Carlene

TOM... I am not an English teacher. I do have a BA in English, so people often assume that it's the same thing, but it isn't. I had one semester of grammar. The rest was literature and composition - mostly composition. Which is why I can't write anything to this day - even a recipe - without an introduction, a body, and a conclusion. Having said all that... I think I understand what you are getting at. You have the right string, but the wrong yo yo. In the McDonald's example - I'm loving it - the verb is "am". "Loving" is a gerund - a present participle which works as a noun. So it isn't improper English, per se - just awkward English. Conjugation of the verb to run Today I run Yesterday I ran Tomorrow I will run "I am running"....the verb is am and running is a gerund. Not improper, and sometimes it is THE proper form. How about, "I am running for office"...as opposed to "I run for office". Same thing with the other examples. "He runs for office" just does not work, but "He is running for office" does. (There is, by the way, nothing "new" about these verb forms.) As for Ebonics....just ignore it and hope it goes the way of Valley Girl speak. (Gag me with a purple Twinkie!) But if you MUST go there..."I be running" is essentially the same thing as "I am running" - running is a gerund (noun), not a verb. The verb "be", however, is improperly used. Be is an irregular verb having 8 forms: am, is, are, was, were, be, been, being. A complete conjugation includes person (I, you, he, we, they), tense (past, present, future), and number (singular or plural). Present tense plural form of "to run" is "We are running". Future plural tense is "We will be running". So...."We be running" is just some weird bastardized English, no different than "We is from Arkansas", or "Has you folks ate yet?" People who actually speak Ebonics on purpose, in my opinion, are eager to be pointlessly different just for the sake of being....well, pointless. Like wearing their pants so low-slung that they can't carry a box without fear of losing their trousers. And while I'm on the subject I'd just like to say....PULL UP YOUR PANTS, AMERICA. No one wants to see what color thong/boxers you're wearing today. Really....we don't.

Sorry, I don't know the answer to that question. I have never used either of these doctors - just passing along information from my support group.

Yes...I apologize if I did not make that clear in my earlier post.

Tricia... Do I read your sig line correctly? Dr. Rutledge is going to perform a MGB on you in order to lose 32 pounds???? I am extremely surprised. I don't know of doctor who would even do lap band surgery for a person 32 pounds overweight, let alone any type of bypass. I am also curious as to why insurance will not pay. Do they consider this an experimental procedure?

Methadone is, in fact, sometimes prescribed for chronic pain - not just back pain, although that seems to be one of the favorites. My doctor presented the possibility of Methadone therapy to me prior to my back surgery, when I really wanted to avoid surgery. Believe it or not, the first thing that came to my mind was No way! My druggist will think I'm a drug addict! Long story short, I had the surgery. Somehow, ingesting a class 4 controlled substance on a regular basis just did not appeal to me. If the pills are so strong/dangerous that the prescription can't be refilled over the phone, I don't think I want to swallow them.

As long as your aren't taking Methadone with it, you'll be fine. Just don't exceed the prescribed dosage. Or take other controlled substances at the same time. Welbutrin has been around a long time and has a good track record.

Social Security and Medicare are not "social programs" and they would never have been part of the budget in the first place if administrations from both parties had not started raiding the SS fund as if it were their own personal cookie jar.

BROCCOLI cheese SOUP You will need: 2 bags of frozen baby broccoli florettes 5-6 cans chicken broth About one pound of medium, sharp, or extra sharp cheddar cheese (grated) About ½ pound Velveeta cheese Fat free half and half 1/2 cup flour Salt and pepper Cook the broccoli in the chicken broth until very, very tender Mash the broccoli with a potato masher until the pieces are small Add the Velveeta and cook on low until it melts Mix the flour with some Water until smooth and slowly add to mixture Stir well, then remove from heat Add cheddar cheese and stir until melted Add about 2 cups warm (use the microwave, but be careful not to boil it) fat free half and half Salt and pepper to taste

An outright lie is rarely the best course of action. I think you should just put on your big girl panties and do it. Lay the whole thing out for them, including how much healthier you will be a year from now and that the surgery will make you a better employee. A nanny needs to be in good shape! It will be their gain, as well as yours.

