IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

07/04/2008 5:19 am
Rate this Blog
Yours:

Total:

Rated 4 times.
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. 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.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. 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 refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their Public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative Powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws of Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migration hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary Powers.

He has made judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our People, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended legislation:

For quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

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

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with Power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large armies of foreign mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy of the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free People.

Nor have We been wanting in attention to our Brittish brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.
matt.jpgMatt - Ombudsman
07/04/2008 @ 05:34:44 AM
 Quote this comment
Follow along as NPR reads the Declaration of Independence.

Also:

United States Declaration of Independence - Wikipedia
The Charters of Freedom: The Declaration - National Archives
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this 3 times, last at 07/04/2008 7:35:55 am
matt.jpgMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
07/04/2008 @ 05:42:04 AM
 Quote this comment
And for good measure - The Lee Resolution. Proposed on June 7, 1776. Approved on July 2, 1776:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt perfected this at 07/04/2008 5:42:41 am
vignette.bmpCarlos44ec - A Vote for me is a Vote against Terrorism! ...or atleast just wasted.
07/04/2008 @ 10:20:41 AM
 Quote this comment
Happy Birthday, USA!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8781 Posts
07/05/2008 @ 12:29:46 PM
 Quote this comment
http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2008/07/dayintech_0704

1776: The Declaration of Independence is signed. It will take 117 years before someone gets around to saying, "Hey, maybe we should
preserve this thing."

During the Revolutionary War, the Declaration of Independence was rolled up and toted around like a Thomas Bros. map, although, given the vicissitudes of war, that's perhaps understandable. Less understandable is what came later. Water was spilled on it while it was being copied in 1823. Then it was tacked up on the wall at the U.S. Patent Office for about 40 years, where it was subjected to a strong northern light.

Finally, the suggestion was made in 1903 that maybe it shouldn't be exposed to sunlight and, oh, by the way, maybe it should be kept dry, too. The latter turned out to be a bad idea because the Declaration, which was written on parchment, actually needs a bit of moisture to keep from cracking.

It wasn't until 1951 that the first modern preservation efforts began.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 2680 Posts
07/05/2008 @ 01:06:50 PM
 Quote this comment
Am I wrong, or is 1903 actually 127 years after 1776?

Or did they really mean something happened in 1893 but they just didn't mention it?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8781 Posts
07/06/2008 @ 01:00:08 AM
 Quote this comment
It's a little discussed fact that the 1810's were actually skipped.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
07/06/2008 @ 07:39:40 AM
 Quote this comment
The war of 1812 never happened. It was just au cover-up by historians so people would think that the 1810s actually happened.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jon.jpgJon - 1000000 posts (and counting!)
07/07/2008 @ 05:24:06 PM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 07/06/2008 @ 07:39:40 AM
The war of 1812 never happened. It was just au cover-up by historians so people would think that the 1810s actually happened.


Au coverup! Those sneaky french!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
flower .jpgPackOne - 1520 Posts
07/07/2008 @ 07:39:48 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt is cool.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - On your mark...get set...Terrible!
07/08/2008 @ 07:20:02 AM
 Quote this comment
and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

This is an interesting line by itself, but it seems particularly relavent when you look at some of the things that have taken place in recent history (Nazi Germany, pre 9/11 Iraq, Cuba). It's interesting because I just don't think Americans would ever let something like a dictatorial leader happen without doing something about it. No matter how much you may dislike G.W. Bush, he is still a democratic president (in that he is elected by the people) in a democratic country who has to answer to among others, 535 elected officials whom are also elected by the people. I cherish my freedom to vote for our leader, but also to have the freedom to dislike the one elected and be a patriot because of it, and according to the founding fathers who were the ultimate dissenters, dissent is indeed patriotic. In all my readings about World War II (which is pretty much all I read about), it is simply amazing what Americans are willing to do to protect this freedom, and in re-reading this document, it is what makes me darn proud to be an American.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
hoochpage.JPGSarah - So's your face
07/08/2008 @ 08:05:17 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - 07/08/2008 @ 07:20:02 AM
No matter how much you may dislike G.W. Bush, he is still a democratic president (in that he is elected by the people)


