Slashdot Mirror

Healthcare.gov didn't cost 634 million. Even the article the submitter linked to says it didn't. It appears the actual cost is around $55 million.

http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2013/10/10/how-55-7-million-doesnt-equal-634-million

Even the source link points out that its not $634M (except, since it does so in a "Fair and Balanced" way, you can't really tell)
You can either actually read the article in gory detail, or better yet, go read this breakdown of the numbers.
TL;DR --> its around $55.7M (which is still a lot, but is - decidedly - not $634M)

Someone has installed geninue appearing fake road signs warning that vehicle speed is 'enforced' by missile launching drones.

wrt to Colorado; tired of being governed by coastal state refugees a set of rural counties in Northern Colorado are pursuing statehood.

There is even more to the story, as the mother "opted-in" for the food inspection program but forgot she did so. It was a non-story story. I forgot about this additional blog post:

Enjoy: http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/15/a-north-carolina-non-troversy/

"Right-wing, scaremongering lies" is exactly what it is.
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/15/a-north-carolina-non-troversy/

Right! You've posted that one link all over this site. Sorry, but that single link doesn't stand up to the dozens of links from multiple sources that report this as a true story. Also, MARK THOMPSON is less of an authority than Hoke County Assistant Superintendent Bob Barnes, who confirms the story.

From your link:

These facts are critical because the “state agent” in this story turns out to be nothing more than a researcher from a program that grades the performance of pre-schools and operates out of the FPG Child Development Institute at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. It also does not appear that this institute has any actual authority other than to provide assessments, which the state then uses in making licensing decisions and in setting the fees it will pay the day care provider for subsidized care.

No authority? Well, he had enough authority to make a child buy a school lunch of mystery meat nuggets without the parent's permission.

The only other points of your link are that 1) The lady signed up for the program (so?), and 2) She's upset that she might get charged the buck and a quarter. Again, so? I don't care if the lady gets charged or not. The fact remains that a person entered a school and said to a child, "Hey! You must eat this other thing over here!" And the school went along with it. Your site said the person wasn't authorized to do it and was only there doing research. OK. If true, THAT'S EVEN WORSE! Someone with no power went into a school and started barking orders and the teachers jumped!??! That's scary as hell! It doesn't matter if the parent is poor and signed up for a school lunch program or that she's upset about something different than what really matters. What matters is what happened and your link does not dispute the fact that a school gave a kid food against the parent's wishes because the school thought their way was better.

And still, the school district officials prove your link to be false anyway:

The student also brought home a bill for the cost of the school lunch she had to eat instead.
School district officials say the agent was conducting a required visit that included checking to see if students had healthy meals.
The Hoke County Assistant Superintendent Bob Barnes agreed that the lunch was healthy, but says it was missing milk, a key part of what is considered to be a healthy meal under state guidelines.
"We are not the lunch bag police. But if we observe that a child who has brought their lunch is missing one of the key components of the healthy meal, we simply say, if it's milk, here's some milk, you may have it or not," said Barnes.

The Agent? Didn't your link say that it wasn't an agent? Who would know better: school officials or some dude you linked?
And if the meal was just missing milk ( it did have cheese), then why was she given an entire meal?

Oh, and it happened to more than one child.

However, if you were smart, you would have known that this is a STATE program, not a federal one. That means that Obama has nothing to do with it. This is a good old, 10th Amendment allowed, locally controlled STATE program from top to bottom. If anything I believe that this is a state program trying to squeeze out more federal lunch program money by buying more lunches for the poor kids. But I have no evidence to back that up. It just makes more sense than anything else I've read about why a school would be this stupid!

the parent and administration agreed that they did indeed substitute the kid's lunch and try to charge the mother for the price

The article linked to from this abstract does not actually support that. Do you have a different source?

The analysis of the situation I read disagrees and states that the child was actually offered milk and - likely due to the confusion that goes with being four years old - grabbed chicken nuggets, milk, and vegetables. I have certainly not heard of the administration agreeing to having substituted the child's lunch.

What's dispicable is that morons so damned stupid are teaching our kids.

Now, we may differ in our concept of who at a preschool is considered to be tasked with the job of teaching our kids. However it is rather clear that it was not a teacher who suggested the girl might want to get milk, but rather some other preschool employee working in the lunch room.

"Right-wing, scaremongering lies" is exactly what it is. http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/15/a-north-carolina-non-troversy/

Too bad this is bullshit: http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/15/a-north-carolina-non-troversy/

As I've already said in other replies, the note is questionable as to when it was sent home. The article linked to from this story did not specify that the note regarding the school checking lunches was received the same day; it could have been a policy note that was sent home earlier.

