Since we're voting, I say tell the LL to change it to a motion sensor unit for economical and peace of mind reasons. Volunteer to buy it, they're only about $20, if he/she balks. I used to live in an apt with one of those ON ALL NIGHT ARCHAIC idiot lights right next to my window that cost me a lot of sleep !! The manager would not budge ! Did I tell you I'm an electrician ?? It finally NEVER came back on, go figure !!! Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z !!! Chryss

Vickie, it seems to be my favorite also. I think maybe it's also Ritas because she likes the multiple blooms. Personally, I like them up close so you can see details. I'm glad you like it... Well thanks Kay. The numbers just happened to fall this way... Jean, something Wonderful is one of my all time favorites. She has such pretty babies. Smith Lake Princess is rather new to me. Year before last I think. She is an outstanding cv.. Chris, Snow Blizzard is a favorite in the near white doubles. Not that I have that many but I like it. It's tall and has very large blooms. Somewhat Beautiful is a newly registered this year. One of JRT's from the LA. He has several Somewhat's. I agree, it's a weird name and if it wasn't so beautiful, I would never have bought it for the name. Sharon, SLP is pink her always although she has a slight lav blush sometimes. My Siloam merle Kent is always a clear pink and talk about prolific, he is!! Look again at the pic and see all the buds..Smokey Mtn Autumn isn't that prolific for me. He blooms nicly but not my best bloomer. I will take SSN over Janice Brown and day. It's a larger bloom, it's a nice soft pink and terrific increaser for me. On the otherhand, JB doesn't increase that much...Granted, she's a pretty face but short and not a long bloom time here. Maybe she does better in the north. Neither of those two re bloom for me.. Thank you Natanya. Sister Clara is the whitest I have.. Linda, I also have a few of his intro's and it does take a little time to settle in. Mine hasn't done so yet since I just got her this year. He does have a good eye though and knows what to cross to get what he wants... Rita, I thought you would like this page...All the multiples but also pretty when they are alone... Thank you all for dropping in...Ellie

**Also, if it so wonderful, why won't congress and the first family take this coverage** That's sort of a confusing question--it seems like you think the new law creates new insurance policies that we all have to switch to, or something? And so you're wondering why Congress and the first family don't switch to the new policies? But the law doesn't do that. There is no coverage that Congress or the Obamas, or you for that matter, could switch to. The only new coverage options are the state-run exchanges for people with preexisting conditions who cannot get insurance on the private market, and a few new options for low-income people. But if you don't have a preexisting condition that has prevented you from getting insurance, or if you aren't low-income enough, you don't qualify for those new options. So there's nothing that Congress, the first family, etc., could switch to. Under the new law, you just keep your existing insurance (or move to whatever other policy your employer offers that you want). And so does Congress and the first family. What the law does is (1) change the rules for insurance companies so that your existing insurance is more reliable, (2) requires everyone to have health insurance, and (3) creates more options for lower-income people and for people with preexisting conditions, so that such people can get insurance more easily (through state-run exchanges, Medicaid and so on). So in other words, the coverage you have under it is the same as the coverage you have now--and the coverage Congress and the first family have is the same as what they have now--except with better rules: now your insurer can't cancel you for getting sick, can't exclude your kids for pre-existing conditions, as of 2014 also won't be able to exclude adults for pre-existing conditions, has to let you keep your children on your insurance until they're 26 if you want to, can't impose a lifetime cap on benefits, and so on. As for the waiver, I really have a problem with Fox News and others leaving out a few critical details, like the fact that McDonalds, Universal Orlando (the theme park), and other very mainstream companies got it (and you can google "McDonalds political contributions" to see that most of McDonalds' donations went to Republicans), and the fact that the waiver only lasts for one year. Apparently the purpose of it is to let part-time lower-income workers keep their extremely basic plans, which do impose a lifetime cap on benefits, while the details of their new plans get ironed out and the new system gets up and running. Most employers don't offer such bare-bones plans, so they don't need a waiver. I'm also a little confused by what you said about creating dozens or hundreds of new federal agencies. Here's an article (link below) that clarifies that. I took a look at the letter you posted, but there's no sense in responding to it because it's not talking about the law that actually got passed. It's talking about certain things that, at the time the letter was written, were being considered. I'm just going to stick to the law we actually have, not a 15-month-old letter about other possibilities. But I do want to point something out--you were comparing the price projections on page 28 of the letter to your own insurance premiums in 2010. Those price projections were for 2016. Even assuming those projections turn out to be correct--which would be a total fluke, since they were based on things that did not end up being passed in the actual law--it doesn't make sense to compare your price in 2010 to a projected 2016 price and then say, based on that, that the new law is going to increase your costs.

This is a classic example of when an architect can be your best friend. If you hire a good architect, one who charges between 7% and 15% of the construction cost, he will most likely include "Construction Observation" services. (And probably design a really nice cost efficient house for you as well.) This is a standard service where the architect continually visits the contractors and the job site to help insure the work is done accurately and with craftsmanship. He works for the owner and is the owner's expert. Therefore he only has the owner's goals in mind, not the contractor's, not the bank's. Beware, most people that think they can build a house since they've done a couple of remodelings find themselves way in over their head when trying to build a house. General contracting is much more complex than most people realize. In any event, I hope this helps. Best of luck with your project.