You can always count on a liberal to focus on what's important

I hate to do anything that might give traffic, however little, to a progressive, but some dipstick at Slate is practically crying out for me to illustrate his dipstickiness. The dude devotes a whole bunch of valuable space to analyzing, mathematically, whether John Hancock's signature on the Declaration of Independence is too big. He goes deep into square inches, who signed at the same time, how many people were expected to eventually sign and a  whole bunch of other bullshit analysis of the space available versus what happens if everybody's signature is as big as Hancock's (hint: bigger paper needed).  For some strange reason, the Slate puke considers only two factors in deciding whether Hancock's signature is "too big:"

In trying to determine whether John Hancock’s signature was too big, there are two important questions we need to address. In what order did the men sign the document? And how many men did Hancock think would ultimately sign?

As president of the Continental Congress, Hancock signed first, historians agree. But neither of the Slate puke's questions actually addresses the issue. The space available and how many people might be signing in that space were irrelevant to Hancock. The Slate puke simply misses the mark, and never considers that there might be other reasons for Hancock to go with such a large John Hancock:

Few signatures have left such an indelible mark in American history. But when John Hancock
signed his name on the Declaration of Independence, he did so in such flamboyant style as if to make his signature easily the most recognizable of all. Although stories of Hancock’s action in Philadelphia’s Independence Hall in the summer of 1776 cannot be corroborated, some accounts claim that after he signed the document the delegate from Massachusetts commented that “the British ministry can read that name without spectacles.” Another report indicates that Hancock proudly declared that “There, I guess King George will be able to read that!”

Not clear why the Slate puke didn't hear that story in grade school, or why he ignored it if he heard it, but it seems clear that the Slate puke overlooked the obvious: Hancock was making a statement. Obviously he was successful -- we're still talking about it, even if some of us miss the point.  No wonder Jeff Bezos didn't buy the Washington Post-owned Slate when he bought The Washington Post.

The Slate analysis, though, is typical of a liberal. Was the space allocation fair? Was the calculation of space-per-signature correct? Strictly PC and bureaucratic considerations, with no consideration of the human element. John Hancock didn't give a damn how many people would have to cram in their signatures after his; he wanted it big and bold and unmistakable. After all, Hancock is the only one who signed the actual original of the Declaration. He wasn't worried about who came after, he was making a statement directed at the parties toward whom the Declaration was aimed. Whether he made any bold statements about King George III being able to read it is irrelevant -- his signature and its size say it all: Eff You, King George. So no, it wasn't too big, and it has nothing to do with how much room was available on the paper.