Good plan. Best of luck to you. What genres did each of you choose?

I understand about mash. My first (and only winning) NaNo attempt is like that. I wrote it nearly 3 years ago, for NaNo2K6. It too languishes in desperate need of editing and rewriting. I would be embarrassed to show it to anyone in its current state.

I cheated. I found a Latin to English translation site. It gave definitions for each word individually, but made no attempt at synthesis. I speak a little Spanish, where Haber is 'to have'. Omnem, pecuniam, caput, and catalpultam are all trivially guessable. I didn't know 'Nisi' meant 'unless', though.

Technically, I didn't win. I ran out of novel at 39 and some change and ran out of energy before I could add significant parts of another novel to my word count. My mom, however, won so handily that I'll never stop bragging on her about it.

By the by, does your sig say something like: "I have a catapult. Unless you give me all your money, I will launch a big rock at your head"?

One thing that occurred to me what to teach the kids how the Internet works - specifically that it's not a direct circuit - as well as how packet-switching and how data is dis-assembled on one end and re-assembled on the other.

However, I'm not sure how best to implement classroom-as-cloud or gradeschooler-as-router, save that you are the sending machine and the teacher in a far corner of the room is the intended recipient. A simple message like "Hello, World!" could be broken up into words and punctuation and then have all four packets routed differently across the network.

The same setup could be used to illustrate TCP, UDP, IPSEC, Man-in-the-Middle exploits, etc.

I in turn should apologize for getting a little heated at the end of my second post. I thought you had called me a child and reacted badly. However, nothing you said was slanderous, as that requires knowledge of the truth and then deliberate character defamation using known falsehoods. I should have thought of that. For not being more careful in my word choice and for accusing you of slander, I apologize. I was wrong. For that I am sorry.

Not a problem. Grumpy happens.

There's a difference between a child deciding not to eat his vegetables and a taxpayer distrusting the motives and competence of a bureaucracy (or favoring a strictly limited role for that bureaucracy).

The government should not stand in loco parentis. As soon as it does, it has usurped the rights of its citizens and of its constituent states. Through it, the citizens have diminished themselves by requiring of themselves as individuals less than they should require.

Let me say that again: Government agencies are not parents. The courts are not parents. The legislatures are not parents. They have no rights as parents nor any parental responsibilities to their citizens. They have no right to decide who will eat and who will not. They have no right to decide who will be healthy and who will not. Make no mistake. There are not enough tax dollars nor enough bureaucrats to provide everyone with the standard of living they should have. Private citizens can meet these needs - locally and specifically - but government overhead will lead to waste and to inequity in the meeting of the peoples' needs. That is not just, nor right, nor good.

If my child does not eat her vegetables, she does not get dessert or TV after dinner. She loses the opportunity to do something she would enjoy doing. Or she gets to chance to eat them again the next night. There is some direct consequence. That is parenting.

If I do not pay my taxes, I get thrown in jail. If I do not like the way my tax dollars are spent, I can lobby my representatives to have government spending changed. That is appropriate government of a free people. If, however, the government decides that it will use my money any way it wants and that it no longer needs to listen when I object, that is tyranny.

If the government takes my money and uses it for something I don't want it used for, that is a problem. If it takes my money and gives me something less valuable in return, that is theft. I as the citizen am the final arbiter of the value of my dollars. I would not tolerate that behavior from a fellow citizen, from an employer, or from a business. I cannot see why I should have to tolerate it from the government.

Let me be clear on something else. I pay my taxes. I have put money into the system. If I wanted to, I could probably find a way to dodge those taxes or to shelter my income. I don't. I obey the laws. I fund the government and I vote in elections, so I have every right to an opinion on how that money should be spent. Every year when the US Federal government gives citizens their tax refunds, it tacitly admits that our money is still ours even when Congress and the Executive branch control it and that it already takes more than is lawful from some citizens.

If my preference for individual liberty, charity, and responsibility makes me greedy and selfish, then I am most assuredly and very proudly selfish and greedy, but I am not under any circumstances, a child. The very insinuation is condescending, insulting, slanderous, and absurd.

I would be very grateful if the government did not insist on trying to be the parent I as an adult no longer need.