What I said was, if I participate in an abortion, the Pope will excommunicate me from the Church. If I kill my next door neighbor, the Sheriff will excommunicate me from society, ie: lock me up. I could just as easily have said if I steal my neighbor's car, the Sheriff will excommunicate me. And that's probably what I should have said. Under the law, killing a newborn generally does not carry the same penalty as running down your two-timing spouse with your Mercedes (happened not too long ago in Houston). I don't know why that is. The newborn's life is rarely valued as highly as the cheating husband's. I don't know if that's right or wrong....it just is the way it is. But deliberately taking a human life MUST be wrong. I just can't see it as ever being acceptable, unless it is self-defense and you have absolutely no other choice. I have a very high regard for human life. I have had someone die in my arms. I could come about as close to killing my neighbor as I could to having an abortion, so I guess in that context, I do think they are comparable. Beyond that, I just can't say. Soldiers kill in the line of duty. So do police officers. I have a very good friend who gave his terminally ill wife an overdose of morphine, because she asked him to. Would I kill if I were a soldier, or a police officer? Would I give my Cancer-ridden husband a lethal dose of pain meds to ease his pain and end his life? I don't know. Are you sure you could go through with an abortion, if it came down to the wire? Do any of us know what we would do if we suddenly found ourselves in someone else's skin? I am not God, and I refuse to judge other people. Let him who is without sin cast the first stone.

It's when you post something totally off topic in the middle of another person's thread. Sometimes a whole string of people will respond to that, the off topic post, and the discussion just goes off in another direction and never gets back on course.

Where near DC do you live? My BIL lives in Old Town (Alexandria) and I absolutely LOVE it there. I am so going to hate it when they move permanently to Kansas City and we don't have a good reason to go to DC several times a year - or a free place to stay (LOL). Can you imagine trading Old Town for KC? What are they thinking? Must be the grandkids. They are all in Kansas City. Sorry for the hijacking.

It is not illegal to own an offshore or foreign account. My DH and I have money in a foreign bank. It is only illegal if you (a) are using the account in an attempt to hide illegal activity or (:confused: you don't report earnings from foreign bank acconts. As for not getting caught....if they can bust a 12 year old for downloading music, they can bust you, too. Don't kid yourself.

Just how wealthy do you plan to be when you die, Fay? Most of us aren't going to have to worry about it (unfortunately....LOL). According to United for a Fair Economy (UFE), the rise in the estate tax exemption level from $1.5 million per person to $2 million ($4 million per couple) means that less than one third of one percent of all U.S. estates (0.27 percent) will be affected by the federal estate tax in 2006. The other 99.73 percent of estates can pass on 100 percent of their assets to heirs tax-free. Out of an estimated 2.3 million deaths in 2006, an estimated 6,343 estates will pay the tax. The share of estates taxed will fall to 0.16 percent in 2009, when the exemption rises to $3.5 million.

Actually, it said (quote) Edwards’ report — which showed that without benefits, the difference in average federal and private employee salaries is $71,114 to $43,917 — drew criticism from taxpayer watchdog groups and agreement from federal-employee groups. The disparity between the salaries has steadily grown through the years. Ten years ago, federal employees took home an average of $62,359 in salary and benefits, compared with $36,330 for private-sector employees, according to the May report based on data from the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. I do not for one moment doubt that your personal experience did not coincide with this study. Like mileage, personal experience may vary. Since I've never worked for the feds, the closest "personal" barometer I have is my BIL, and I have already mentioned what a sweetheart deal he got from Uncle Sam. Religion is the one thing I am not willing to debate on this forum. Discuss, yes - but not debate. For a Catholic to actively participate in an abortion is an ex communicable sin, therefore, I would never consider doing so. Allowing the Pople to dictate that to me is the same thing as "allowing" the Sheriff to dictate that should I murder my next door neighbor, I will be excommunicated from society, ie: locked up. In both instances, I choose to follow the rules. However, if someone else wants to kill their baby, I will not try and stop them. I am not an anti-abortion activist. I respect other women's right to follow their own conscience and beliefs. I know women personally who have had abortions. Many of them regret their decision...some do not. I offer both the same thing: a warm shoulder to cry on and the love of a sister to lean on.

