There are many qualified people in this country to do the job Timothy Geitner is nominated for. There are also many people who are honest and pay their taxes, never intentionally making a mistake when filing. My H and I are included. We work hard, and pay what we owe. If it's good enough for us, it's good enough for everyone. People who want high profile jobs in the government, need to bother paying their taxes, as they expect us to pay ours. Tim Geitner is not the person for this job, he doesn't handle his own money honestly, I don't want him governing ours, and when I say "ours" I include all Americans. This has nothing to do with the former administration, let's get into the present day, I am looking at the "change" we were all promised and seeing something that should have everyone shaking in their boots. I vote NO on this man, let's find someone who pays their taxes and does not cheat the rest of us. It can be done.

I finally had the opportunity to watch it tonight, having taped it earlier. I told my husband that we were going to watch it tonight and he exclaimed,Â" IsnÂt this the 49th version of Jane Eyre that you have seen?" Now that may be an exaggeration but I have seen all the movie versions of the novel. For me it is like having a vase of all my favourite flowers and hiring ten different but talented artists painting it. All unique interpretations of my flowers, but each one enjoyable for its perspective. That is the way I looked at this production; and I did enjoy it tremendously. But IÂve liked them all for various reasons. I thought the atmosphere was very well done. It captured that solitary feeling that was so very much part of JaneÂs earlier years. For example, I really felt her emotions when she first arrived at Thornfield  that lantern was the only comfort in what was a strange and intimidating environment. So much remained dark and mysterious, illuminated only by candlelight or fire. As for Rochester, he was younger and more vulnerable looking than my mindÂs version but that was OK  they had definite chemistry, so I forgive JaneÂs only claim to plainness which was heavy eyebrows. IÂve always liked the bedroom scene after Jane rescues Rochester from the fire, "You are leaving me, now, must you?" I told my husband that I would have been totally weak-willed and would have tackled ole Rochester to the bed at that point and, alas, the novel would have ended then, being far, far removed from the classic that it is today. They cheated on the gypsy in this version, though. I prefer Rochester in drag. IÂm glad I taped it so that I can rewatch it . And if someone decides to produce Version #50, IÂll set my TV to record.

But I didn't know this novel couldn't be spoiled, so I just now read the thread. I listened to the unabridged version, so my response may be a tad bit unlike others. I didn't see the spelling of many names and so missed a number of clues. On the other hand, Zachry's tale, when read by a professional performer, was absolutely lovely. The cadences of the language was delightful. I had no struggle to get into his story. I loved and I hated this book. I was charmed by the first half of Adam's tale and was amused by our composer's struggle. I hated, hated, hated the Luisa Rey story. But that should surprise no one. I am a nuclear engineer who has spent 25 years doing safety analysis, risk assessments, and environmental assessments. I get very tired of those who do not understand that in a modern economy ignoring safety is short-term, very short-term, thinking and just stupid. (Just ask Merck - Looks like their liability on Vioxx is going to be in the tens of billions ultimately.) Rant over. I began to enjoy the story for a simple tale of murder and may-hem. I also began at that point to realize that Mitchell was using differing styles to tell his stories and to become intrigued in trying to figure out exactly what that meant. During the Ghastly Ordeal, I began to realize that struggles to get home, even when we have no home, was a running theme throughout the book. Safe haven perhaps being a better term. Cavendish certainly had a struggle to get safely out of London to his safe haven in the north. Then he had the struggle to return home. Luisa's young neighbor risked the jump across balconies to get to the safe haven of her apartment. Luisa herself was frequently in need of a safe haven. The youngster ultimately found his new safe home. Luisa found her place in life. Adam was, of course, going home. His Maoriori friend no longer had a home. Frobusher had been kicked out of his home and was looking for another. Was his suicide in part because he no longer had any place to go? Sonmi's home was taken away from her and her interim home wasn't exactly a home. (Was that portion of her story an homage to the students struggling to improve their prospects who practically live at the university or library, played off against those who are just there because Dad said they have to go? Always was that way, always will be?) Later we see her as she escapes to a safe haven, and then as she prepares for her version of Paradise, which of course, wasn't. Zachry is already in what most of us consider Paradise. Is home to him the place where the family plaques reside? Is his story paradise lost and then perhaps regained? He lives long enough to know his grandchildren which is an improvement over his previous home. We have a bridge and a crossing of water in all the tales, don't we? Wonder what exactly that means? I'm big with the individualist thing, but I'm also aware that individuals survive longer in groups...

It sounds like Timothy could be a problem for you. This is the first I've heard of an issue with viable weed seed in alfalfa pellets. For this specific example of a weed, I believe the healthy St Augustine will easily run this stuff over. Timothy likes to be 10 times taller than a lawn, so when you mow it cuts off the blades and source of life. It grows slower than St Aug and should be no problem.