It might be interesting to ask:

What exemptions are available for Jewish kids? What if a low income family converts to Judaism and decides to no longer mix meat and dairy in the same meal?

The linked to debunking was certainly interesting but not entirely sure what it debunks.

I haven't read the statute in question. It isn't clear to me who to believe in terms of which child care facilities fall under its domain. I would suggest that were there is doubt, ordinary citizens tend to assume for good reason that the statute covers even if it gets interpreted not to.

But school employees who are tasked with enforcing school rules are typically understood to be, legally, agents of the state. They are state agents, and therefore what goes on in a public school brings the state into the childrens' lives. This is important in areas like search and seizure law regarding public vs private schools. The private school might be able to claim some parental authority in the absence of the parent's presence regarding searches and seizures, but a public school is subject to the 4th amendment. So I don't think it is unfair to say that this was done by a "state agent." However calling the individual a "federal agent" is pretty clearly unfair. The only one who did this however was Limbaugh and I don't know anyone who listens to him seriously.

Secondly nobody really disputes that the facts of the girl being offered the full cafeteria lunch in addition to what she had brought from home. The question is whether this was a functional replacement or a functional supplement. That's a question that hasn't been adequately addressed yet either.

As an interesting aside, I note they require meat and dairy in the same meal. What happens if the family converts to Judaism?

This is the interesting thing here. The only reference to the USDA is to the USDA guidelines. The right-wing seems intent on blaming Obama. The AP version of the story suggests it's the TEACHER'S FAULT!!

This really surprises me for a couple reasons. The first is that this is a state statute. The Republicans are interested in states rights, correct? Why are they trying to make Obama take the fall for something stupid the state did?

Oh wait, the Republicans only talk about states rights.... the way Obama talks about civil liberties.... Sort of like "Please note how important these are to our way of life and pay no attention while we shred them...."

Similarly, blaming the teacher for a bad policy is a bad idea. The teacher is either poorly training (the responsibility of the state in this case), or the school has poor policies on the matter (also the responsibility of the state).

Either way, the state of North Carolina is entirely at fault here. But what do you expect from a state whose laws allow first cousins to get married as long as they aren't double first cousins?

Now I realize "adequately" is up for some debate. I would be suspicious if I were sending my child to school with lunch and got this kind of feedback. I would try to work it out with the school. However, as an outsider looking at the situation, it's hard to know what's going on. I hate to say it, but if the school earnestly believes the parent is not providing sufficient food for their child, and the parent disagrees, then it's time for a judge to decide what's going on.

Look, a lot of kids don't eat their lunches at all. Kids can do just fine on two meals a day and no matter what the options are, a lot of them do anyway.

If the kid is getting two good meals at home, and eating nothing but cashews for lunch, that's no reason to drag the family before a court. Only if there is additional evidence of lack of adequate nutrition should that be considered.

If it is included in the contract.

On further review, it looks like the state's position is that the parent shouldn't have been charged here and that they are investigating.

The Republicans are blaming Obama and the Democrats are blaming the teachers. You'd think nobody recognizes that there's a state statute at issue.

From The Friendly Article, " On top of it, her mother was then sent a bill for the cafeteria food."

Even the Carolina Online article linked to in that one suggests strongly that she was charged, although it is somewhat ambiguous. FWIW, the state seems to say that charging the parent would be inappropriate in this case. But it isn't entirely clear one way or the other. I son't see the note. It could say "according to state law we can charge you for this. You owe us $1.25."

It's better to check the article before assuming I didn't read it. The article, and the article it linked to, both suggest strongly that the parent was charged.

First, I see no reason to think this is a federal policy. However, the moment you say "at our option we may charge you for things you did not request" you set up all sorts of nasty incentives.

That's a horrible policy. If the parent didn't ask for the food, there is no way they should be charged.

I am no fan of Obama but I can't see how such a school district policy can remotely be tied to the federal government.

And yet you claim that "The School Person REPLACED the whole lunch with an ALTERNATE version, not just 'supplemented'," and then go off on a rant about the evil leftwing nanny state. You should be ashamed of spreading these hateful lies.

Sounds like they gave her an additional lunch and told her that her mother didn't pack something healthy enough. That they might have called it a supplement doesn't change the fact that it was functionally a replacement. That would be reasonable if the USDA provided objectively good nutritional standards, but instead we have an organization which has been legally required to recognize the tomato sauce on pizza as a serving of a vegetable having their standards used to second-guess a good wholesome lunch sent by the parent.

My suspicion is that this is a way for the school to bring in additional revenue. If I were the parent, I would send the school a letter saying that you had not agreed to the transaction and that you will not pay it. If they send it to collections you send a letter of dispute. If they persist, threaten to organize a class action law suit.

Open source is superior in large part because not only can the small developer use the open API's but actually shape the development of the next generation through direct access to the developers of the API's used and even code contributions themselves. That cannot compare to open API's on a closed source platform.

Something like 50% of the rainfall over rain forests has been estimated to be the result of transpiration from the trees themselves. That's worth pondering....

One of the things that goes on in permaculture is the idea of being careful about water use when growing even traditionally water-intensive crops. The idea is that you can actually do a LOT without a lot of water, and also that many mature ecosystems (including rain forests) tend to recycle a lot of their water in the form of transpiration turning into rainfall.

So while we need a lot of water to be used in agriculture, it can be done efficiently, and with a surprisingly low level of water input even in arid environments.

Namely Apple suing Motorola over patent infringements regarding Android. Apple has been careful not to sue Google, so Google took the hint and bought one of the defendants, namely Motorola.

This is a good thing. It means that Apple can no longer go around intimidating Android vendors regarding patents without confronting the software vendor. The short-term verdict will probably be a mixed loss on both sides, but the long-term victory will be to Google and Android.

given the current state of air travel hassles in the US, do people even travel for recreation anymore?

Honestly I travelled a lot last year, and absolutely none of it was for recreation. It was far and away the largest expense I had.

While I don't disagree with Gould regarding the issue of physics in classrooms, I really think it would be better to keep the epistemology clear and well-taught and stop talking about scientific facts outside of the fact that "so-and-so observed such-and-such and this is the data that was recorded."

The fact is that we consistently observe apples falling. We model this using various gravitational models (relativistic, Newtonian, etc). Only an idiot might say that if he drops an apple it won't fall as the default position. But this does not necessarily validate existing gravitational models.

Heisenberg repeatedly argued that data does not imply theory (see his book "Physics and Philosophy"). There is always room for competing models in science. No model can remotely be labeled as "fact."