Probably because she was a flapper at a high brow affair. (That's what a smartie is... a flapper). The zulu reference was kinda like the n word back then. He's describing her as wild and unrestrained and offensive to the uptight, formal types... and he'd like to have her for himself :).

Consider this scenario. The tax return you prepare a year from now will be for 2008 taxes. The govt. has decided to give a break/credit for *this* year's taxes (2008) in the form of a credit, similar to the $1000 child tax credit that is currently provided. So, when you go to prepare your tax return for April 15, 2009, you will see a line item credit that will give you an automatic credit on your tax liability for $1200 per couple, $300 per kids. Let's suppose that your money due would have been $0. You don't owe them, and they don't owe you. It's a perfect zero. If a credit hadn't been issued, you would be getting nothing back. But they *are* going to issue a credit, so now you *will* be getting a refund. Let's say it's $1800 - a family of four. Before it was $0/break even. Now it's an $1800 refund. You'll get that $1800 check, the one time tax credit for 2008, sometime in 2009, depending on when you file your return. Now, the government has decided that since that credit is for financial relief in 2008, they don't want you to have to wait until the middle of 2009 to get it. Why collect all the money from you now, just to hold on to it and refund it a year later? So, what they do is send you the refund now based on the filing status/number of dependents you claimed in 2007. So they mail you the $1800 now, and then you show on your 2008 return that you've already received it, and you're back down to a $0 refund in 2009, just as you would have if there had been no special tax credit. The only way you will be stuck owing money on your 2008 return would be: 1) if on your 2007 tax return you claimed dependent children that you don't claim on your 2008 return or, 2) if in 2007 you earned, as a couple, less than $150,000, but in 2008 you earned over $150,00 so now you are ineligible. Then you wouldn't get the credit on your return, and you'd have to pay that money back. If your dependent status remains the same and if your income level doesn't go over the cap this year, you will be okay, and your tax return next year will not be any different. This is not extending credit. We all (most of us, that is), pay monthly to the IRS to cover our tax debt at the end of the year (some of us file quarterly... same thing, though). We pay in advance, and reconcile at the end of the year. What the IRS is doing, in essence, is collecting less in 2008. And so that we don't have to wait to realize that reduction, they are refunding that money in the same year that they collected it. Here's another way to look at it. Let's suppose you find out in January that your tax bill for that particular year is going to be reduced by about $1800. You don't want to pay all that money to the government and then wait for them to return it months later. You want to break even on your tax return. So you adjust your withholding to reduce your federal tax contributions by about $150/month. That puts you at break even at the end of the year, and it puts an extra $150 a month in your pocket (for a total of $1800 for the year). And you break even at the end of the year. I believe that this is the exact same thing... instead of asking you to adjust your withholdings, they are simply writing you the check directly instead. Same net difference, though. That's how I understand it. HTH, Robin

I've noticed this, too. But using the same logic, I've also wondered about profiteering on the other side of this equation. I mean, really... if an item goes through less processing and is produced with the use of fewer additives/chemicals, etc., then shouldn't it cost less to produce and therefore be less expensive? Shouldn't the local organic produce be at least the same price as their conventional counterparts - it's actually cheaper in the long run to grow organic, right? Recently an organic producer on these boards revealed what sort of income bracket she is in... Wow... No wonder organic is so expensive! People willingly pay twice as much for the stuff! I'm torn on this... I think that the people who are lobbying for all to switch to a more sustainable way of life should also lobby to make that way of life more affordable for all, not just those who are fortunate enough to be able to pay inflated prices (inflated in terms of responding to demand with higher prices). You're right... this whole issue has become an industry in and of itself and producers on all sides seem to be making an awful lot of money. But the bottom line for me is this... I whole heartedly support anyone who is producing a product to work hard and profit as much as possible... as long as everyone is honest and admits that's what they're doing. How quickly we pay extra (and probably unnecessarily) when a label leads us to believe that we're somehow being good to the earth. Now, whether that label is a label that says "organic", or if that is a conventional refill product, it's all the same to me... you're willing to part with a few cents to either support organic farming or keep a container out of the landfill. Either way, the purchaser is the one paying for it, and is quite happy to do so. And there goes the capitalist way... which I actually support. So in reality, I don't have a problem with it either way.

Thanks for the conversation! It seems like what most want to see is a cultural change (i.e. what our population values, etc), not necessarily a change in the way our economy works. It sounds to me like it's a labeling problem... instead of criticizing a consumer based economy, perhaps we should be criticizing excessive materialism and wastefulness instead. Those issues and protection of the environment are moral issues, to me, not economic ones, and I would hope my feelings about them would be the same whether or not there was a problem with pollution or global warming, etc. But as I consider the called for cut back on consumption, I wonder about the inevitable effect on the economy and exactly whose job I would prefer to see go away... It's really a sticky wicket, isn't it? Interesting to think about. Thanks again for the comments! Robin

To us, a Wendy's Frosty is just a chocolate milkshake with a little cinnamon added. That's how some of the Mexican restaurants down here make chocolate milkshakes and it's wonderful. Try it sometime! You might like it better. Robin

I see it mentioned on these boards quite often the disdain that is held for a consumerism-based economy. I've been thinking about it, and I've tried to do some reading/websearches, etc., and I can't for the life of me figure out what the preferred alternative would be. Some articles I found said that the alternative is basically some degree of marxism/central contol/nationalism... surely people here aren't advocating that! So really, what is the alternative? If consumerism is the problem, then what is the answer? Robin

Aha! Thanks. Robin

I keep seeing references to AO's literature selections and four year cycle... the only thing I can think of is Alpha Omega. Somehow, I don't think that's what y'all are talking about :). Thanks, Robin

