A Box of Signs

1) IF government grants rights, then:

a) what makes those granted rights different from privileges?

b) could any act of government ever be unjust? e.g. if Hitler didn't violate pre-existing rights of the 13 million minorities and dissidents he slaughtered, but actually *took their rights away*, then wouldn't that justify what he did? After all, if he took their rights away, then they have none, and he isn't violating any rights by killing them.

2) IF people are born with rights and government is based on these rights, then:

How can government rightfully do anything that individuals don't have the right to do? I.e. how can the people delegate a power to government if they never had the right to exercise that power individually in the first place?

What do you know about it?

I know several black people who dislike B.O. because of what he DOES...so what about them? Are they racists too?

Or is it just the fact that I am white that leaves me no alternative between Obama worship and white supremacism?

Personally I'm not a fan of either of the two.

E.g., is "JOHN DOE" legally equal to "John Doe"?

If not, then what is the difference?

If so, why does it always appear in all caps in legal, banking, commercial documents? If this is because it's easier to read that way, THEN WHY ISN'T EVERYTHING ALWAYS IN ALL CAPS? (Isn't it annoying when it is? Doesn't seem easier to read at all...)

This is purely literary and symbolic, of course...I wouldn't try to use a sword or arrow of all things to try and breach a shield, and if I did of course I wouldn't care what color it was...BUT I'm trying to choose a name for a fictional organization, and this question is relevant to the name.

So, sword or arrow?

And what color?

And why?

...and therefore totally unpayable?

I asked something similar earlier but didn't get an answer to my satisfaction.

I understand that the privately owned (though govt chartered) Federal Reserve buys treasury bonds with money it issues from nothing, and that the interest the U.S. owes on the bonds the Fed holds can only be paid by selling the Fed more bonds, creating an insatiable feedback loop of national debt -- which the taxpayers must try to pay in vain, much like trying to pay off a credit card with the same card.

(When I say "privately owned" I refer to the private stockholding banks that take the Fed's profits, not to the board appointed by the President which seems more like a go-between for the stockholders and the Gov)

That does sound too insidious to be true. Is it?

Also the last answer said that when local banks issue loans, they don't create money but the process of issuing the loan creates money. That difference seems nominal at best and misleading at worst, like saying cars and not drivers run people over. How does a bank create money out of nothing and charge me interest on it, and confiscate my collateral at the barrel of the law's gun should I default?

That ALSO sounds too insidious to be true. Is it?

And, of course, either way: prove it!

That does sound too insidious to be true. Is it?

And, of course, either way: prove it!

(by "pre-modern" I mean Renaissance and before; I'm using the historical definition of "modern" which refers to anything post-Renaissance)

Throughout most of human history, I understand gold has been worth between about 8 and 15 times as much as silver. Currently, gold is worth about 75 times as much as silver. Either gold has risen a lot, or silver has fallen a lot, or maybe even a little of both. Which of these is the case and to what extent? And, of course, why and how?

In the song "Whiskey for my men, beer for my horses," why is Willie Nelson on it too? Isn't he one of the criminals the song refers to? He does enjoy reefer. It's not one of the things that would get you lynched in the 19th century, but it's certainly not seen favorably today and I doubt Toby Keith would tolerate anyone who likes it. Or much of anything unorthodox or un-neocon at all for that matter.

So what's the deal? Did he just need money?

I have a politically sensitive poem that I don't want anyone to steal, but I don't want to put my name on it either for fear of retribution.

Is there a way to make it public domain without revealing my identity?

Someday, I'd like to include it in a larger work like a novel of mine where it would be relevant. Could I still put it in my own novel-for-sale, after having registered it in the public domain?

In order to retain a lawyer one always has to give up certain powers of attorney, so I did so in order to have my attorney file my U.S. patent application.

Does this power of attorney mean that my lawyer is the only one who can make future filing (like a Patent Cooperation Treaty) on my behalf, or is it something I could do myself?

At this formative stage in the company that sells my invention, the couple thousand in attorney fees could make or break its future.

Thanks for any help!

I'm getting randomly drug tested, including an alcohol test that detects even the trace alcohol in Ny-Quil and Non-Alcoholic Beer (up to .5%) up to 80 hrs later.

I found out after drinking it that kombucha has up to 3 times (1.5%) the alcohol of N.A. beer, even though it's sold in the fruit juice section, so if I get tested anytime this week I'm S.O.L.

I found out apple juice and grape juice often have up to twice as much alcohol (1%) as N.A. beer, so I'm glad I haven't been drinking any.

