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."
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.
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.
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.
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
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"
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
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
A latent existence
"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?