As Supreme Court justice Louis Brandeis once said, “We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can’t have both.”

Are you in the Dallas/Ft Worth area? Dr Maese will fill Mexican Bandsters, and there is another doctor - a cosmetic surgeon in Grand Prairie - who does them, too. I can get his name for you, if you like.

Karik... I struggle with this, too. I am a Catholic Democrat. I do not promote, march, protest, or otherwise support the cause of abortion on demand. Neither do I picket clinics that perform abortions. I do believe that life begins at conception. I am a mother. I know absolutely that unborn babies are simply human beings that have not yet seen the light of day. On the other hand, I have never been unmarried and pregnant, or impregnated by rape or incest, or too poor to give a child a decent upbringing. I have never carried a child in my belly that I did not want. That I did not plan, yes....but I was never willing to do away with them. I hate the idea of women using abortion as retroactive birth control. I hate the thought of unborn babies being thrown away like so much garbage because they were conceived at an inopportune moment in their mothers' lives. But I have to let those women make their own choices and deal with whatever consequences follow. I have to....because to do otherwise says that I think I am morally superior, that my way - my church - is the only "right" way, and that if you don't agree with me, you are going to hell. I do NOT believe that, and I HATE it when other people do that to me. The Republican party is NOT "the more moral party". I think that's probably an oxymoron anyway....none of them have a particularly sterling record when it comes to morals. But traditionally - historically - the Democratic party has been the champion of the working man and middle class families. Republican legislation has always tended to favor big business and wealthy individuals. But it is no longer as simple as that. Now there have been all kinds of things other than economics stirred into the mix, like abortion and stem cell research. Phrases like "family values" get tossed around like they mean something. They do not - not coming from politicans, they don't. It's just another catch phrase, invented by professional spinners to grab as many votes as possible. No one is likely to get everything they want from any political party - ever. You just have to search your own conscience and vote for the greater good, or sometimes the lesser evil. It's not a perfect system, but it beats just about anyone else's.

Fay... I do not resent people who work hard, save their money and leave their kids 2 or 3, or even 6 or 8 million dollars. I am concerned about the social and political consequences of the unchecked accumulation of dynastic wealth. If the very, very wealthy were allowed to pass intact fortunes down generation after generation, there would soon (in 50 or 60 years) be a class of super rich individuals literally ruling the USA, controlling and manipulating laws, as well as foreign and domestic policies, to their own benefit and reigning over what would essentially be a feudal system, similar to the Middle Ages. As TOM pointed out, the world's two richest men do not favor repeal of the inheritance tax. Why do you suppose that is? Bill Gates' father even wrote a book called "Wealth and Our Commonwealth: Why America Should Tax Accumulated Fortunes." Huge chunks of unearned, inherited wealth tend to sap ambition and reward the wanton disregard for dignity, morals, and any semblence of social conscience. Just take a look at Christina Onasis, Paris Hilton, and many of the world's so-called royal families. I know that you are planning to raise children who become responsible, conservative, thrifty, sober, adults. I had the same plan - so did lots of other people. What we end up with, in spite of our best efforts, is often something else. What if your kids, or your grandchildren, look at their inheritance as a get-out-of-jail free card - a windfall that will enable them to quit work and just do nothing for as long as it lasts? Would that make you happy? Would you feel that you had done them a big favor? Money is a two-edged sword. Too much, too early, with too little effort is often the worst legacy we can leave them.

