Now, this would probably work. At least, I know that I would feel a lot better after responding that way.

But in all seriousness, and speaking as someone who's both written and managed many federal grants over the years, I can assure everyone here -- save for Jim and Zero and the usual suspects -- that in addition to a rather involved and detailed application process, the federal government has a built-in system of accountability which requires the submission of regular reports (at least quarterly or semiannually) from the grantee, which detail both the work completed thus far and the amount of funds spent to that point.

Further, in most all instances, funds are reimbursed to the grantee for allowable expenses. I know of very few if any government grant programs that allow for prospective funding, i.e., cash advances prior to the commencement of the program or project.

Lately, it's been the established policy of most federal agencies that they not be the sole source of funding for any given program or project. Therefore, most (but not all) federal grants will also require the applicant to provide matching funds from another source(s), anywhere from 10% to 50% of the projected program or project budget. Thus, if you have a $100,000 project, and the feds require a 20% match, that means you will tender a grant application request for $80,000. All matching funds must be both documented and confirmed by the expending agency, prior to the approval of any application and subsequent release of award funding.

Finally, the feds don't simply send you a six-figure check and say, "Hey, have fun and knock yourself out." Rather, they'll set up an in-house account within the administering agency's contracting or financial division, which allows you as the applicant to draw on the awarded funds as desired and / or needed. Each report to the agency triggers a drawdown of funding, so if you fail to file a report, you don't get any money until you do.

You must spend these funds within a three-year period from the date of the award or contract, with an option to apply for a two-year extension as necessary, the approval of which is solely at the pleasure of the administering agency. Thus, if you've lollygagged and didn't start drawing down the grant funds until Month No. 29 in a 36-month award period, it is highly unlikely that you'll be granted an extension. Any monies left over at the conclusion of the award period will lapse into the federal treasury.

Getting the case dismissed before trial would have involved the same thing that the Sanford PD thought kept them from arresting him on the spot, the entirely separate immunity provision of Florida's Justifiable Use of Force law.

Four GD years old and they he him a gun, I won't even let my nephew have the Nerf bullets for his crossbow because 4 year old boys don't have a lick of sense and love doing what they aren't suppose to.

The firearm should have been stored in a manner that made it inaccessible to the child, it should have been cleared before it was stored and it should have had a trigger/breach/cable lock installed before storage. A the average 5-year-old just doesn't have the maturity to rely on their own judgement and that also should be a prime consideration in the decision to teach a child firearm safety, hunting and marksmanship.

Crickett Firearms - My First Rifle - Youth Model 22 Rifles ..

Crickett Firearms - My First Rifle - Youth Model 22 Rifles ...

Rather, Ms. Pritzker got her money the old fashioned way -- by inheriting it from her father Donald Pritzker, who had made HIS fortune as co-founder of the Hyatt Hotels chain.

She presently serves on Hyatt's board, a post which one could be forgiven for easily assuming that she had also inherited from her father. Obviously, she will have to step down to take the job at the Commerce Dept.

And let's be fair here. While Ms. Pritzker obviously got a leg up on the competition by virtue of her family wealth and connections, she holds a B.A. in economics from Harvard and an M.B.A. and J.D. from Stanford, is an accomplished businesswoman in her own right, and is very well known in the greater Chicago non-profit community for her generous philanthropy.

And Pritzker has been a forceful advocate for retooling and retraining American workers to meet the needs of our 21st century economy, rather than simply laying people off in order to chase cheap labor markets overseas.

...If your "way of life" involves handing deadly weapons to five-year olds, your way of life is completely screwed up and you should change it immediately because it is stupid and wrong. (And, again, also, too: goddammit, "learning to use and respect a gun" means at least knowing that the fking thing is loaded when it's sitting in the corner of the parlor like it's a damn umbrella stand or something, and we should talk about that part, too.) It is not in any way "normal" to hand a kindergartner a firearm. If a mother from the inner-city of, say, Philadelphia did that, and the kid subsequently shot his sister to death, Fox News never would stop yelling about the crisis in African American communities and the Culture Of Death, and rap music, too. If your culture is telling you that children who have only recently emerged from toddlerhood should have their own guns, then your culture is deadly and dangerous and that should concern you, too. If your culture demands that, in the face of a general national outrage over the killing of other children, your politics work to loosen the gun laws you have, as they apparently did in Kentucky, then your culture is making your politics stupid and wrong and you should change them, too. I do not have to understand these people any more, and it is way too early in the day to be drinking this much.