shitty job you'd never have done if you had the choice.
      Oh, how I remember the times (I'm OOOOOOOLLLLLLDDDDD) when work was ranked along with prostitution on a moral scale: selling your body and freedom for a handout. Begging was more honourable. In my opinion, it still is. But the Catholic Church re-wrote those rules when labour was needed in the factories.

    6. Re:And in 2010, Citizen is Nixed for Consumer by Alomex · · Score: 1

      I look at places like New Zealand

      I am sure you are aware that New Zealand is a leader in the low tax movement.

      And New Zealand has socialized medicine and such

      That is part of the consequences of "our taxes are too high" meme. If we all agreed taxes are just right we could concentrate on more effective delivery of tax funded programs. But with the current climate politicians do not benefit from doing this. They just get accused of being pro big-government. So we end up with a low tax rate and dismal provision of services.

    7. Re:And in 2010, Citizen is Nixed for Consumer by toddestan · · Score: 1

      It's also an attempt to marginalize those that don't pay taxes too by implying that they should have no say in the government.

    8. Re:And in 2010, Citizen is Nixed for Consumer by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I am sure you are aware that New Zealand is a leader in the low tax movement.

      No, I wasn't aware that there was such a movement, of that New Zealand was a leader. All I know is taxes are lower there and services better than the USA. Though average wages are also lower, so it's not perfect.

      If we all agreed taxes are just right we could concentrate on more effective delivery of tax funded programs.

      Wouldn't matter. Social Security is the cheapest mutual fund in the USA (about 1/10 the cost of the average equivalent private fund). Yet I see complaints all the time about the inefficiency of it. Not accurate complaints about the lack of investment choices, or the lack of pushing the unfunded pension to a funded pension (over a reasonable time, such as 60 years, not the 0 year plans some have tossed around). But people actually complain about the cost of the bureaucracy when it is significantly less than any private equivalent. So people will never agree to making programs streamlined. Even when they are 10 times better than private firms, they are still assailed on a regular basis.

    9. Re:And in 2010, Citizen is Nixed for Consumer by Alomex · · Score: 1

      So people will never agree to making programs streamlined. Even when they are 10 times better than private firms, they are still assailed on a regular basis.

      They do in Europe and Canada. For example, a couple of years back the Canadian prime minister lowered the sales tax against universal protestations. He was likely motivated by political considerations, yet he picked up no support whatsoever in public polls from that move.

  18. Mountains out of molehills. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2, Informative

    No doubt it was changed because someone pointed out to Jefferson that it was grammatically incorrect. Or rather, simply the incorrect word to use, by definition.

    People at the time were used to referring to themselves as "subjects" of the English king. But if you no longer have a king, then you are no longer a subject. There is no need to assume it is any more complicated than that.

    1. Re:Mountains out of molehills. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      Doggone it, I keep hitting the button too soon. Anyway, it is known that Franklin advised Jefferson on the wording. Likely it was his doing.

    2. Re:Mountains out of molehills. by poopdeville · · Score: 2, Informative

      Just because they aren't subject to a king doesn't mean they couldn't be subjects of a sovereign...

      --
      After all, I am strangely colored.
    3. Re:Mountains out of molehills. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Was watching a mini series earlier today about this time frame. While they gloss over things and a few things are just wrong. The idea was he sat there and worked it out with ben franklin and john adams. They knew they needed to make compromises to get the thing passed (hence the slavery bit being yanked out). However, they were also very careful about how they worded things. They want it to be *VERY* clear what they meant. So there were several revisions of different sentences and words. That subject was turned into citizen is not too surprising. As up until the deceleration they were subjects of the British empire. So that they had to go back and revise their thinking is not too surprising.

    4. Re:Mountains out of molehills. by Volante3192 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That subject was turned into citizen is not too surprising.

      No, the surprising bit was that it was a pretty instantaneous change. You can't exactly write something in ink, give it a formal review and then erase what you want changed; you'd redraft it. With that timeline, the first draft, say, v0.1, would have 'subject' in it. They'd review it and replace it with 'citizen' in v0.2.

      But what happened here was 'subject' was down, in ink, erased (well...wiped off) and replaced with 'citizen' for the v0.1 release.

      That, IMO, makes it much more interesting than simply changes made throughout various drafts: it shows the thought process when it was being written, not after.

