Dr Shepard (without the ‘h’ incidentally) died in 1910. Please could you let me know how you found that the baths were open till 1913? I know Clay Lancaster says so as well, but where does the information come from? I assumed, obviously incorrectly, that the baths closed after his funeral was held there.
Best wishes,
Malcolm (UK)

Manhattan Bridge is good, I use to go there before I found Golden Touch.

Hey Joan- FYI when “we” get there, Maude is on Tuesday’s at 8, which I know will be a conflict with Bonanza, but give it a try, you might learn somethin’.

There you go, jumping to misguided conclusions again: I’ve never worked for Goldman. There’s more than one investment bank in this town, and Obama was making the rounds in 2008. And I’m truthful about the “underemployment”, as I do get revenue from my consulting efforts, but life is not as stable as it once was. But it definitely beats unemployment! And I fully appreciate that I am much more fortunate than many out there. These are not good times, period.

But I still don’t think OWS will change anything for anybody. Protesting in NYC does nothing but amount to aggravation and a financial burden for the local taxpayers. But free speech is guaranteed to everyone in this country, and even if I don’t agree with (or understand) your quixotic effort (9 yrs is a long time), I fully support your right to do so (within the legal & civil guidelines).

However, I’d be even more supportive if OWS took it to D.C, where it belongs..

They’re “targeting people” with the most money? How? By keeping people on the weekend from driving to Brooklyn? That targets who exactly? Blue collars who have to work on the weekend and live in Brooklyn?

The fact is that important legislation is not being created and “decided” on its merits, whether it’s best for the country, or on the basis of public opinion … or in any vaguely democratic way. Lobbyists from the very industries or sectors that the laws would be affecting are writing the legislation to suit their own needs. The politicians who are presenting and voting on the legislation have their campaigns bankrolled by those same “special interests” – with big money – whether it be corporations or, yes, unions, or even a lone billionaire with an agenda. This is hardly the way to create laws and regulations that will move this country forward in a fair and sensible way.

Let’s face it, the congress is bought, and that so skewers the way in which that body legislates that it has created an untenable situation where too few are being favored, and too many are being left behind.

Whatever your ideology, wouldn’t it be better if ideas, policies, legislation, etc. were argued in an arena where there wasn’t the feeling that our congress member’s vote was going to be based on who financed their election campaign (anonymously, thanks to Citizens United), or who bought them lunch that day, or flew them to the Bahamas, rather what the merits of the idea itself?

Part of the answer to this, of course, is publicly funded election campaigns – as happens in much of the developed world – which would at least give the voters a chance to vote for the person who had the best ideas, rather than the most money. At the moment over 90% of election winners are those with the most campaign money – that hardly seems right.

The point of this, made in a circuitous way (my apologies), is that it is this corruption of the political process, of political decision making, and the inequities that have resulted that the Occupy Wall Street people are protesting. Yes, they’re protesting “Wall Street”, perhaps because they’ve been bailed out while regular folk haven’t, because they created the crisis in the first place – but not because they’re rich – though, obviously, the disparities of wealth and incomes have become extreme – but because that wealth is being used to corrupt the political process in a way which is affecting everyday people in an adverse way.

The OWS protesters seem to have a message – it’s the fact that money is corrupting our government and the decisions they are making. They’re targeting the people with the most money because they’re the one’s who have gained from this situation, while most have not.

I think Occupy Wall Street is hoping to change that.

I also enjoy the fact that the anti-police faction of the protest … is lining the NYPD’s pockets with overtime cash! Keep it going as long as you like – the holidays are coming up soon.

Effective protests have a clear goal: we will sit at your lunch counter until you serve blacks; people who look and act like respectable members of society: a clean cut older working woman refusing to give up her seat; and leaders to organize and give speeches that make others want to join you: MLK.

Can someone explain to me exactly what it is you want to happen? The end conclusion that would make you say, we got what we wanted? Anyone?

No one is going to listen to you if you smell like a goat and have a ring through your nose. People would be more likely to listen to you if you looked like you actually WANTED a job.

Please stop making such sweeping statements. I know you’re very earnest, but it wreaks of propaganda pabulum.

For one thing, corporations/banks/evil empire types do not operate in lockstep as you seem to think, supporting only right wingers. In the immortal words of Charlie Sheen, they tend to look for “winning” causes (i.e. they’re self-interested). For example, my old employer, an investment bank (and I will repeat that I am not a banker, many non-bankers work in these institutions) hosted a huge fundraiser on the premises for candidate Obama in 2008. The guy was treated like a rock star from the moment he walked in w/ his entourage. Assuming he was your guy, too, back in Election 2008, you were actually on the same side as an investment bank in electing Obama (shock! horror!)

As for untraceable campaign donations, I’d love to do an audit of Obama’s fundraising activities back in 2008. I heard “Mickey Mouse” was a frequent online contributor, both in the US and abroad.

And the whole purpose of the Supreme Court is to have a body of informed decision-makers that is above and not beholden to public sentiment. They’ve handed down many decisions that have not always been popular at the time (e.g. Brown vs. the Board of Education, Miranda rights). I’d hate to have important policy decided by a largely uninformed citizenry who live and die by whether they are “liked” on Facebook or have enough Twitter followers.

You and I agree on more than we disagree, methinks. Enjoyed reading both your response and Mr Livingston. By the way, I too dropped by the protest today and have to agree it looked a lot like Woodstock. My guess is that the majority of the full time participants aren’t nearly as informed as you, JM. Thanks for the interesting discussion.

One year ago, the Supreme Court handed down what may be its most significant decision in a generation. Citizens United v. the Federal Election Commission found that corporations have a First Amendment right to spend unlimited (and unreported) amounts of money to influence the outcome of elections.

It didn’t take long for the impact of the decision to become apparent. In November’s midterm elections, according to a report by Public Citizen, the amount of money spent by outside groups (i.e. not candidates or political parties) was 384 percent higher than in the midterms of 2006. About half of that money was untraceable, funneled through front groups that were not required to disclose where the money they spent (mostly on negative attack ads) came from.

“It’s not hard to understand why this is so bad for our democracy. Poll after poll has shown that Americans oppose Citizens United by about 4 to 1. A new poll by Hart Research Associates [pdf] found that 82 percent of voters believe Congress should limit the amount of money corporations can spent on elections; 77 percent of voters believe that corporations have more control of our political system than average citizens do.”