How about sugary soft drinks? Alcohol inevitably forms in bottle. I was told these don't matter, but how is that possible?

If you say, "I've never heard of this having alcohol", don't answer. I want information, not un-information. If you've HEARD it DOESN'T, then thats different!

Dumb answers=thumbs down.

That includes telling me that N.A. beer has some alcohol in it, or that I shouldn't drink it: I already said the same! I know wine dishes and beer batter obvious have some, so please spare me!

I'm getting randomly drug tested, including an alcohol test that detects even the trace alcohol in Ny-Quil and Non-Alcoholic Beer (up to .5%) up to 80 hrs later.

I found out after drinking it that kombucha has up to 3 times (1.5%) the alcohol of N.A. beer, even though it's sold in the fruit juice section, so if I get tested anytime this week I'm S.O.L.

I found out apple juice and grape juice often have up to twice as much alcohol (1%) as N.A. beer, so I'm glad I haven't been drinking any.

How about sugary soft drinks? Alcohol inevitably forms in bottle. I was told these don't matter, but how is that possible?

If you say, "I've never heard of this having alcohol", don't answer. I want information, not un-information. If you've HEARD it DOESN'T, then thats different!

Dumb answers=thumbs down.

That includes telling me that N.A. beer has some alcohol in it, or that I shouldn't drink it, because I already said the same! I know wine dishes and beer batter have alcohol, so please spare me.

Preface: I'm not accusing you of doing these things. Other cops have, you may not have. I'm only asking when you'd say enough is enough. I'll ask a question like this every few months to try and get a feel for the community.

What would someone have to order you to do in order for you to either disobey it or turn in your badge?

Would you arrest a journalist for printing something subversive?

Would you go door-to-door confiscating people's rifles?

Would you ride your horse through a crowded sidewalk in order to force peaceful protesters onto the streets to arrest them?

Would you torture someone into signing a confession?

Would you cover for corruption among your superiors?

Maybe this list seems out of order to you? If so, why?

Is there anything important that's NOT on the list?

This is the kind of thing I want to know.

And what do you do when your only choice is to follow the order and become that bad cop that you weren't before, or else quit and leave only their kind behind?

Here the inexperienced, liberal hopeful is polled to beat the septagenarian Scots-Irish* Republican nominee, and the experienced, centrist hopeful is polled to lose to the Republican nominee.

Nonetheless, the latter wins the Dem nomination, sealing victory in the general election for the Republican nominee.

Am I the only one who thinks this is shady as all hell?

If you were working for McCain, wouldn't you do everything you could to get Clinton nominated? And crap, I just realized how McCain could play the dynasty card too.....

*I'm Scots-Irish myself, and Obama is half Irish (and half Kenyan, his father was definitely born and maybe raised in Africa). These republican nominees are traitors to the Celtic race! ;)

I imagine it would depend on which adulterant one uses, as well.

Please don't tell me to check the label or you get automatic thumbs down. Everybody knows that inspectors get fooled on a regular basis, even at overpriced snooty restaurants.

What I *could use* would be a reputable beekeeper who will fill mail orders or is within a few hours of Phoenix, AZ.

Even Arcosanti honey is full of corn syrup, I'm told. I'm waiting to find something that my foreign sources can confirm as "real honey" and see if I can tell the difference.

They insist real honey is available nowhere in the U.S., and I find it hard to believe there is a "Honey Curtain" separating us from the rest of the world.

It seems like someone would make a lot of money selling pure honey at a high price! Either way, I'm interested to see if what they call real honey tastes significantly different.

Random note: This question shows up a million times here, but nobody who asks it speaks fluent English. Are we Americans so gullible that we'll believe whatever a label says?

1) Arizona's "Don't Even Start"? (O.K., I think I'll just try it w/o starting then),

2) Montana's "Not Even Once"? (A bit better, but further forbidding the fruit)

or

3) My idea: "SHOOT METH - We WANT you OUT of our GENE POOL!" They could even give it to people for free, on condition that ppl would stay until they overdosed. They could call places for that "Meth clinics" or something benign like that.

Seriously, who would bother doing meth then?

It never SOUNDS politically correct to be any kind of pro-death, but what about all the collateral damage that people who have nothing to do with meth suffer now under prohibition? With the SHOOT METH campaign, the only direct victims of the meth problem would be those who themselves did it. Sure they'd bereave loved ones -- but so does any non-meth-user killed by e.g. a stray bullet over meth turf wars, and such one's death is much more tragic.

There'd be a surge of OD's for a few months followed by an eternity of a non-existent meth problem.

Or would that slight modification be covered under company A's trademark?

Seems most arent here anymore