  19. Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    ROFL, wow, interesting take... the south favoured slavery, not because they were filthy bigots who felt Africans were inferior, but simply because the poor bastards "required the extra labor for agriculture".

  20. Certain the word is "Subjects" or is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    "that rare first draft of the constitution with the word "suckers" in it."

  21. Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave by Darkness404 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Right, because we all know how the north loved their Africans right? Everyone thought that the African race was inferior to the European races whether in the north, south, in Europe, etc. for quite some time.

    --
    Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
  22. Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave by seyyah · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just this morning I was listening to an interview with a Jefferson historian who explained that Jefferson was unable to find a solution to the slavery issue. He realised that his lack of opposition to slavery would be a negative part of his legacy. For the interested: New Books in History.

  23. Re:free-born are inhabitants: denizens, not citize by jjinco33 · · Score: 1

    That should be "+1: Tinfoil Hat"

    --
    Meh.
  24. You left out the most important label by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In our current society the most important label is "victim." Once you or your somewhat defined demographic group can achieve the official label of victim, the largess of the non-victims (also known as taxpayers) is yours for the grovelling. Keep in mind that both the lawmakers who bestow victimhood and the bureaucracy take their cut from what is extorted from the taxpayers as their part of the squeeze.

    BTW, this isn't limited to the United States. Lots of countries have made official victimhood the most desirable status one can aspire to. Unfortunately, their additional experience with leeching taxpayers to pay their victims has created a dearth of taxpayers. Funny how that happens.

    Cheers,
    Dave

    --
    They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
    Ben
    1. Re:You left out the most important label by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Insightful

      BTW, this isn't limited to the United States. Lots of countries have made official victimhood the most desirable status one can aspire to. Unfortunately, their additional experience with leeching taxpayers to pay their victims has created a dearth of taxpayers. Funny how that happens.

      If you're referring to welfare states, they are a lot closer to financial solvency than the US, which prides itself on its can-do, American dream, pull-youself-up-with-your-own-bootstraps anti-welfare spirit, but is saddled with debt unimaginable in a place like Finland or Sweden.

    2. Re:You left out the most important label by DaveAtFraud · · Score: 1, Troll

      I was thinking of the insolvent welfare states such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

      Quite a bit of how well a welfare state works depends on the deeper ethics of the people involved. The Norse countries tend to have a "work hard and share" ethic that works for them. The countries mentioned above seem to have an ethic of "don't work and take from somebody foolish enough to work". They are now reaping the fruits of that ethic.

      Before wealth can be shared, it must be created. Penalize the creation of wealth through taxation at your own risk. And, yes, the U.S. is now in the same boat thanks to politicians who can't balance a cheque book, let alone understand economics.

      Cheers,
      Dave

      --
      They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
      Ben
    3. Re:You left out the most important label by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Norse countries

      Norse? What is this, the 12th century?

      I was thinking of the insolvent welfare states such as Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.

      The problem of Greece has a lot to do with corruption in the minority of people who work in administration and very little to do with a welfare state, which is pretty negligible, actually. And taxation is fairly low there as well. Looks like you haven't read any more about the problem than the stereotypes posted around news sites recently, which blamed a generally mythical lazy, non-working, early-retiring Greek people for everything.

    4. Re:You left out the most important label by Skreems · · Score: 1

      BTW, this isn't limited to the United States. Lots of countries have made official victimhood the most desirable status one can aspire to. Unfortunately, their additional experience with leeching taxpayers to pay their victims has created a dearth of taxpayers. Funny how that happens.

      You and I have very different definitions of "desirable". I'd much rather have my cushy intellectual job and the piles of cash and comfortable life that comes with it (even after taxes) than collect welfare and live the life that can provide. Hell, even if I was incompetent but could claim minority status and get an equivalent job that way, I'd still rather have the respect I earn by getting where I am on my own merits.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    5. Re:You left out the most important label by unity · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, debt is what happens when you go around empire-building. How many wars are Finland and Sweden involved in? How many military bases worldwide do they have? We're building a billion dollar embassy in England, and the one in Iraq is bigger than the vatican. It isn't the "pull-youself-up-with-your-own-bootstraps anti-welfare spirit" that is killing the american dream. It is that our nations rulers also think they need to rule the world (both parties). All empires come to end; of course the US was never supposed to be an empire.