I beg to differ. He wasn't really elected by the people, I think some of his cronies just kind of took the presidency away from the guy who was voted in.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 2 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8781 Posts
07/08/2008 @ 09:15:44 AM
 Quote this comment
Haliburton!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3183 Posts
07/04/2009 @ 10:48:32 PM
 Quote this comment
Here is this year's link to NPR's reading of the Declaration of Independence.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=106168024&ps=bb3
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt perfected this 2 times, last at 07/05/2009 12:02:57 am
newalex.jpgAlex - But let history remember, that as free men, we chose to make it so!
07/10/2009 @ 10:09:24 PM
 Quote this comment
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090711/ap_on_re_us/us_upside_down_flag
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8781 Posts
07/10/2009 @ 10:31:33 PM
 Quote this comment
Ah America, where we believe in free speech, as long as no one could possibly be offended by it.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3183 Posts
07/10/2009 @ 10:40:06 PM
 Quote this comment
What's kind of sad is that even with crap like this, our speech is still much more free than in other western democracies. Well, at least so far, that is.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
reign_of_fire_150.jpgMicah - 584 Posts
07/11/2009 @ 01:44:36 AM
 Quote this comment
Holy crap...look at the house I lived in during college...send me to prison and call the ACLU

IMG_0055%20%28Medium%29.jpg
From Untitled Album
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
07/11/2009 @ 02:32:25 AM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - Yesterday @ 10:40:06 PM
What's kind of sad is that even with crap like this, our speech is still much more free than in other western democracies. Well, at least so far, that is.


Well, I mean, there are debates to be had on the topic. You have the right to say what you want, but at some point your saying something starts infringing on other people's rights. You're allowed to call me a jackass. You're allowed to tease me, to a point. At the point the teasing becomes tormenting, or threatening? I'd say that's open for discussion. It's a fuzzy line, so any attempts to make laws about it almost always end up going too far in other unintended ways.

The problem with free speech rights things like this we hear about is almost never with the government, at least in any real sense. It's not like the Governor signed off on this. It's a handful of cops and an idiot local politician, who may only have been asked about it after the fact anyway, and may have just been stating his opinion, and not commenting at all on what should and shouldn't actually be allowed. They weren't acting in any official sense. To call this an example of a "tyrannical government," is just as much of an over reaction.

The problem is really that people forget that the reason we need free speech laws is to protect the stuff no one wants to hear. If something is popular, why would you need something guaranteeing the right to say it? Like it or not the KKK isn't an entity to whom the free speech laws shouldn't apply because they're just too far out of the norm, and their speech is inflammatory, they are exactly the reason we have free speech laws.

Lots of people think that hate crime laws butt up against free speech. There's an awful lot of FUD out there about it, so it's hard to pin down if it's true or not, but basically it supposedly comes down to that if, for example, you were leading a Klan rally, and riled up the crowd about killing black people. Then, you went home, and people in the crowd went and killed 5 black guys, that you could get in trouble, even if you didn't do anything directly. Personally I think that's a much grayer area than people are making it out to be. I certainly understand the concerns that such laws would entrap people they never intended to. However, I disagree with the general notion that there's no way that someone who just did the talking should ever get in trouble. (Charles Manson never actually killed anyone either. However he did pick the victims, and give explicit instructions on what should be done. So that would be a very clear case where "just talking" isn't that much different than actually doing it. In the KKK example, it would be less obvious, but still debatable. If instead of directly talking about killing black people he just talked about how awful black people are then that would be even less obvious, especially given that they all talk like that all the time, so why, since some other people took it a bit too far this one time, should that one guy be punished?) The problem is that if you define something, you catch people by the letter of the law it didn't mean to catch, and if you leave something ambiguous it gets shoved places it was really never meant to go.

