Plus the right-wingers could use his dubious claim of being nonbinary to claim that he's actually a left-leaning person in order to take the 'heat' off their side much the way they always blame Antifa people for a lot of their bad acts. All indications are that this kid shared the wingnut convictions of his MAGA politician grandpa, his mom and his loopy ex-porn star/MMA fighter dad.

Neither do I although some nonbinary people have commented elsewhere on this issue that while they might feel skeptical of this guy's claims and despise the violent crimes he committed, that not honoring his claim and preferred pronouns could be a slippery slope. Or, in other words, asking him to pass a kind of 'litmus test' could lead to other nonbinary people who have done nothing wrong whatsoever to have to 'prove' themselves. A little wordy there I know but that's kind of the gist of their objections.

Being non-binary yourself, do you think that his claims of identifying that way are bogus? And until he or his lawyers provide more concrete convincing evidence that he's genuine and not just using this to get out of hate crimes charges, should we or should we not honor his pronouns?

What would Clarence and Ginni Thomas do if 'Loving v. Virginia' were overturned?

Another popular singer of that 80s era who had a song on the 'Flashdance' soundtrack was Laura Brannigan who also did the hit 'Gloria'. Brannigan died in 2004 at the age of 52 from a cerebral aneurysm.

Speaking of Whitney Houston, Irene starred in the original 'Sparkle' movie made in 1976. In 2012, 'Sparkle' was remade with Jordin Sparks in Irene's role with Whitney playing the part of the mother. It was one of the last major projects that she did before her death in March 2012.

And that the 80s are now more or less four decades in the past. When I was one of those 20-somethings in the 1980s, 'forty years ago' meant the 1940s and the World War II era.

She had a great voice and was a fairly decent actress so it's surprising that her career kind of petered out after a great start in the early 80s.

A lot of older people will start transferring their financial assets to their children and grandchildren before they even need this kind of intensive care. If the transfer process is completed and then more than five years goes by without the senior needing to check into a nursing home, the family is 'home free.' But if the worst happens and they have to check into a nursing home before the five years is up, the government has the right to look back into their finances and demand that they spend down a certain amount of their assets before Medicaid kicks in to pick up most of the nursing home bill.

These greedy nursing home CEOs (as well as those in a lot of other industries) need to be named and shamed and pictures of their ill-gotten gains [mansions, yachts, private jets, etc] displayed for all to see.

Assisted suicide is obviously a highly controversial and emotionally charged subject. Those who object to it becoming easier to obtain do have some legitimate concerns so far as fears of greedy relatives pressuring their elderly parent to 'check out' before the inheritance is depleted. But I think that those instances are much rarer than the scare tactics of people like Sarah Palin and her 'Death Panels' propaganda would have you believe.

On a lot of discussion boards (Reddit and others) when the topic of nursing homes, elder care, and dementias comes up, it's amazing how many people say they'd prefer death to winding up in the worst of these nursing homes. Black humor jokes along the lines of "What's your long-term care plan if you're diagnosed with Alzheimer's? -- Answer: "Smith & Wesson" or "Making an appointment with Dr. Kevorkian."