The note was specific about the charge "in her case". It's hard to imagine that a note sent home two months ago would tell a mother that her child would not bring a sufficiently healthy lunch and thus be required to pay $1.25 on Jan. 30 of the next year. That makes the argument that is was a "form letter" sent home "earlier" hard to accept.

We are talking about two different "notes" that are mentioned in the article. I am talking about the note brought up that children need to bring healthy lunches. You are talking about what is effectively a receipt for the chicken nuggets. I do not doubt that the receipt was written the same day, but the general note could have been from the start of the preschool term.

That said, the whole thing has been debunked already, and the excessive conservative spin exposed for the crap that it is:

North Carolina non-troversy

rather I doubt that a four-year-old girl is capable of giving a completely accurate account of what happened

OK. I've give you that.

It's refreshing to see someone approaching this from a reasonable standpoint. Most people thus far who have disagreed with me have not wanted to meet anywhere in the middle. I thank you for not being one of them.

But if start with that as an assumption, then I think that you also have to accept that a 4 year old is NOT capable of understanding when teacher / other school official says (with dramatic license) "That lunch does not meet the appropriate nutritional guidelines. We are not replacing your lunch that you brought from home, but merely supplementing it in order to ensure you have the proper diet of a child of your age."

That is pretty much where I was going with it. I'm not trying to accuse the girl of lying or trying to pull one off on someone. I figured she was probably told to get something (maybe something specific) from the line - or given something from the line by an adult - and misinterpreted what she was said.

Someone else pointed out that the whole story has already pretty well been debunked:

a north carolina non-troversy

If a teacher / school official really believed the child's lunch was inadequate, was it absolutely essential that action be taken immediately / that day?

As I read it, apparently the girl was instructed to get some milk from the line, and - I would wager through confusion and nothing more - grabbed chicken nuggets, milk, and some other items.

So basically, someone felt she either didn't have enough dairy in her lunch, or not enough to drink in her lunch, and suggested she get some milk. I don't think that is any kind of grave or sweeping action being taken.

I'm assuming these people at the school are themselves educated past the high school level, but perhaps I am wrong.

It's a North Carolina pre-school program. I have no idea what kind of qualifications the people there do or do not have. One would hope they at least graduated high school though we certainly know that is not a prerequisite for having children...

Given the description of what the kid brought from home, though, if I were the parent I would probably tell them to pound sand.

I could understand the frustration, if the incident actually occurred as suggested by the article that slashdot posted to.

Just twisted to support the usual right-wing scare agenda.

By and large, what this story boils down to is that a low-income child whose tuition is fully subsidized by the state under a program her mother opted into was offered some additional food to supplement the boxed lunch she brought from home. This option was provided not because of some overarching, generally applicable law or regulation, but because the program in which her mother and school voluntarily participate requires such an option be available.
http://ordinary-gentlemen.com/blog/2012/02/15/a-north-carolina-non-troversy/

Hey! But don't let that bit of reality disturb the rest of your enjoying the fine entertainment provided on Fox News!

Yeah, this story is bullshit. The school provides supplementary food for the kids because some parents can't afford to provide fully balanced meals, no one is throwing out anyone's lunch here.

If I didn't know better, I would say it was right wing agit-prop painting the left as paranoid reactionary loons.

Unfortunately, it appears that this post is actually fair & representative: http://www.ordinary-gentlemen.com/2010/11/the-nation-defends-tsa-against-evil-koch-brothers/

(sigh)

By that you mean the California voters who voted to deregulate to the system we got?

Except it wasn't deregulated, regulations were shifted. Such as the separation of generation and transmission, then the prices distributors could charge users was capped but generators were allowed to sell electricity for whatever price they could get. Wholesale energy prices in CA increased 500%. It simply was not profitable to sell electricity in CA.

Falcon

Do you know what caused the rolling blackouts in California in 2001? It was not because of lack of generation or transmission capacity, it was all because prices for instate electricity users was capped but wholesale prices increased 500%. Electrical generators were able to sell energy to out of state buyers for more than could be charged to instate buyers.

Falcon

Those blackouts are mostly due to NIMBY (Not In My Back Yard) attitudes for power plants and transmission lines

No, those rolling CA blackouts was because of bad regulations. CA separated ownership of electrical generation from ownership of distribution. At the same tyme the state also capped the charges distributors could charge to electrical consumers, but the generators were not capped. Wholesale electricity costs increased more than 500% but prices were capped for instate customers. A wind farm capable of generating 240 megawatts of electricity sat idle, because it was not profitable to build the transition capabilities.

Quite simply CA's rolling blackouts was not caused by NIMBYs.

Falcon