OK, maybe I'm an old fogey, but I thought I'd put this out there and see what people think.

Here's the situation: my niece is having a formal evening wedding in another state from where we live.
Hubby and my two adult sons and I are attending. I have previously cut off communication with the bride's mother (my brother's wife) over political and other issues. My brother and his wife are Repubs. I have not wanted to go to the wedding, but decided I would suck it up for 'family' sake. I have been asked by the bride to read a poem during the ceremony and agreed.
One of niece's brothers and his wife just had my brother's
first grandchild on July 16th--the new mother/father are attending WITH baby. I saw a fb post
last night where the bride indicated she was working on sit-down dinner seating assignments
and her brother (the new father) asked could new baby have a seat of his own--for car seat--
at the table and could they sit with his wife's family who are attending (also from another state)
and wouldn't that fill the table? Bride responded, "of course baby can have seat" but table seats
two more and she was thinking--but not decided--about putting great-aunt, uncle (me and hubby)
at the table, too. Well, I about fell off my chair. I can understand having the baby at the ceremony
and cocktail hour, but cannot for the life of me understand wanting to impose a 3 week old infant
on a formal sit down wedding dinner. I thought about it overnight and decided to write the bride
a fb message this a.m., diplomatically putting in my $.02 and expressing my reaction that I would
not be thrilled to find myself seated with a 3 week old infant at a formal sit down wedding dinner
and wondering whether anyone was going to suggest brother/wife get a sitter for baby during the dinner
so they could not be focused on baby care all evening?

So, lounge folks, what do you think?

I've been around on DU for some years...but dropped off after the 08 election.
Recently, I've been participating a little more and just found this group today.

My weight problems started after surgical menopause when I was 43--and I'm now 61.
I had never had a weight problem prior to that--lost the pregnancy weight after
each son was born. I had tried Scarsdale, SlimFast, Atkins, South Beach, and
was just getting into Nutrisystem (NS) in 2007 when my house burned down.
The next couple years were so stressful, I gained back the 15 lbs I'd lost--and more--
until I was tipping the scales in the low 180's on a 5'3" frame.

In August 2010 I started NS again, and reached my goal weight of 138 on May 19, 2011.
I've been maintaining since then--going back to NS meal stats (calories/protein/fat/carbs)
whenever I gain more than a couple of lbs.

I joined a discussion group on the NS boards and found it extremely helpful in learning
how to work the NS system, pick up recipe tips for 'flexing' and maintenance. It was
also fun and I made friends with some people chatting on-line every day. Many of the folks
(99% women in a 50+ year old forum) credit participating in the forum with giving them
the motivation to stick with the program and get to their goal weight and learn how to change
their eating habits so they could maintain the weight loss.

That's the challenge: I'm sure most people here are familiar with the high recidivism
rate for those who lose weight only to gain it back. Changing eating habits for the rest
of our lives is the challenge.

If anyone has questions about NS, I'd be happy to try to answer them. I can tell you
that it works and it's easy in the weight loss mode. You do have to learn, along the way,
portion control and what constitutes an NS equivalent meal when cooking on your own
for maintenance. The NS website provides a lot of resources in that regard.

I look forward to getting to know everyone!

[IMG][/IMG]

This article appearing in the Sunday Business Section of the NY Times is loaded with "I didn't know that" information.
Maybe I'm just clueless, but thought I'd share.

NOTHING about 1209 North Orange Street hints at the secrets inside.

<snip>

But behind its doors is one of the most remarkable corporate collections in the world: 1209 North Orange, you see, is the legal address of no fewer than 285,000 separate businesses.

<snip>

In these troubled economic times, when many states are desperate for tax dollars, Delaware stands out in sharp relief. The First State, land of DuPont, broiler chickens and, as it happens, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., increasingly resembles a freewheeling offshore haven, right on America’s shores. Officials in other states complain that Delaware’s cozy corporate setup robs their states of billions of tax dollars. Officials in the Cayman Islands, a favorite Caribbean haunt of secretive hedge funds, say Delaware is today playing faster and looser than the offshore jurisdictions that raise hackles in Washington.

And international bodies, most recently the World Bank, are increasingly pointing fingers at the state.

<snip>

It is also a great place to reduce a tax bill. Delaware today regularly tops lists of domestic and foreign tax havens because it allows companies to lower their taxes in another state — for instance, the state in which they actually do business or have their headquarters — by shifting royalties and similar revenues to holding companies in Delaware, where they are not taxed. In tax circles, the arrangement is known as “the Delaware loophole.” Over the last decade, the Delaware loophole has enabled corporations to reduce the taxes paid to other states by an estimated $9.5 billion.



To read the entire article: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/business/how-delaware-thrives-as-a-corporate-tax-haven.html?pagewanted=1&ref=business