Oh, Jackie, I am so sorry to hear this... but I am equally glad that they are okay. I can't imagine this sort of loss. I will pray for your family tonight. Robin

My preference would be for this board to be K-6, and the High School Board to be 7-12. Everything you do in 7th and 8th grade feels like preparation for high school... most of us go to the h.s. board for middle school recommendations anyway. I have to admit that it did kind of tickle me that your post about not following WTM recommendations was positioned right next to your request to section the boards according to WTM stages... kinda funny when you think about it :). Robin

No, I haven't. I didn't even know he had one! Thanks for the heads up... he is one of my all time favorites. I will check it out for sure! Robin

Oh, I understand that... millions of people voted for Carter and did not rejoice in the Reagan victory. There will always be people who didn't vote for the winning guy, no matter how popular he is... but these are anecdotal to be honest, and not representative of the mood of the general public. Reagan's win was a landslide, politically speaking. This is all in response to Mungo's wondering if he would ever be excited about a major party candidate, and I was commenting on how I've not been excited about a candidate since 1980. Even Reagan's inauguration was awesome... hostages being released within seconds... after the long, drawn out reprting of that situation on what later became Night Line... I don't think I'll ever feel so much joy as a reuslt of an inauguration again! The general, majority mood was extremely optimistic. Back to Mungo's lamenting... I think it takes a combination of candidates that are more clearly distinct from each other (not both playing to the same middle road), and an economy and/or state of the union that is in bad, bad shape to arouse the passions of the electorate. In a way, I want to be passionate about who I'm voting for, but in another way I think maybe we're a little blessed that things are not *so* bad that those passions haven't been stoked in a broad, majority way. Sort of a double edged sword, kwim? I would imagine that many democrats would have a similar feeling about the election of Clinton. After 8 years of Reagan and 4 years of Bush, I'm sure they were very, very energized by their victory. It just seems to take an extreme to get people that fired up. The best leader in the world won't make an impact if his electorate isn't convinced that major change is needed. There has to be contrast for vividness to be appreciated. That's the point I'm trying tomake, in a round about way. I think excitement about a candidate arises from a passionate, almost urgent, desire for serious change. I don't think we've seen that kind of passionate, almost hero worship of a candidate since the Carter/Reagan election. The problems were extreme, the candidates were polar opposite... all that played a major role. It was a critical election. When people are saying that they may stay home and not vote, I think that says more about the state of the union than it does about the candidates - who, quite frankly, are only responding to the pulse of their supporters. Things can always improve, but things must be coasting along comfortably enough for most people this time around...

Thanks for understanding :). I'll admit that if Eric Clapton had been the performer, I would have been jazzed (although his music is a little too laid back/head music for Superbowl halftime, as well! LOL). My bones actually popped when I got out of bed this morning! Sigh....

I tried, but couldn't get back into the poll to revise it. Sorry I didn't think to include it originally!

It was unbelievable, the energy and excitement and optimism. Double digit inflation, double digit interest rates, long lines at the gas pumps, Iranian hostage crisis... it was such a dark, depressing, awful time with eveything in the tank. I can't describe how exciting election night was, watching state after state after state go to Reagan. What a shot in the arm it was for public confidence. Regardless of anyone's hindsight political views about his presidency, that moment in time was so hopeful! With any luck, I'll get at least one more chance in my lifetime to witness such an optimistic sweep/landslide. On second thought, maybe not... for there to be such outcry for change, things have to first get really, really bad. As much as I'd love to experience the optimism that comes with such drastic change, I don't ever want to have to live through anything like the late 70s ever again.

I hear ya, too. I do remember being very, very excited about Reagan his first campaign. One would had to have voted for Carter and lived through his administration to understand how that felt at the time, I would imagine... hindsight just doesn't do it justice :). That will likely be the one and only time I was really excited about a major candidate, unless something very different starts coming down the pike. So I guess I should be glad I got to experience that at least once.

And re the good ol days... I remember when it was marching bands. I really do miss that... Football games should have marching bands performing during half time! Seriously. When I think baseball, I think organ music.

Remember the poster here, who said that her son wondered who that old man was dancing around on the stage half naked? LOL It was a bit of an embarrrassement, wasn't it? And I'm a died in the wool Stones fan... We really are getting old, aren't we?

LOL... yes I can do without that, thank you... but I remember her brother's perforomance in the early 90s. Unbelievable, audience participation and all... and U2s after 9/11. You know, they just don't have to be so nervous after the Janet Jackson affair and play it quite so safe... the best shows have usually had performers that all ages could identify (not just those who know what an 8 track is! LOL)

Well, I can't disagree with you about appreciating a good musician, but to be honest, Petty made it big almost an entire decade after we were already identified with popular music... that's why we feel old... even the baby boomer music is after our time! LOL I just thought Petty was a little laid back for Superbowl entertainment. There was a time when you could count on Superbowl half time to be exciting and memorable. Something that made you want to stand up and dance and sing along, and talk about the next day. Petty is good, but he's head music. About as exciting as Jackson Browne :). There should be an element of showmanship at this event, imo... The riff at the end was pretty good, though.

At least *he* put on a show. Yawn (I told my husband that you know you're getting old when you're a little too old to appreciate the band that was brought in to appeal directly to the old folks)

Dh and dd love a particular scene from Madagascar... so we're rooting for the giants. Very scientific selection process :). Robin

I will look into IEW for next year as you suggest. Thanks for explaining the difference between TWSS and SWI and explaining where I should start. I appreciate your help! Robin

Colleen, I am in the exact same boat re: the writing instruction I received. I think that's why I feel so strongly about this. Thanks for encouraging me to stick with my commitment to the foundations. Robin

These are both very good points. I'm going to take your advice, and do some other things over the summer. Thanks!