I have studied astrolgy seriously for years now and am usually pretty good at guessing people's Sunsign even with only brief details of their personality. It has been a fun and interesting study. I am very true to my Sunsign of Cancer but have many very acurate traits of my detailed aspects and other influencing planets. Something I have found very interesting is the birthdays of the many gardeners on Garden Forum. So very many are Capricorns! This is not unusual as they are an earth sign and born after the winter solstice. All the signs, in my opinion have their postive and negative traits and I find it intriguing to watch how these different traits are expressed in the world of gardening and in everyday life. Lots of fun! Ginny

Sorry...had the same problem you did, prairiemoon. Here's a clean version: I've decided to make one last effort to acquaint you with the significance of economics in understanding the world around you and distinguishing between effective and ineffective solutions to society's many problems. But before I do that, let me first acknowledge that perhaps my efforts thus far reflect my limitations in clearly communicating my points. For example, when referencing Karl Marx, I was NOT intending to disparage you by labeling you a communist or inferring that you supported his views. Rather, I was trying to make the point that many times an apparently sensible principle such as those espoused by Mr. Marx (or you) can prove to be totally dysfunctional in practice as explained by economic principles. But I'd like to walk you through a specific example of the application of microeconomics (i.e., the application of economics on a small scale, as distinguished from macroeconomics which looks at issues affecting, say, the national economy). Here in California, we've had our share of droughts in the past and we were experiencing a particularly prolonged drought when I was in business school. People were being forced to cut their water usage by 20% or face stiff fines. We were being required to only water our lawns on alternate days. "Water police" were issuing citations when landscape runoff was found in the street. Because of the drought, we were told, there was simply not enough water to go around. My econ professor used the occasion to make a strong point about the importance of understanding economics. He proclaimed, "Our current water shortage has nothing whatsoever to do with the drought!" What??? How could that be??? Economics tells us that the most efficient way to allocate scarce resources is through a market exchange, where the price of a given good or service is determined by the price that a willing buyer will pay a willing seller. Such a system GUARANTEES that the supply of a given good or service will always be sufficient to meet the demand (except for very short-term, unanticipated distribution problems, such as supplying drinking water immediately following the Haitian earthquake or introducing virtually ANY new Apple product). So how could CA be experiencing a water shortage? Very simple. The Public Utilities Commission was unwilling to allow the price for water to be set by the marketplace. Their reasoning was paved with good intentions (as is the proverbial road to Hell). They didn't want the burden of a decreased supply of water to fall disproportionately on those least able to pay for it. And, after all, isn't water a necessity of life? Yet each of their "solutions" created its own set of problems. Restricting landscape irrigation placed a disproportionate burden on those with large properties while apartment residents could continue to take half-hour showers. Requiring a reduction in water usage from the prior year disproportionately punished those who had always conserved water and those who had recently put in a yard. And these regulations did NOTHING to increase the supply of water. If instead they had let the price of water rise to a level that reflected its scarcity, the demand for water would be brought into equilibrium with supply. Consumers would have reduced their consumption in response to the higher price (as occurred during last year's spike in gas prices) and there would have been adequate water for all those willing to buy it. But wait, you say...what about fairness? Is it fair that the poor, who may be least prepared to deal with an increase in water prices, assume such a disproportionate hit? Well, the poor already have to pay for all the other necessities of life: food, shelter, transportation, heating, etc. Why should water be any different? (And to restate a previous remark, a ten-fold increase in water prices would still mean less than $10/YEAR to stay alive.) Our free market system works because it forces those who would be satisfied with only the necessities of life to get off their duffs and contribute to society...or they'll starve, freeze, etc. (Thank God for Clinton putting an end to Johnson's ill-conceived War on Poverty, which expanded the ranks for the impoverished and nearly bankrupted the nation.) If we feel that some are UNABLE to provide for themselves, we can (and do) establish welfare programs, charities, homeless shelters, etc. to help them deal with the price of necessities. But using PRICE to allocate scarce resources gives each individual the freedom to make decisions on how he/she would prefer to allocate their scarce dollars. But even more important, price provides the capacity for us to actually increase a dwindling supply by providing an economic justification to drill new wells, import water from areas having an abundant supply, expand water conservation technology, build desalinization plants, plant xeriscape landscapes, etc. And unlike wishing and hoping that citizens would simply act on the need for conservation by being RESPONSIBLE, a market allocation of scarce resources ACTUALLY WORKS! But couldn't a group of evil rich meanies corner the market on water, driving the price higher to satisfy their own greed? Sure, that could happen. And that's where government has a role in preventing the manipulation of the marketplace and the creation of monopolies. It takes vigilance to keep markets free. A good example of our government's failure to do so is in allowing China's currency manipulation to capture a disproportionate share of the American market. Why aren't we more aggressive in stopping this? Because China buys off our politicians by purchasing Treasury bonds which enables them to finance their on-going deficit spending. Oops...sorry, I'm slipping into macroeconomics and politics. That's a much more involved lesson. Market solutions aren't perfect but, as Churchill said about democracy, "...the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried" (Of course, he also said, "The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter." He might well have been referencing their ignorance of economics!) Dr. Granfield likely would be rather disappointed with the superficial job I've just done in recreating his lesson on CA's water shortage but I hope it's given you a flavor of some of the considerations in looking at society's challenges through the lens of economics. Any questions?

I think it's interesting that, as feminism and self-empowerment becomes pretty much a given, that cosmetic and body modification and body display has all increased. a 1970s-era feminist would find clothing like this (and cosmetic surgery, and breast implants) self-demeaning and self-objectifying but a millennial feminist seems to find it all body-positive and empowering. I said before but my rule of thumb is: who is going to be seeing this, and where, and how are they getting there? These events are taking place in a closed environment, and to some extent the girls are dressing for each other. I am not sure that boys are paying attention to the clothing, and if the girls participate in sports and other activities these same boys and girls have seen each other in less. That said, I wouldn't really want to see the girls going into town or on public transportation dressed quite like some of these outfits. Objectively I guess, I don't find a lot of it particularly flattering but there are a lot of women's clothes that are not particularly flattering and emphasize the most minimal "flaws" right now. And sometimes you see this sort of thing on men, too, if you live in an urban area; super tight pants or shirts that don't really look so great.

You can try a variation of the style with shorter bangs that can be worn forward or back or to the side. I, have a pixie and cut my shoulder length hair in May of 2013. I loved the ease of styling my shorter hair and get lots of compliments on it as well. People tell me I look younger. I do not like my bangs to get in my eyes either. I took a few YouTube tutorials on how to trim my own bangs between salon visits. That brings up one more item. I spend more money on salon visits with shorter hair then when it was shoulder length. You will find that to keep it edgy will require a good trim every four weeks. If I wait until six weeks--my hair grows so fast--then it gets out of control, or at least I feel it does. Overall I love the style.