    6. Re:You left out the most important label by tigersha · · Score: 1

      No, we in Germany are reaping the fruits of that ethic.

      --
      The dangers of excessive individualism are nothing compared to the oppressiveness of excessive collectivism
    7. Re:You left out the most important label by mjwx · · Score: 1

      The problem of Greece has a lot to do with corruption in the minority of people who work in administration and very little to do with a welfare state

      You're half right, it has nothing to do with a "welfare state" and everything to do with industry. You see Greece doesn't really have any to speak of. So they are spending without being able to collect enough money to cover those expenses. Greece has practically no income since the EU economy is down (Greece relied heavily on tourism from the EU, which has largely dissapeared). Places which Americans would refer to as socialist such as Sweden and Norway have several industries that can be relied on, thus are running balenced budgets and not getting heavily into debt.

      Greece is in trouble because of piss-poor economic planning and the problems in the US have the same cause.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    8. Re:You left out the most important label by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course it is my personal opinion, but I think Greek people still is part of the problem. Do you know how many riots happen in greece? I mean, it is hard for any politician (and even harder if you are a corrupt one) to take some decisions that are necesary but unpopular (e.g. raise taxes) when you know that cristmas tree will certainly will get on fire when you do that.

    9. Re:You left out the most important label by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice try but the soverign debt crisis in Greece has much more than "very little" to do with the fact that Greece is a welfare state.

      Ever since entering the EU, the Greek government has borrowed cheaply in order to fund state jobs, pensions, and the like. They have also categorically lied about their deficit spending in this regard by fabricating their accounting numbers.

      Yes, it is has to do with corruption in the Greek government. But it probably has more to do with the fact that dodging the tax man is practically a national sport in Greece. Ever been there and asked for a receipt?

      To claim that there is DEBT CRISIS in Greece because of corruption in a minority of the government is absolutely stupid. It's due to poor fiscal planning by the Greek government in addition to an untimely global banking crisis and recession.

    10. Re:You left out the most important label by jd · · Score: 1

      The pull-yourself-up-by-the-boostraps-can-do is the very attitude that creates empire-building people. Why? Because if you don't =need= other people, then you cannot help but see them as merely using up resources you could be using for yourself. If you have no use for other people, why take the chance that they might try and use you? Ultimately, the only person who needs nothing from any given person is an Emperor.

      To me, the only "correct" solution is a society in which there is a recognized level of inter-dependency (and the welfare network needed to support that inter-dependency). Notice I say inter-dependency. It has to be a two-way street and it has to be done from the position of true equals. (Useful education makes equals. Craft training can make equals. Competition can NEVER CREATE equals, although it is an effective and useful way to test for equality. It is this last point that the US has largely forgotten and Communist countries never learned.)

      A trivial example. The more you =productively= learn, the more cost-effective you will be able to work, thus the more profitable you will be for yourself, your company and your country. Thus, the more the Government invests into productive education and the more companies sponsor students rather than have them take out loans, the richer you and they end up being. By taking care of you, they take care of themselves.

      But the example can be extended. Government costs only so much, if it is efficient. How can Government be efficient? By not having stupid people being elected or hired, for a start. That means that the more Government gets education right, the fewer stupid voters there will be and the fewer stupid candidates there will be. Smaller Government just means concentrating the stupidity, which is never good. Smarter Government is the way to cut costs. Since your wealth is a function of how intelligent or brainless the people you are around are, it is in your interests to make them as brainy as possible.

      There is no society out there that operates off true inter-dependence. It is unclear if such a society would even be stable, as people ARE "pull-yourself-up-by-the-bootstraps"-style greedy. However, if it could be made to work, it would be socially and economically optimal -- at the price that individual freedom would be about as restricted as in Western Europe (which is barely at all, but still far more restricted than the US).

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    11. Re:You left out the most important label by unity · · Score: 1

      I find it immensely saddening that you equate self-reliance with greed. It is a bit ironic because it is the exact opposite. The self-reliant attitude is that you want to work for what you want/need. And the history of the US disagrees with your claims; as the further our country has gone away from its self-reliant attitude, the more wars we have become involved in.

      The government you seem to admire teaches that theft is morally ok, as long as it is the government doing it. I don't need a government to tell me to help somebody out that needs it, I know that because I have morals. You seem to believe we can have a benevolent government, where it does everything good. The sad fact is power corrupts. Government can't be efficient, especially big government. Why? Because it doesn't need to, it can take whatever it wants from you by force.

