... as long as there is full disclosure to the public, open bidding, and a full accounting through the GAO or some such publicly funded office, of where the money goes.

I worked for a small company that provided IT services to a large federal agency. We had extremely specialized skills in a specialized area, and designed a system for the government agency. Part of our job was to design and build it, then to teach the government employees how to use and maintain it.

At the end of three years, we were done. On to other things, other clients, other jobs. They're happy, we're happy. Everyone made a fair wage. The government gets their computer system, fully implemented and working. It would have taken them YEARS to develop the kind of specialized knowledge in-house to have done that. Contracting it out made perfect financial sense.

Those of us doing the work didn't want to work for the feds. Uproot my family and move across the country to the DC area? I don't think so.

So no, it's not contracting, per se, that is a bad idea. It's contracting where no one can follow the money trail, where no one can audit who spent what for what, where there's no clear beginning and ending for projects.

Saying contracting is bad means that the federal highway administration can't hire a road construction company, they all have to be government employees. Now THAT would be silly.

I love learning about sports that are wildly popular somewhere else. I had no idea until I traveled in Malaysia and Thailand that in southeast Asia, badminton players are like rock stars. Who knew? But there they are on the front pages of the papers, like Kobe Bryant or whatever.

Olympic level badminton is nothing short of amazing. The skill and speed of those players is astonishing. Yet we haven't seen it yet, between the Michael Phelpsathon (yes, he's a great guy, doing great things, but let's move along!) and the skimpy-suited beach volleyball festival.

So show us all that stuff. Teach us the finer points of trap shooting scoring, or bow construction, or who's the bees knees in target shooting. I think the Olympics are the ultimate in oddball sports we never get to see otherwise, and yet they don't show us those sports.

Bring on the judo!

Flat shoes can be found for all types of businesslike dress--they look nice with short or long skirts, pantsuits, etc. I can understand a businesslike dress code, especially in retail sales. However, that doesn't need to include ruining one's feet.

As an aside, from a friend who lives and works in Manhattan, in the months immediately following 9/11, women all over New York wore flat shoes. She said they were in all the shop windows, department store displays, and worn at the most swanky black-tie events. Everyone was thinking "What if I have to walk out of the city?" and knew they couldn't do it in Jimmy Choos.

What Loh is saying is true about ANY school, public, private, rich, or poor. When the parents are engaged and involved, amazing things can happen. When the parents check out, the kids know it and act accordingly, with or without money.

In Freakonomics (my favorite book) the author did a fabulous study on the Chicago public schools, on the subject of the "good" schools and the "bad" schools. Chicago has a completely open system--anyone can apply to any school, and either gets in or not. Which provides an excellent large data pool for a statistician to play with.

So the question is, what happens to those kids who got in to the "good" school, and those kids who didn't?

He ran all the numbers, for thousands and thousands of kids. Take two essentially identical kids (similar families, parental education levels, income, etc.). One goes to the "good" school, one goes to the "bad" school. And the outcome at the end? Statistically?

THE SAME. The kids come out the same, regardless of school.

The author's conclusion was that the home life makes far more difference than the school. Parental expectation and support is what's important.

Sounds like you've got a lot of very good reasons for not wanting to be a co-parent, a step-parent, or a parent at all (at least not right now). These are all good and valid reasons. I'm a parent myself, and it's not for everyone.

This kid has problems, and does not need a come-and-go relationship with another adult. If you were absolutely committed to this situation, you'd be going in with your eyes open, prepared to be this child's step-parent for the rest of his life, and work with his father to integrate yourself into the family.

But you're not. So don't move in. Either go whole-hog, be the step-parent, or don't go at all. There's nothing wrong with you for knowing your own heart. The child needs stability. This sounds like it's not the right situation for you. If it's not the right situation for you, he may not be the right guy for you. People with children can't change that situation. If you don't want to be a step-mom, you need to find another guy.

... maybe after two solid weeks of TV watching the Olympics, it's a relief to have the blasted thing turned off. Hooray for silence! I'm following the convention from afar, on the net and in the paper. On TV? Nah. I've got better things to do. Rock on, Obama and the rest, but this yellow dog Democrat isn't watching.