I was referring to an article published locally just last month. Here it is, in its entirety. Pay is double for federal workers By ANNA M. TINSLEY STAR-TELEGRAM STAFF WRITER For the first time ever, federal employees are bringing home paychecks double that of their private-sector counterparts, according to a recent study. The average federal worker — excluding postal workers and military personnel — brought home about $106,579 a year in salary and benefits last year, compared with private-company employees who banked an average of $53,289, according to a study by the Cato Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based libertarian policy-research center. “About a decade or so ago, federal employees had about a 50 percent advantage, but now it’s double,” said Chris Edwards, an institute economist. “They’ve had very generous salary increases every year . . . and they have very generous benefit packages.” State and local government workers, according to the federal tables cited by Edwards, average $54,849 in total compensation. There are 1.8 million federal employees in the United States — more than 108,000 in Texas and at least 24,000 in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, according to the Office of Personnel Management. Edwards’ report — which showed that without benefits, the difference in average federal and private employee salaries is $71,114 to $43,917 — drew criticism from taxpayer watchdog groups and agreement from federal-employee groups. The disparity between the salaries has steadily grown through the years. Ten years ago, federal employees took home an average of $62,359 in salary and benefits, compared with $36,330 for private-sector employees, according to the May report based on data from the U.S. Commerce Department’s Bureau of Economic Analysis. National Federation of Federal Employees officials say the data are skewed. “This information is absolutely wrong. If anything, we are below the scale of private-sector counterparts and have been for years,” said Bill Fenaughty, assistant directing business representative with the Washington, D.C.-based group. “I suggest that Congress make some efforts to get federal employees up to the same level as private-sector employees.” He said he and others have been working for a pay accountability act that will raise federal employee salaries to what he said will match salaries of private-sector employees. “There’s overspending on countless issues, but this isn’t one of them,” said Fenaughty, whose organization represents about 150,000 federal government employees. Officials with Citizens Against Government Waste disagree. They say the report confirms what they’ve known for a long time. “Government work is good if you can get it,” said David Williams, vice president for policy with the nonpartisan federal watchdog group in Washington, D.C. “The federal government always complains that they can’t attract the best and brightest because of the lack of pay. “This report dispels that myth,” he said. “It’s a system that is completely out of whack with increased benefits and cost adjustments.” To level the playing field, Edwards suggests a salary freeze for federal employees and possibly privatizing some jobs. He said there are many reasons why federal employees’ salaries are higher: steady raises, generous benefit packages, few low-level positions and a highly skilled work force. But not all federal employees earn more than those in the private sector. Financial analysts, for instance, might earn less working for the government than by working on Wall Street and lawyers might earn less working for the government than in a private practice, Edwards said. Even so, high federal salaries “cost taxpayers a lot more money,” Edwards said. “And we don’t necessarily want all the best people in federal government. “We want smart people to build businesses in Fort Worth and software companies in Seattle,” he said. “If we want to keep good people in the private sector, there’s a balance we need to strike.”

If 52 people inherited $80,000 each (before taxes), then that would mean the estate totaled $4,160,000. The first $2,000,000 is tax free, so that gives them $38,461 each right off the top. The other $2,160,000 would be taxed at 40%, leaving $864,000, or roughly an additional $16,615 per person. Each of the heirs, therefore, would walk away with a total of $55,076 (and change). If they only netted $40,000 each, it wasn't because of inheritance taxes. There were likely other expenses that had to be paid out of the estate, such as attorney's fees, probate court costs, executor's fees, etc. Still, I can understand why those 52 people might resent paying almost 25K in taxes. Human nature makes us want it ALL. And with the value of the dollar being what it is today, I think raising the exemption on the estate tax to 4 or even 5 million dollars is not unreasonable. But to repeal it altogether is a very bad idea. Dynastic fortunes breed nothing but trouble for everyone except the fabulously wealthy few, who would literally own the entire country in about 50 years.

I have not called him "the shrub" one single time in this whole thread. Don't encourage me, TOM.

Saddam Hussein is in jail; both his sons are dead; his army is in shambles. If Iraq is indeed liberated, let's pat ourselves on the back and get the hell out.