    12. Re:You left out the most important label by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Greeks aren't lazy. They are too busy owning restaurants in Illinois, Northern Indiana and Southern Michigan

  25. Re:free-born are inhabitants: denizens, not citize by GrumpySteen · · Score: 3, Funny

    And maybe a "+1 Stylish Tinfoil Hat"

  26. Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave by westlake · · Score: 4, Informative

    ROFL, wow, interesting take... the south favoured slavery, not because they were filthy bigots who felt Africans were inferior, but simply because the poor bastards "required the extra labor for agriculture".

    The abolition of slavery moved very slowly even in the North.

    The percentage of colonists - all races and both sexes - who arrived as slaves, prisoners, or more or less voluntarily indentured servants, was around 1/3.

    1777 Vermont Republic (constitution)
    1780 Pennsylvania "An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery" Frees adult children of slaves born after 1780.
    1783 Massachusetts (judicial decision - state constitutional law)
    1783 -1784 New Hampshire, Connecticut, Rhode Island (children of slaves) (statute)
    1799 -1804 New York, New Jersey (children of slaves) (statute)
    1817 New York - emancipation for all slaves on July 4, 1827
    1827 New York Children born of slaves between 1799 and 1827 are indentured until age 25 (females) or age 28 (males)
    1847 Slavery ends in Pennsylvania. Those born before 1780 are freed - perhaps 100 surviving.

    Abolition of slavery timeline

    From the beginning, the plantation South was raising labor-intensive, non-edible, non-perishable, crops for the export trade. It was one of the few sources of hard currency - gold and silver - the colonies possessed. Which matters if you are seriously bent on waging a war against Great Britain.

  27. Re:I shit on Linux users by NovaHorizon · · Score: 2, Funny

    wow, if you're going to troll in this way you could at least have put this in a thread about linux.

  28. Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Just to add to you, ALL thirteen original states were slave states at the time of the revolutionary war. So trying to say that it was only the south that favored slavery is a bit of misinformation.

  29. Now you're being stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "(already among lowest in the world)"

    No, you're wrong:

    Federal Income tax: ~25% of income
    Social Security & Medicare tax: ~7.5% of income plus
    State Tax/Local Tax: varies, but typically 10% of income

    Then of course, you have Sales Tax (typically 7% of all money spent), so most people will be about 4% of income
    Real Estate Tax: Depends on house value, typically %3 of income

    Most people are paying about 50% of their income to taxes of one sort or another, and if you become upper middle class, your tax burden will total about 55-60% of your income

    We are taxed quite heavily. Perhaps you have a special situation (live with parents? Still in school? Make minimum wage) which hides the real tax rate from you.

    1. Re:Now you're being stupid by Volante3192 · · Score: 1

      Pull numbers out of your nether region much?

      http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jun/02/mark-critz/critz-touts-democratic-role-low-taxes-job-creation/

      The Tax Foundation, an independent tax-research group in Washington, has found that the average taxpayer's combined tax burden accounted for 26.6 percent of income in 2009 and 26.9 percent in 2010, the lowest since 1965. And according to the White House's Office of Management and Budget, total federal tax receipts were 14.8 percent of gross domestic product in 2009, the lowest percentage since 1950.

      I bolded combined so you wouldn't come back and go "but that doesn't include state and local taxes!!11"

  30. Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Actually that's correct. White people didn't enslave blacks because they hated them. They did it because they saw that slave labor could make them rich. They started hating blacks *after* enslaving them, as a retroactive moral justification so they wouldn't have to admit they were willing to brutalize people for money.

  31. Organ donation by DragonHawk · · Score: 3, Informative

    "Is it within the realm of possibility that some nobody might be allowed to die so that his organs can be harvested for a prominent somebody?"

    Why stop with prominent somebodies? In "The Jigsaw Man" (spoiler warning on the link), Larry Niven has an interesting take on the potential for unexpected side-effects in a system where organ transplant is perfected but organ supply remains scarce.

    --

    dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
    I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
    1. Re:Organ donation by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I've probably read a dozen books on the subject. I'll have to look at 'The Jigsaw Man'. Niven is a damned good author. ;^)

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  32. Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave by moortak · · Score: 1

    Sure at the beginning of the revolutionary war that was true, but it began to shift pretty soon. In 1780 Massachusetts abolished slavery. So at least one state in the north banned slavery by the time of the revolutionary war's end. Rhode Island had technically banned it in the 1600s, but it continued in practice for quite some time afterword.

