BethFromVA

If his initials are N. R. (didn't want to post his name here), he's done some modeling and ad work!

Okay, missy, I have ONE question: Can you make the pictures any BIGGER??? I'm strainin' mah old eyes here! :laugh:

Oh... my... GOD......... >tremble< I hafta... erm...... I need to... uh....... I'll be right back. :laugh:

LOL, I think you're nuts too, but it's a noble profession. Not all are called, that's for sure. I should have about four full-load semesters to finish (including summer session) as I'm about halfway there (59 hours out of 120). I figured if I could do about 15 each semester, I will finish by December of 2010 (YAY, originally I thought it would be April of 2011!). >edit< Though now that I think of it, there is a senior class I have to take where it is HIGHLY recommended you take no other classes during that time as it is so time-intensive. That may have been for working people, but I guess I'll see. So it MAY be spring of 2011 after all... :laugh:

But... but... I have hills here! **she whines plaintively** Did I miss another good thread? That wasn't the "horny" one, was it? By the way, it's PnkPottymouth. lol

Hmmm... *taps finger to chin :laugh:

Mom's got some 'splainin to do! :laugh: Especially since I'm older. Hm...

I'm beginning to think so too. By the way, what happened to your other moniker??

Hehehe, can't be you, unless... ARE YOU MY TWIN?? :tt2:

When historians look back to identify the pivotal moments in the nation's struggle against obesity, they might point to the current period as the moment when those who influenced opinion and made public policy decided it was time to take the gloves off. As evidence of this new "get-tough" strategy on obesity, they may well cite a study released today by the Urban Institute titled "Reducing Obesity: Policy Strategies From the Tobacco Wars." In the debate over healthcare reform, the added cost of caring for patients with obesity-related diseases has become a common refrain: most recent is the cost-of-obesity study, also released today by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It finds that as obesity rates increased from 18.3% of Americans in 1998 to 25% in 2006, the cost of providing treatment for those patients' weight-driven problems increased healthcare spending by $40 billion a year. If you happen to be the 1-in-3 Americans who is neither obese nor overweight (and, thus, considered at risk of becoming obese), you might well conclude that the habits of the remaining two-thirds of Americans are costing you, big time. U.S. life expectancies are expected to slide backward, after years of marching upward. (But that's their statistical problem: Yours is how to make them stop costing you all that extra money because they are presumably making poor choices in their food consumption.) "Facing the serious consequences of an uncontrolled obesity epidemic, America's state and federal policy makers may need to consider interventions every bit as forceful as those that succeeded in cutting adult tobacco use by more than 50%," the Urban Institute report says. It took awhile -- almost 50 years from the first surgeon general's report on tobacco in 1964 -- to drive smoking down. But in many ways, the drumbeat of scientific evidence and the growing cultural stigma against obesity already are well underway -- as any parent who has tried to bring birthday cupcakes into her child's classroom certainly knows. Key among the "interventions" the report weighs is that of imposing an excise or sales tax on fattening foods. That, says the report, could be expected to lower consumption of those foods. But it would also generate revenues that could be used to extend health insurance coverage to the uninsured and under-insured, and perhaps to fund campaigns intended to make healthy foods more widely available to, say, low-income Americans and to encourage exercise and healthy eating habits. If anti-tobacco campaigns are to be the model, those sales taxes could be hefty: The World Health Organization has recommended that tobacco taxes should represent between two-thirds and three-quarters of the cost of, say, a package of cigarettes; a 2004 report prepared for the Department of Agriculture suggested that, for "sinful-food" taxes to change the way people eat, they may need to equal at least 10% to 30% of the cost of the food. And although 40 U.S. states now impose modest extra sales taxes on soft drinks and a few snack items, the Urban Institute report suggests that a truly forceful "intervention" -- one that would drive down the consumption of fattening foods and, presumably, prevent or reverse obesity -- would have to target pretty much all the fattening and nutritionally empty stuff we eat: "With a more narrowly targeted tax, consumers could simply substitute one fattening food or beverage for another," the reports says. Of course, the United States also would have to adopt extensive menu- and food-labeling changes that would make "good foods" easily distinguishable from the bad ones subject to added taxes. Not to worry though: Several European countries, most notably Great Britain, have led the way in this area. And here's the payoff: Conservatively estimated, a 10% tax levied on foods that would be defined as "less healthy" by a national standard adopted recently in Great Britain could yield $240 billion in its first five years and $522 billion over 10 years of implementation -- if it were to begin in October 2010. If lawmakers instituted a program of tax subsidies to encourage the purchase of fresh and processed fruits and vegetables, the added revenue would still be $356 billion over 10 years. That would pay for a lot of healthcare reform, which some have estimated will cost as much as $1 trillion to implement over the next ten years. There can be little doubt that lobbyists for the food, restaurant and grocery industries would come out swinging on any of these proposals. But the report cites evidence of a turning political tide for proposals that would hold the obese and other consumers of nutritionally suspect food accountable for their choices. A recent national poll found that 53% of Americans said they favored an increased tax on sodas and sugary soft drinks to help pay for healthcare reform. And even among those who opposed such an idea, 63% switched and said they'd favor such a tax if it "would raise money for health-care reform while also tackling the problems that stem from being overweight." Tough love for fat people: Tax their food to pay for healthcare (Fixed) | Booster Shots | Los Angeles Times

Am I too old t be a co-ed? :laugh:

What can I say. The only thing I liked about Houston was how great my skin was. Cuz of All. The. SWEATING. :laugh:

Well, this is how I feel after losing weight: However, this is how I feel after seeing myself in photographs, even after having lost weight: :laugh:

Yeah, we'll have to see. I begin a full load of classes (17 credit hours) at the end of August. I doubt I'll be watching much of anything for, oh, the rest of my life (it seems). :laugh:

Now THAT I could handle. Don't even get me stared on the cable thing... it's not MY choice. :laugh: You tell people these days that you don't have cable and you might as well tell them you don't have indoor plumbing. :tt2:

I DO believe the bulk of the media is very left leaning AND in collusion with anybody on the left, ESPECIALLY Obama. I have watched them give him a pass where NO right-leaning pol ever would get one. And it's not just Obama -- they did so with Clinton as well. However, because so many seem to see BoB as the second coming, I believe he is given more of a pass than usual. Jaded, I know. And again, I don't have cable, so I can't get those sources except online. However, your comment that "sometimes" CNN can be as bad as FOX... erm, I see them as one of the biggest left-leaning culprits along with MSNBC. Yes, there was a time that I DID have cable. :laugh:

When I told my best friend (who lives in another state) that I was getting the Lap Band, the first thing she said was, "Hmmm." Then she had the usual questions and concerns. I just got back from visiting and not only did she not really say much except that yeah, I seemed smaller than the last time she saw me, but SHE is now the biggest she has ever been. Since she never EVER asks how I'm doing or follow up on my successes, I am going out on a limb here to say that I don't believe she will be part of my support system.

Excellent question. Also, anybody who signs ANYthing that they haven't read has got to be the most stupid, ignorant moron that ever lived. To know that this now (or has) encompasses our elected "officials," many of whom are lawyers, is beyond stupidity. It's nothing but fearmongering in order to start taking control of people's lives.

First and foremost, I don't have cable, so I don't have the luxury of listening to them all. And I'm not WANTING to hear it -- it's just nice to know that not everybody out there is blind, deaf, and stupid. I get enough of the left on mainstream media, and frankly, I hate, despise, and disagree with them 99.999 percent of the time. What's to hear that would "inform" me?

Where fearmongering is, what is your thought on this "WE HAVE TO PASS SOCIALIZED MEDICINE-- ER, HEALTHCARE REFORM NOW"?

Thanks, and I know. I had already decided a while back that this job would be the catalyst. I'm not really upset -- at least it wasn't another "thanks-but-no-thanks" letter. Those are harder to take. What this DOES mean is some new work clothes are going back. :laugh:

I can when what they're saying I've been watching happen for a while.

Well at least you're smiling!

That's REALLY not a bad idea! lol

This problem is much larger than anything I referenced or you expounded on. I know this and am not ignorant enough to believe otherwise. These are simply my peeves, peeves that, if rectified, I believe would go a looooong way to getting this country redirected in a forward fashion. First and foremost, I don't give a rat's ass (not directed at you) how hard illegals work (and they're not immigrants, they're illegal. Even illegal immigrant works, but please don't disrespect those immigrants who followed the rules and came here the proper way.). Any work they are doing is likely taking work away from Americans. I know people in the building industry who lost jobs because they couldn't do it for what the shoddy illegal was willing to do it for, while living five families to a three-room house. I am supportive of immigration, just LEGAL immigration. There's a right and a wrong way to do it. I mean, would you let some asshole walk into your house on his own accord and stay there, eating your food and running up your bills so long as he was hard-working while mowing your lawn? I would guess not. Well, America is my house. They are interlopers, thieves, and no good. As for companies hiring them, darned tootin' I hold them responsible too. Though I am not for telling companies how to run their business or determining that CEO's should only make X amount of dollars, at the same time they are also ruining this country by sending jobs offshore and/or hiring illegals. Those doing it are dispicable. However, I'm sure SOME of them were forced to go the illegal route because their competition could offer passable (not superior, passable) work for less money. If there was a viable way to shore up that hole in the boat without it taking the form of fines, which would only be passed on to us, I'd be all over it. As for the price I pay for apples, I can't control that (unless I don't buy them). However, when I was at a stage in my life where I needed lawn care, I flat-out refused to pay for illegals to do it. There was a boy down the street who was saving to go to college, and I hired him for every little (or big) job I had. In that way, my money was going to something worthwhile. As for entitlements, not ONE SINGLE PERSON alive is entitled to an entitlement, unless it is our servicemen and -women, our police, our firefighters, or our vets. I may be able to think of one or two more, but I really REALLY hate the word "entitlement." By its very definition it claims that somebody deserves something that they, in fact, do not. I'll tell you why I think government handouts are a huge reason for apathy -- maybe not THE reason, but a huge one. Once people realize that they don't HAVE to work for something anymore, many choose not to. Some would rather live with less if they can get it for "free" than have a bit more and work for it. Even animals, which, on average, are much less intelligent than humans, UNlearn very quickly how to forage for food if it is readily available through human intervention. Laziness in our country has been rewarded with government handouts. Illigitimate births have been rewarded with government handouts. Illegal aliens have been rewarded with government handouts. Once people realize they can get other people's money for doing NOTHING, most of them (unless they have ANY pride or decency whatsoever) remain on it, only to show their kids how to screw the system as well. I absolutely believe that government handouts (not entitlements, handouts -- because that is what they are) have greatly contributed to this problem. The REAL problem is, once more than 51 percent of Americans are getting handouts, what will happen then? I think those on the fence and truly fed up will give up working. Why bother? Some will have the mentality that they should partake in what others have been getting for generations. Who will then fund all these "entitlements"??