Also, I try to use social networking really with three categories of activities in mind:

1) Self-promotion: This stuff always goes on the social networking media. That';s what the media is there for!

2) Public thoughts: This is sort of like a mini-blog service. Things can go there if audience-appropriate.

3) Private activities and thoughts: No way in hell am I putting those on a social networking site!

There is a great deal to learn from history. We might not always be able to avoid the hard lessons, but the easy lessons (i.e. what has worked) is far more productive anyway. And I think technology changes things less than you might think.... The technology is different but the human needs are the same, and the human flaws too.....

Well, there are actually two uses for the yellow dots.

The first is tracking fake documents back to their source. There your idea has some merit.

The other is noting that a document was printed on a laser printer anyway. For example, TSA agents look at all id's with a blue light, presumably looking for these dots. A magnifying glass, looking at microprint on, say, passports would get further than the yellow light, and would not be more expensive or time consuming. Indeed the same magnifying glass might even show these yellow dots. The current scheme only catches cheap fakes. Someone mounting a major counterfeiting operation for things like visas and passports would use better technology than that though.

The issue that this is a cheap way to identify fakes is very dangerous because it is fairly easy to circumvent.

Interesting how mortgages also tie people to jobs. They reduce geographic mobility and make it so if you cannot work for someone else, you cannot effectively buy a house without a guarantor who does.....

One thing our society has been amazingly good at doing is making people dependent on corporations for jobs.....

It is *hard* to be self-employed in the US, but it is the only way to be free.

About twenty percent of US adults now live in multigenerational households so evidently it isnt that big of an issue.

Better yet, move into an apartment and rent your house out. That protects your ability to pay your mortgage while protecting your interest in your house.

The next thing to do is to figure out how to eat during that time. I suspect the minimum monthly budget is probably something like 250/person if you aren't in practice, and around $100/person if you are (and if you want to be happy with this food you had better be a good and creative cook! Yes, there are a million and a half ways to cook beans with a little meat and onions!).

Or, if that fails, and your only issue is explaining the issues to those who don't get it, work with someone who doesn't mind doing the explaining. In fact I would be happy to take over this part of your projects, for a fee of course ;-)

Presumably the bonds would be sold to third parties....

Then eventually banks would own them but when it would be time to collect.... oops, not valid.....

The better idea would be for the counties to use eminent domain to take over the lines and phone switches and rent them back to the telcos!

Actually, this is not a bad idea. The telco's could then rent out the services to competing providers meaning an end to the monopoly and a need for such price controls. The original telco's could use their settlements to buy additional switches to stay in business, leasing the lines back from the counties.

Monopolies are not free markets. One can create a free market by nationalizing the natural monopoly portion and then renting out access on a RAND basis to all potential competitors on a per-subscriber basis.

All kids need bacon cheeseburgers from time to time too.....

Especially Jewish and Muslim ones.

All of these are unnecessary if you put the effort into designing a good diet around it.

Milk is problematic for a number of reasons though. These include:

Lactose intolerance varies substantially by ethnic group. Mongolians are almost never intolerant, nor are Scandinavians. On the other hand Italians and Chinese are. Requiring that kids drink milk is probably not a good thing in an ethnically diverse culture.

Also there are many groups which have prohibitions about milk. Jews, for example, if they keep kosher, are supposed to aggressively separate milk and dairy. These are not to be eaten in the same meal. They are not to be prepared using or served on the same utensils..... Insisting that children drink milk is in many cases very culturally insensitive too.

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.