http://covers.a-go.in/?artist=The%20Doors

Spider Robinson calls this time period The Crazy Years.

I think he has a point.

Here's a fun link for Monday: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/08/16/three-gop-presidential-candidates-sign-pledge-to-investigate-lgbt-community/

Three GOP Presidential Candidates Sign Pledge To Investigate LGBT Community

As one of my friends on Facebook wrote: "Excuse me? Investigate us for what? Settled happiness? Fearlessness in the face of prejudice? Sense of style? What?"

And another said: "Investigate us for what? The secret to our fabulosity?"

Here's a question: Does McCarthyism work if the targeted group feels little actual SHAME and instead thrives on PRIDE?

Or perhaps these nutjob right wing pols just can't wrap their heads around that.

So you object to the "f" bomb, big deal. You'd find something else to object to if there weren't any "f" bombs. I suppose you feel victimized by choosing to read that in the New Yorker? Poor conservatives, must be tough to be rich, powerful, well armed and well protected victims.

So you object to the "f" bomb, big deal.

I can easily speak for myself, no need to assume. I don't "object" to the "f" bomb I just don't see it as very effective in making a substantive point.

In all the statements made by people in OWS, you have one that doesn't make a point. That is a "so what" statement unless you are asserting that this one statement represents all made by OWS, in which case, you are showing your lack of any intelligible argument. Either way you are unworthy of any further responses by posters here because you lack analytical skills to be persuasive and intelligible.

Oh, there are plenty of OWS statements that don't "make a point." Just the other day I heard someone say (paraphrase): "I'm not getting a job until they make the minimum wage a living wage." How stupid. The minimum wage is meant to be an entry level wage, not a living wage.

And as far as picking out one statement among the many, that again is what both sides do. They wait for someone to make one slip and then they siege upon it. If you don't recognize that, then you "are unworthy of any further responses...and lack the analytical skills to be persuasive and intelligible."

The minimum wage is meant to be an entry level wage, not a living wage.

Okay, so how long do you expect a 50-year old woman who lost her job in the recession and gets an entry-level job - how long do you expect her to go without having enough money to minimally meet having food, shelter, health insurance, and some sort of transportation (be it by Private Sector Personal Automobile or Socialist Public Transportation) on top of any bills she may have accrued and still have to pay off from her previous job with a higher salary?

I don't mean to make this whole thing sound snarky, but I really would like to know how long you would expect someone to go without making enough money to live on. And if they're denied a raise to a minimum living wage by their employer, what consequence should be given to the employer?

I don't mean to make this whole thing sound snarky, but I really would like to know how long you would expect someone to go without making enough money to live on.

I don't think this sounds "snarky," I think they are valid inquiries.

1. A 50 year old woman who has been working would not be an inexperience (entry) level worker unless she was forced to go completely outside of her previous job experience (which could be the case).

2. A 50 year old woman who has been working (like all those who work) should also be saving along the way. (Now, please don't make the argument, but people don't make enough to save, etc. Granted, the can be the case but far more out "live" their "paycheck." Most people live beyond their means...vastly "most," not all.) So savings could supplement lower wage in down times/emergencies.

3. It is not the fault of a business that economic times might be challenging. Payroll is always one of the biggest expense of most companies. You simple can not pay someone more value than they are worth to the organization. Some business require employees with little experience or expertise, others require more. You can't have the fast food paying 25,000/yr plus grand benefits and have first year teachers making the same. What incentive (other than internal) would there be to do anything different than the bare minimum?

And if they're denied a raise to a minimum living wage by their employer, what consequence should be given to the employer?

Businesses that do not treat their employees decently usually do well in poor economic times like now, but over the long haul they can not continue. Like people, there are some business (management) that do not respect the value of employees. This is not the majority of businesses.

I'm not afraid of some guidelines or accreditation or some way of rewarding or identifying good businesses practices, but I'm against instituting a one size fits all law or program. Just look at the "waivers" granted for the recent healthcare act.

In Japan, kids actually do clean their schools, but not as a paying gig. Chores rotate around, so everyone helps clean up their schools, and everyone has a reason to take pride in it.

That's not what Newt is advocating for. There is a big difference in everyone pitching in, to a handful of kids cleaning up after the others because of their socio-economic status. Kids go to school to learn, and to be proud of themselves, not to be scrubbing the toilets of the other kids learning.

And then, Newt wants to get rid of full-time workers who probably make at the lower end of a livable wage to show kids the value of working? Really? T-T

I am in favor of Midicare for all and eliminating all for profit healthcare. Just like I pay taxes for a military system, I would like to see the same for healthcare.

Start by getting insurance companies out of the health care industry. We don't need a number cruncher in the doctor's office telling the doctor they can't do what their patient needs medically because it will cost too much.

By the same token, we need to stop taking heroic measures to save people who are just too sick to recover, and will suck the money out of the system. A stroke patient who isn't ever going to get better doesn't need a pacemaker to prolong their life in the nursing home.

But Americans don't like to be told the child with incurable cancer won't be getting heroic measures if that money could be better spent on immunizations and care for healthy children, or children who will recover from their illness and injury.

We all pull for the "miracle" recovery, and are willing to throw any amount of money into it, but that just isn't practical in a single-payer, government health care system. And this is probably where the knee-jerk reaction comes in.

"But, my dad!" "My daughter!" Yeah, sick. Not going to get better. Not worth the expense to the system. Sorry.

Sounds heartless, but money is actually finite, and choices must be made. That's why government spending on the military is different from government spending on healthcare. Too many people think they're worthy of exception to the rules, therefore there should be no rules.

But these choices are being made every day by insurance companies who won't cover necessary tests and procedures, and by budgets that can't stretch any further. A good percentage of the homeless are there because of medical bills.

What we're doing is unsupportable, and we have to change, but change is hard, and lots of people don't want change, ever. Especially if it means grandma is going to die.

Has anyone ever gotten out of here alive?

Being born is a death-sentence. It's only ever a matter of time. But we turn to modern medical science and expect it to produce immortality. Cheap.

Much as I hate to say it, and I don't propose it for everyone, but I don't want someone shoving tubes down my throat when I become terminal. My doctors have been notified that when I am dying, just let me go with dignity. I don't want to enter heaven dragging half a hospital with me. I want to go with the joy that I fought the good fight and succeeded in at least helping one other person.

The cost of terminal illness is outrageous because they are milking the dying body for the last penny they can get out of it. My family has been told that if they drag out a hopeless death, I will come back and haunt them for the rest of their lives. They know I love them, I know they love me (in their own ways) 'nuff said.

I was a controller in a tech school and one of my favorite students came in after his father had passed on, just devastated because he had held his father down while they intubated him. Finally, the father looked at his son and said, "Please, just let me go. Don't help them to do this again." The son then refused to help and the father passed in peace. The son said he would never forget his father begging to just let him die.

That is devastating and I don't want my family to have to make that decision.

We are kinder and more humane to our pets than to our terminally ill. Kevorkian was right. I have a living will, a donor stamp on my license and a directive to my children. There will be no tubes up my nose, down my throat or in my arms or legs. It's been a great ride. When it's time, let me go.

The ptoblem with that is, Republicans would view Mr. Potter as the hero, Jimmy Stewart as a deadbeat liberal and Clarence as a radical, interfering socialist pushing a Communist agenda...