Hate crime laws are definitely full of problems. It's a hard to define area, but to claim that the issue is a complete non-starter is just not true, in my opinion. If a white guy kills a black guy because he caught him in bed with his wife, race played no part, so yes, it would be wrong to tack on hate crime charges. However, there is some merit to tacking on additional charges if someone admits they killed a perfect stranger just because they were black/gay/jewish/white/etc because it speaks to their stability, and their belonging in mixed society, that that was motive enough for them.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 3 times, last at 07/11/2009 2:46:58 am
scott.jpgScott - If you aren't enough without it, you'll never be enough with it.
07/11/2009 @ 08:03:24 AM
 Quote this comment
This post took a weird turn. I actually think free speech was put in not to protect people from other people, but to protect people from the government, specifically people speaking out about said government. Speech about killing people of any race should not be protected. Shouting "fire" in a crowded room room was not the type of speech the founders had intended to protect.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - As Seen On The Internet
07/11/2009 @ 08:57:03 AM
 Quote this comment
Scott Wrote - Today @ 08:03:24 AM
I actually think free speech was put in not to protect people from other people, but to protect people from the government


Well, duh. emoticonemoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
newalex.jpgAlex - 3609 Posts
07/11/2009 @ 10:16:35 AM
 Quote this comment
As long as we're on the topic... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090711/ap_on_go_co/us_domestic_surveillance
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
07/12/2009 @ 07:15:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:32:25 AM
Matt Wrote - 07/10/2009 @ 10:40:06 PM
What's kind of sad is that even with crap like this, our speech is still much more free than in other western democracies. Well, at least so far, that is.


Well, I mean, there are debates to be had on the topic. You have the right to say what you want, but at some point your saying something starts infringing on other people's rights. You're allowed to call me a jackass. You're allowed to tease me, to a point. At the point the teasing becomes tormenting, or threatening? I'd say that's open for discussion. It's a fuzzy line, so any attempts to make laws about it almost always end up going too far in other unintended ways.


I'm not really sure what this (or most of the rest of your post) has to do with my comment, but whatever.

Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:32:25 AM
The problem with free speech rights things like this we hear about is almost never with the government, at least in any real sense. It's not like the Governor signed off on this. It's a handful of cops and an idiot local politician, who may only have been asked about it after the fact anyway, and may have just been stating his opinion, and not commenting at all on what should and shouldn't actually be allowed. They weren't acting in any official sense. To call this an example of a "tyrannical government," is just as much of an over reaction.


That was sort of my point. While there are certainly areas where we could do better in regards to free speech, we're still much better off than other "similar" countries. In this case it was some locals acting because some guy "offended" others. It was quickly rectified (as much as it could be) and he'll probably end up suing the city for their transgressions. Meanwhile, in Canada, if you say or write something that offends someone, you could end up in front of a Human Rights Commission, which is basically a kangaroo court where truth is not a defense and where a defendant can hardly expect what we would consider a fair trial.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Matt perfected this at 07/12/2009 7:18:26 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - 8781 Posts
07/12/2009 @ 07:33:59 PM
 Quote this comment
It was just a semi related addition.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - 3183 Posts
07/12/2009 @ 08:42:43 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:32:25 AM
The problem is really that people forget that the reason we need free speech laws is to protect the stuff no one wants to hear. If something is popular, why would you need something guaranteeing the right to say it? Like it or not the KKK isn't an entity to whom the free speech laws shouldn't apply because they're just too far out of the norm, and their speech is inflammatory, they are exactly the reason we have free speech laws.


I don't know, I think the exact reason we have free speech protection is so that we can say stuff the government doesn't want to hear, whether it is popular or not. Jonah Goldberg can say it better than I can, so:

"The more overtly political the speech is, the more protected it must be. The First Amendment was not intended to protect pornographers, strippers or the subsidies of avant-garde artistes who think the state should help defray the costs of homoerotica and sacrilegious art. This isn’t to say that “artistic” expression doesn’t deserve some protection, but come on. Our free-speech rights were enshrined in the Constitution to guarantee private citizens — rich and poor alike — the right to criticize government without fear of retribution."

"For a long time, we concluded the best way to protect political speech was to defend other forms of expression — commercial, artistic, and just plain wacky — so as to make sure that our core right to political speech was kept safe. Like establishing outposts in hostile territory, we safeguarded the outer boundaries of acceptable expression to keep the more important home fire of political speech burning freely."