    --
    Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
  33. Re:Your choice by FuckingNickName · · Score: 1

    But I'd rather die young than live a long life as a bootlick, and I've no base urge to jack into the gene pool. So it looks like we can agree to disagree!

  34. The US *is* taxing Iraq for the cost of war! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The US *is* taxing Iraq for the cost of war! The oil money is being used to pay for work needed and that work given to US companies without tender.

    It was also the fact that the big corporations (UK companies) were not paying taxes whilst colonial (smaller) companies had to pay. Rather like Microsoft can avoid paying taxes by accounting tricks but Bob's Software Shack cannot and therefore has to take the burden MS avoided.

    1. Re:The US *is* taxing Iraq for the cost of war! by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 1

      The US *is* taxing Iraq for the cost of war! The oil money is being used to pay for work needed and that work given to US companies without tender.

      I was thinking more in terms of an actual tax like "let's tax Iraqi incomes and send the money directly to the IRS" rather than other means of economic exploitation. Regardless, the point still stands. Do you think it is morally right to do that? Do you think the Iraqis are a little pissed off right now because of it?

      It was also the fact that the big corporations (UK companies) were not paying taxes whilst colonial (smaller) companies had to pay. Rather like Microsoft can avoid paying taxes by accounting tricks but Bob's Software Shack cannot and therefore has to take the burden MS avoided.

      Excellent point. Thank you.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  35. Old Norse Sources on Trolls by neoshroom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The Norse countries

    Norse? What is this, the 12th century?

    Old Norse:
    Ráðumk, ér Loddfáfnir, en ú ráð nemir, -
    njóta mundu, ef ú nemr, ér munu góð, ef ú getr -:
    rimr orðum senna skal-at-tu ér við verra mann
    oft inn betri bilar,
    á er inn verri vegr.

    Shakespeare Era Translation:
    I rede thee, Loddfafnir! | and hear thou my rede,--
    Profit thou hast if thou hearest,
    Great thy gain if thou learnest:
    With a worse man speak not | three words in dispute,
    Ill fares the better oft
    When the worse man wields a sword.

    20th Century Translation:
    Even three words of quarrelling you shouldn't have with an inferior.

    21st Century Translation:
    Don't feed trolls.

    Some things never change.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
    1. Re:Old Norse Sources on Trolls by shiftless · · Score: 1

      20th Century Translation:
      Even three words of quarrelling you shouldn't have with an inferior.

      21st Century Translation:
      Don't feed trolls.

      Well, no, that's not the meaning at all. The real 21st century translation is "don't quarrel with an armed man"

  36. Patches by neoshroom · · Score: 1

    when was the last time you wrote code that lasted more than two centuries with less than 30 patches?

    Six thousand years ago.

    I still think making Woman a decedent of the Rib Class was something of a hack.

    --
    Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
  37. Nobody believes that "strong" argument by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Well the argument that it's your body is fairly strong one I think.

    Not in America; we still believe the government has the right to wage the drug war. Ergo, subjects' bodies belong to society, and any say they are given in the matter, is a privilege for which they should be grateful.

    Some minority might disagree with that, but 99% of the voters repeatedly confirm their deep conviction that people are the government's property, over and over and over again.

  38. Re:free-born are inhabitants: denizens, not citize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    thats what they want you to think

  39. Re:free-born are inhabitants: denizens, not citize by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That was awesome!! Reminds me of the time before I quit reading for tax purposes, when RAW showed us our true history. Now, if you please, if you are still alive, tell us about the Federal Reserve, and the Jeffersonian and Washingtonian connection to the evolution and spread on this continent of the Sativan and the Indican (respectively), what their true purposes were, and the reasons for cultivating hybrids. (Now I mod you up +1 informative)

  40. Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave by BetterSense · · Score: 1

    And on the other side of the coin, the later northern opposition to slavery in the frontier states wasn't motivated by human good will, but it was motivated by the "They'll take our jobs!" thinking identical to that applied to modern immigrants. The northern states simply didn't want the friontier states to become slave states because they didn't want to compete with the cheap/free labor there. Most of them still had a rather strong prejudice against blacks and other races, as a non-revisionist historical study will reveal.

