I don't have a single objection to anything anyone has said here - but I would like to draw it out a bit. There is not enough money, earned or given, among the poor in this country to fund the drug cartels in the middle east and Mexico. They are getting large bucks from large pockets, and much of the drug addiction in this country is from prescription drugs, with the compliance of drug manufacturers, Drs. and druggists. If we pass a law, or grandfather one in that drug tests recipients of public aid among the very poor, don't we need one for the rich and mighty as well? If the rich donate to charity, they get a bigger tax deduction than a poor person donating the same amount, that's public money that would be otherwise paid were it not for our largess. If a worker earns more than they can use, they can shelter it at less tax, or defer it at no tax for many years; again, public money they will pay someday that they reserve the right to invest until then. The higher income workers only pay FICA on a portion of their earnings, but the working poor pay it on every dime they make. True - they may end up paying into it far more than they will collect - but many of the working poor that pay FICA on every dime they make don't always live to collect all they paid in either. We give huge tax breaks - public money - to multi-national corporations where the booze and tobacco - two drugs with debilitating effect on our economy - and many other drugs of choice can flow freely, among those more likely to support the drug cartels than the working poor in this country, because we don't require they get a drug test to withhold money otherwise owed the public treasury. So what would be fair? Drug tests for everyone that gets largess and privilege from public funds in order that they shall all have equal protection under the law? Well, yes, its much more convenient to do the drug tests on the poor, than it is to demand it from the rich as well. After all, we can hand the poor a cup and send them to the bathroom down the hall when they come in to make their personal plea for assistance, which the wealthy do not have to do to get it. And since the purpose wold be to ensure that public funds do not buy drugs, and since the poor in this country cannot be what is keeping the drug cartels in business, should we not also try to do drug tests on every worker, anyone who makes enough to qualify for largess from public coffers, all who shelter and defer or have incomes above the normal? What wold best give all of us equal protection under the law?

Wow. I live in metro Detroit and saw the headlines recently about the 90 year old drug courier, I didn't read details and had no idea he was a daylily hybridizer. Sad story.

Based on my own experience, I'd say it's very hard to kill peonies. I have about a dozen. Three of them were here when we bought the place 5 years ago, although I wasn't aware of them at the time. (And this place was untended for about 4 years prior to us buying it.) One of those three old peonies is on the north side of our house under a pear tree and a crabapple tree. Another one is on the east side of a rock wall and just north of what was a very big old maple tree. It will be interesting to see if sun makes a difference for it, now that the maple is gone. And the third one is on the west side of a rock wall, under a cedar and some pines. It, in particular, is why I'd think it's hard to kill peonies. It wasn't discovered until we had cut down an entire forest of Christmas trees and weed trees that had run amok for 15 years or more. I couldn't believe ANYTHING could grow in that mess. I also have a patch of about 9 peonies on the south side of a rock wall, under some maples, ash, and other weed trees. They were cheapo peonies that I think I bought at Ocean State and planted the first year we were here. So, every peony I have gets shade, but gets very little rain because of the overhanging trees and underlying tree roots. I don't bother to give them additional water. The only thing I do for any of them is keep them weeded. They are all happy and flower away every year.

Well, my twins (girls) are only 3 (we're celebrating a birthday! Born 3/4/03) so I don't know how much alike they'll look as they grow, but each day it seems they look less and less like one another. They looked *exactly* the same for the first year, and then they began to go in different directions, LOL. Personalities are nothing alike, either. However, their coloring is very similar which I guess is why everyone asks whether or not they are identical. One twin is a whole size larger than the other and has strawberry-blonde ringlets to her waist. She is tall and stocky (can you put those 2 things together?) and strong. The other twin has wispy blonde shoulder-length hair that defies description as far as curly/straight/wavy. She too is tall, though not as tall as her sister, very lean and wiry and is my gymnast. Since fraternal twins are no different than any other brother/brother, brother/sister, sister/sister combo it isn't surprising that some look nothing at all alike. I don't resemble my sister in the least, yet we are full siblings. That's the beauty of genetics! I think people in general get confused between identical and fraternal twins and even we twin parents kind of fall into the notion that twins should be more alike than different, even when we know better. I feel at times like sharing a womb should have conferred some kind of mystical link, but I haven't noticed this to be the case :)