A quick aside here, but he also goes on to make a good point, I think, about how we have gotten to a point now where we seem to care more about protecting the fringe stuff and care less about our political speech being curbed (e.g. McCain-Feingold).


Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:32:25 AM
Lots of people think that hate crime laws butt up against free speech. There's an awful lot of FUD out there about it, so it's hard to pin down if it's true or not, but basically it supposedly comes down to that if, for example, you were leading a Klan rally, and riled up the crowd about killing black people. Then, you went home, and people in the crowd went and killed 5 black guys, that you could get in trouble, even if you didn't do anything directly.


I guess I could be mistaken, but I don't think that's what hate crime laws "basically" come down to at all. From my understanding (and Wikipedia seem to back me up), what hate crime laws do is allow for increased penalties for crimes in which race played a part. I'm pretty sure that incitement to violence is/was a restriction on free speech regardless of any hate crime law, and people could be charged for things like you describe (though I think in those types of cases it's difficult to prove whether the person "crossed the line" into unprotected speech). Now, maybe some hate crime law I'm not aware of allowed for easier prosecution of the situation you described, but that would just be another example of why many people disagree with hate crime laws. People could commit the same crime, but if the victim was a member of a protected group, the penalties would be different. In essence, you are treating defendants unequally under the law, which is fundamentally wrong. That doesn't even touch the facts that these laws get pretty close to, in effect, punishing "thought crimes" and the fact that protected groups can use threat of hate crime prosecution to try and avoid legitimate criticism.

Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 02:32:25 AM
Hate crime laws are definitely full of problems. It's a hard to define area, but to claim that the issue is a complete non-starter is just not true, in my opinion. If a white guy kills a black guy because he caught him in bed with his wife, race played no part, so yes, it would be wrong to tack on hate crime charges. However, there is some merit to tacking on additional charges if someone admits they killed a perfect stranger just because they were black/gay/jewish/white/etc because it speaks to their stability, and their belonging in mixed society, that that was motive enough for them.


The problems come though, when, in the first example, the prosecutors threaten or actually tack on hate charges in order to get more leverage for a plea bargain, make the defendant look bad, etc. Not to mention that the same prosecutor may be pressured into adding the charges after the case becomes a huge racial issue in the media (whether it deserves to be or not).

As for the second case, I would think that any cold blooded murder speaks to the stability of the perpetrator and their ability to belong in society, mixed or not. Murder is murder, is it really any worse that the killer did it because he didn't like blacks/gays/etc. than if he did it because the victim owed him money/pissed him off in general/etc.?
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 07/12/2009 8:43:34 pm
jeremy.jpgJeremy - The pig says "My wife is a slut?"
07/12/2009 @ 11:25:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Well, it wasn't my intention to defend, or get into every aspect of hate crimes, or what free speech is really meant to entail. If you asked someone who believes that the government is "taking away our rights to free speech" for an example, they immediately go to hate crime laws as the prime example. Most people completely blow off the notion, but I don't think the idea behind it is a complete non-starter.

Matt Wrote - Today @ 08:42:43 PM
As for the second case, I would think that any cold blooded murder speaks to the stability of the perpetrator and their ability to belong in society, mixed or not. Murder is murder, is it really any worse that the killer did it because he didn't like blacks/gays/etc. than if he did it because the victim owed him money/pissed him off in general/etc.?


Yes, it's much (1000 fold?) worse. You're getting into serial killer territory there. Killing a person you don't know, who did nothing to you, who just happened to be the next person you saw who met the description of the person you want to target takes a much more disturbed, and probably less rehabilitateable, mind than someone who killed someone in an argument. The idea with these people is to make the whole group they don't like scared. A person who feels wronged enough by someone who owes them money to kill them is dangerous, and probably someone you wouldn't want at the family reunion. A person who feels so wronged by an entire population that they resort to killing random people from said group, is deranged on a whole other level.