    Also, a previous poster asserts that "the south needed slave labor for agriculture". The real situation is more like "the rich and entrenched plantation owners 'needed' slave labor to continue their industrial might". The book Markets and Minorities, which is a great read, argues that the South's economy, as a whole, would have been much better off with free blacks, who would have been able to branch out into other industries and be more productive by far, and that slavery was a detriment to the South's economy at the benefit of a couple industries (kinda like some copyright law now benefits a few industries while hurting the rest of the wider economy).

  41. Re:free-born are inhabitants: denizens, not citize by Lunzo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's what "+1 Insightful" is for.

  42. Good agriculture means sufficiency, true market. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Lesser OP here. Hi there.

    Please remind me what "RAW" is, as I don't have internet access but for studying. Washington and Jefferson were schooled under Adam Wyshaupt the "father" of Illuminati Freemasons who trained all in the Lodge to infiltrate countries and reduce them under international banks. As much as Washington and Jefferson might have done good, they inherintly did more harm like how certain wealthy families cough*R*cough sponsored both the rebelling United Colonies and the Crown. Remember it was G. Washington the military dictator that reduced provinces to debtor franchises when they commercially payed-off all their debts to separate and then he would arrive to pick a fight while slandering and libelling them as being "rebels" and such when they were just a people that payed-off their mortgages to found their own country and associations. Jefferson was likewise a dictatorial bastard, where he was known to order the flogging of anyone who didn't stand and salute when he arrived. So much has been taken out of history books that the Crown of England was basically fought over a 10% Biblical temple-tax yet the United States in the hands of Illuminati Freemasonry operated to charge the colonists well-over 30% tax.

    It terms of agriculture, the flax fibers in plants was the goal of transplanting so many non-native plants to venture into renewable merchantile farming and such. A fine comparison of quality would be if you even compare the cotton-grown fabric fibers of "civilian" clothes to that of a military or army surplus store stocking the canvas/cannabis clothes than you'll see the rendition that one pair of clothes will rot off your back while the latter will only tear with a matching blood-stain from a bullet that they are so well-made. So many countries have tried to sustain their economies by selling renewable low-quality products, and it has only been the goal to slow progress of improvement to literally milk the value of all exchanges over a long time to keep trade constant for the dominating body-politic to collect the most revenue. There hasn't been any progress for hundreds of years in this regard. The renewable resource of today is computing equipment and plastics, yet this is all produced mainly by slave-countries directed by international jews to destroy free and independent countries. A good example of this is when that federal corporation "United States" in Washgton DC as animated by representatives of the United States in Congress were to declare bankruptcy and liquidate to re-position Germany as the center of the world in all enlightenment under a "Fuhrer" who was half-german and 1/4 African and 1/4 jewish known as Adolf Hitler of Austria who was hired by the Crown of England to reduce Germany to rubble while pushing the Canaanite Berber/Arab jews at Palestine. "The Great Depression" was nothing more than a Resource Drive to build railroads on Germany within 10 years of this all happening as World War 2. When all the spare metals in America were collected, then the Army swooped-in with a War Drive that inevitably stole Americans' farm equipment and cooking utensils. Truly sad.

    All the wars since WW1 and WW2 have had a dual purpose of destroying America economies while building bad fame against the nation states. There is so much independent "rebellious" free trade among the people that U.S. Government (a corporation that doesn't govern but re-posesses other corporations it bankrupts or seizes in court) can't keep it all under raps like how India can't regulate it's huge population. There is no such thing as free trade on paper under government pervue, just like there is no such thing as an emergency or a natural disaster: it's all a legislative power-grab. There is nothing new under the son. History repeats itself, only this time everyone is waking-up faster than a Bittorrent seed and P2P network to stop using the government-issued paper currency and registering their children to be brainwashed by useless imperfect "Schooling" because it only produces timid gen

  43. Re:He should have kept the paragraph banning slave by khallow · · Score: 1

    How would history be different if the paragraph condemning the evil of slavery had been kept in the declaration, instead of being removed?

    I bet that would work now too! Just put together a declaration that has all your favorite stuff in it, we'll sign it, and the world will be a vastly better place! I wonder why no one has thought of this before?

  44. Probably when... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It starts to annoy Cowboy Neal.