Quoth the poster: Despite your greed if there comes a day when you've lost your job, or your business, I'll be happy that my tax dollars are providing you and your children with health care. I'll be happy that the other social safety nets we're going to build will be in place to catch you so that you can get back to whatever life you had before you fell. Even if you hated others for having needed that same safety net at some point in their lives. Even if you cursed them from taking a small percentage more of your income to fund these services. I'll be happy to have the IRS taking my small percentage to cover you while you can't cover yourself.

And what if some of us -don't want- the government's safety net or want to be able to choose -with great precision- where and to whom our charitable dollars go? I don't begrudge the money to the individuals who receive government social services funded by my tax dollars. I begrudge that money to the local churches and charities who aren't doing their jobs correctly. My problem with social services specifically and government taxation in general is that I don't know to whom MY money is going or even that it is going where the tax lines on my paystub say its going.

I am of the opinion that I and my wife are most qualified people in the world to decide on the wise uses of OUR money, and also that our families and our church are the most qualified communities in the world to decide when we really need their help and when we just need to buckle down, work harder, and take more responsibility for our own welfare. If I want to hire a guy with three teeth who walks up to my door and asks if he can mow my lawn, I will do so. (And I have). If he reeks of alcohol addiction and I decide I can't trust him not to use the money to get drunk again, that's also MY choice. I will point him the direction of the Salvation Army or the nearest church. Either way, the choice is mine and has remained mine.

I don't want a government reaching into my pocket, taking money out, and giving me only a "Trust me, it's worth it" in return. That approach only works for Defense spending. I realize that the government can't tell me "This dollar will go to the avionics on a new generation of multi-role, stealth, combat aircraft" without blowing the lid off. But when the government says, "Trust me, this money is going to meet a valid need, but I can't or won't tell you where" that's when things get dicey for me. My choice has been taken away. I have been required to buy something sight-unseen which I may never use, may not have wanted in the first place, and might even find legally, ethically, or morally objectionable. Did that dollar of my paycheck buy a WIC voucher for a loaf of bread for a hungry family? I don't have any problem with that, but I would rather do it myself. Or did it buy part of an abortion in a public clinic for a girl whose parents may never know?

I would feel profoundly ashamed of myself, and frustrated with those around me, if I should ever NEED Medicaid, or Unemployment Insurance, or Social Security in order to make ends meet. It would mean that I had failed myself and my family in preparing those of us who can work for the job market and for retirement after our working lives have ended. It would mean that I hadn't worked hard enough to find private help for those times that I just couldn't provide for myself. It would mean that the local churches were all too poor or too busy to help me or that I was too blind and narrow-minded to be picky about where I got the help I needed. A great many things would be wrong if I ever came into those straits. None of those wrongs, however, can be properly amended by government intervention.

It is not the function of the government - federal, state, or local - to provide equal outcomes for all citizens. It is the job of the government to provide the bare minimum in terms of public order, safety, and infrastructure and then to get the heck out of the people's way. If people go hungry, remain homeless for more than a few days at a time, or die from preventable or treatable illnesses, that is not the fault of the government. It is the fault of individual citizens, of churches, of charitable or non-profit foundations, and of community groups.

I do not deny that these needs exist, but I do deny that government has any just role in meeting them. Every one should have a roof over his head, food to eat, and access to decent medical care. Every one who is able should be responsible to do everything in his power to acquire these things for himself and to provide them, as one person to another, to those who are not able to take responsibility for themselves. For clarity, those who aren't able to be responsible for themselves include minors (too young to be responsible), the aged and infirm (disabled and unable to work, though perhaps still mentally able to accept responsibility), and the mentally ill (may not have the desire or capacity to keep themselves healthy, safe, and fed). If we are not responsible enough to ourselves and each other we as individuals must reap the consequences. We must not, however, abdicate to a bureaucracy our rights and responsibilities and human beings.

If I have lost my job through no fault of my own and need help with my light bill, I would much rather turn to my family or to a church for that help than take money from a government. If I have lost the job through my own carelessness, stupidity, or willful laziness, then perhaps I need to go hungry or sleepless while I learn to take responsibility for myself as I should. Any government large enough to meet all the needs of every citizen is too large and too cumbersome to be trusted.