Like I said, in practice it's yet another example of an ill-defined boondoggle. I doubt you'd find any support of it, outside of the people who are contractually obligated to say otherwise. However, I think it's a mistake to blow the whole thing off, and not note the underlying notions that were trying to be addressed.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Ombudsman
07/12/2009 @ 11:57:02 PM
 Quote this comment
Jeremy Wrote - Yesterday @ 11:25:10 PM
Like I said, in practice it's yet another example of an ill-defined boondoggle. I doubt you'd find any support of it, outside of the people who are contractually obligated to say otherwise. However, I think it's a mistake to blow the whole thing off, and not note the underlying notions that were trying to be addressed.


So, instead of just saying, "That's a bad idea", we're supposed to say, "That's a bad idea, but they meant well"? emoticon
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
Matt edited this 2 times, last at 07/13/2009 12:09:33 am
fry6beeu9.jpgJeremy - 8781 Posts
07/13/2009 @ 12:20:46 AM
 Quote this comment
No, people just shouldn't talk about it like even discussing the issue is out of bounds.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Ombudsman
07/13/2009 @ 05:36:53 AM
 Quote this comment
What if, in a discussion about gun violence, someone brought up the idea to enact a law banning all guns, no exceptions, in order to reduce crime? Shouldn't that really be treated as a non-starter, on account of it being an undue government intrusion, most likely ineffective, and plainly unconstitutional? Now, the constitutional questions aren't as clear cut in the hate crimes case, but they are still there. I don't think its out of the mainstream to view them as affronts to free speech, the free excercise of religion, and equality under the law; or to think that they would constitute going someplace most people think the government shouldn't go (i.e., thought police). Not to mention the fact that they probably wouldn't even make damn bit of difference (they might even make things worse).

So, if somebody states that hate crime laws are evil, Orwellian, and incompatible with basic American values (and thus unworthy of discussion); I might think that that person is rude, overly blunt, etc., but I wouldn't really disagree with the statement too much.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
jeremy.jpgJeremy - Robots don't say 'ye'
07/13/2009 @ 11:11:41 AM
 Quote this comment
Well, I'm not sure there's any parallels between hate crime laws and banning all guns. I think the closer thing to what I'm talking about would be people talking about the gun issue like even having a conversation setting any limits anywhere, under any scenario, makes you a radical left wing nut in support of "letting the government trample on the constitution." However, if asked if we should be allowed to have private nuclear arsenals, most people would say no, so clearly once you peel back the paranoid delusions about tyranny and ulterior agendas, most people would agree that there is an issue there that needs some sort of discussion about addressing, I think the same thing applies here.

Edit: It's perfectly ok to be against hate crime laws, and especially hate speech laws. It just irks me when I read things like "There's no possible motive for hate crime laws, other then liberals pandering to minorities," or something along those lines. My beef is not about being against them, it's about being dismissive of them, if that makes any sense. As always, were more or less getting into semantics here.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Jeremy screwed with this 4 times, last at 07/13/2009 11:41:10 am
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3183 Posts
07/04/2010 @ 01:50:01 AM
 Quote this comment
The 2010 edition of NPR reading the Declaration Of Independence:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128242656&ps=cprs
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
sarah.jpgSarah - 3884 Posts
07/04/2010 @ 10:51:37 AM
 Quote this comment
Knew I'd find this here already. Happy and safe 4th to everyone.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
face.bmpCarlos44ec - 2078 Posts
07/06/2010 @ 03:42:10 PM
 Quote this comment
Sarah Wrote - 07/04/2010 @ 10:51:37 AM
Knew I'd find this here already. Happy and safe 4th to everyone.


It was safe for me, I only got minor firework/sun burns and only got nibbled on by skeeters and tiny fishes!
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Ombudsman
07/04/2011 @ 03:56:39 AM
 Quote this comment
No Juan Williams anymore, but I suppose I'll still link to it.

Your 2011 edition:

http://www.npr.org/2011/07/04/137497061/reading-the-declaration-of-independence-aloud?ps=cprs
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Washington Bureau Chief
07/04/2012 @ 09:40:16 AM
 Quote this comment
2012 edition:

http://www.npr.org/2012/07/04/156191910/stated-the-declaration-of-independence
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6208 Posts
07/04/2012 @ 12:54:27 PM
 Quote this comment
The declaration was approved on July 4th, but the resolution to declare the colonies free and independent states was passed on July 2nd. So the real momentous day was really monday.

Anyway, if you haven't already done so, watch John Adams, at least the 2nd episode. It is the best depiction I've seen of the debate that lead up to the passing of the resolution of independence.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3183 Posts
07/04/2012 @ 02:22:05 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - 07/04/2008 @ 05:42:04 AM
And for good measure - The Lee Resolution. Proposed on June 7, 1776. Approved on July 2, 1776:

Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.

That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances.

That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.

Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6208 Posts
07/05/2012 @ 09:17:37 AM
 Quote this comment
Ah, I did not notice that before. Well, you just confirmed my side note. "The Lee Resolution" doesn't quite have the same emotional ring to it as does "the Declaration of Independence". Even though there would be no declaration if not for the Resolution. Both are equally important, in my opinion, and should be hailed as such. And besides, neither has any meaning without the victory in the War. So that's pretty important too. It's sad that we don't celebrate the signing of the Treaty of Paris, on September 3, 1783. Although I suppose the formality of something like a treaty that ends a war is just that, a formality, while the intent of the whole endeavor is still probably summed up better by the document that started it all. In a sense, the Lee Resolution is sort of like the last final exam, the Declaration of Independence is the ultimate commencement speech, and the treaty of Paris is like the first real job America got after hitting the pavement for 7 years. Of course, the Constitution is like the better, dream-like job that America got after realizing that the first 5 years post-war were kind of going nowhere.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3183 Posts
07/04/2013 @ 10:11:59 PM
 Quote this comment
Changing things up a bit this year, but here you go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uE-tqe0xsQ
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3183 Posts
07/05/2013 @ 12:53:36 AM
 Quote this comment
From Calvin Coolidge's Speech on the Occasion of the 150th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (1926):

About the Declaration there is a finality that is exceedingly restful. It is often asserted that the world has made a great deal of progress since 1776, that we have had new thoughts and new experiences which have given us a great advance over the people of that day, and that we may therefore very well discard their conclusions for something more modern. But that reasoning can not be applied to this great charter. If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth or their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction can not lay claim to progress. They are reactionary. Their ideas are not more modern, but more ancient, than those of the Revolutionary fathers.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt screwed with this at 07/05/2013 12:54:13 am
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3183 Posts
07/04/2014 @ 11:12:52 PM
 Quote this comment
Nutcan may be dead, but Thomas Jefferson still survives.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3183 Posts
07/04/2015 @ 05:52:45 AM
 Quote this comment
http://www.npr.org/2015/07/03/419692406/the-annual-reading-of-the-declaration-of-independence
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Matt edited this at 07/04/2016 2:36:41 pm
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - 3183 Posts
07/04/2016 @ 02:37:19 PM
 Quote this comment
2016 Edition:

http://www.npr.org/2016/07/04/483757766/the-declaration-of-independence-240-years-later
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
thumbnailCAW1I0O3.gifMatt - Nutcan.com's MBL
07/04/2017 @ 10:59:03 AM
 Quote this comment
2017 edition:

http://www.npr.org/2017/07/04/534096579/a-july-4th-tradition-the-declaration-of-independence-read-aloud
Rate this comment
Yours:

Total:

Rated 1 times.
scott.jpgScott - 6208 Posts
07/05/2017 @ 04:14:16 PM
 Quote this comment
Matt Wrote - 07/04/2014 @ 11:12:52 PM
Nutcan may be dead, but Thomas Jefferson still survives.
I must have missed this Nutcan reference in David McCullough's biography of John Adams. (yes, I'm quoting a comment from 3 years ago).
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
matt.jpgMatt - Ombudsman
08/08/2017 @ 09:39:05 PM
 Quote this comment
It's in the revised edition.
Rate this comment
Yours:

Rated 0 times.
Leave a Comment of your very own
Name:
Comment:
Verify this code
Verify the Code in this box, or sign in, to post a comment.
click me!
There's an emoticon for how you feel!
click me!
My Files
Sign up, or login, to be able to upload files for Nutcan.com users to see.