The New Democrat Online

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy

Friday, February 22, 2013

Foreign Affairs: Economy: Jerry Z. Muller: Capitalism and Inequality: Balancing Liberal Economics With Social Insurance: Part 2

Capitalism and Inequality: Inequality is rising across the post-industrial capitalist world. The problem is not caused by politics and politics will never be able to eliminate it. But simply ignoring it could generate a populist backlash. Governments must accept that today as ever, inequality and insecurity are the inevitable results of market operations. Their challenge is to find ways of shielding citizens from capitalism's adverse consequences -- even as they preserve the dynamism that produces capitalism's vast economic and cultural benefits in the first place.

FRSFreeState

Part 2

Hopefully as I indicated yesterday its not that America has too much economic freedom but that some Americans roughly 20% of the country. Give or take doesn't have enough or in some cases not at all and if you look at lets say the lower middle class for lack of a better term. People who aren't poor enough to collect public assistance but yet struggle to pay their bills. We are probably looking at more like 25% give or take of the United States where economic freedom is probably something they would like to. Have and not have to struggle to pay their bills or survive each day. The problem with America is not that our Federal Government isn't big enough or that we don't spend enough money or that we are under. Taxed as much as Progressives might think otherwise but that we don't spend those resources very well. I hate to point out what's basically my home town but take Washington arguably the richest city in the country. Or damn close to being that yet half of their students give or take doesn't graduate from high school. In a city of 630,000 people headed towards a million by perhaps the end of the decade thats still the economic engine. Of the Washington area and area of roughly six million people.

I point out Washington because they spend the most on their students per capita then any other big city in the country. They do perhaps everything else well economically including becoming a safe big city. But education is not one of them but they are moving in the right direction. Not because they are spending more money but because they are spending those resources better and are reforming their system. America knows what it has to do economically and basically has those things in place. We are still a developed country with all of the resources that any country could want, its not as if we are some. Developing country wondering about where do we go from here, its more of a question of what do we do. With all of the resources that we have and this is still the country where people come to get away from depression. And lack of freedom economic and otherwise to make a good life for themselves.

America no matter how you start out in life you can make a good life for themselves. Take the President of the United States, the question is how do we make the American dream work for more. Americans so they can have the same freedom that everyone else has. Which is what I'll focus on and my plan basically gets to building off what we already do well to make them work as well as they can so every. Other American can take advantage of them. We still have good schools but we don't have enough of them so we need a public education system. Where students go to the best school thats for them with their parents making that decision, instead of where they are located. Thats called public school choice which means low income kids would have the same access to quality schools that middle class and. Wealthy kids have but thats just a start, we need teachers to be paid based on how well their students are learning. Not how long they've been teaching and we need to be able to fire or retrain underperforming teachers in this country.

We need to fund public schools based on need and not where they are located, so thats one area where I would spend more money. Because that would take a new revenue stream but as long as the first two reforms are in place as well. If you know my position on public assistance, you know that I believe that it should be so effective that it becomes obsolete. Thats what an classical Liberal sounds like and what we believe in, that as Bill Clinton said in 1992 when running for President. That public assistance shouldn't be free and when he was talking like this America new he was a different Democrat. And not a Social-Democrat who just raised taxes to take from wealthy and middle class people to give to the poor. That for people on public assistance, they are essentially under contract to improve themselves and work. Their way off of public assistance, this was the foundation that produced Welfare to Work in 1996.

So what does that mean, welfare is not free how could that be, its welfare right. This might sound like Greek or Hebrew to some people not familiar with those languages. It basically means for people who are on public assistance and he was really talking about unemployed people on public assistance. But I would expand that to anyone whose not mentally or physically disabled on public assistance. That the country as a whole through the Federal Government and states will give these people who for. Whatever reasons need this assistance in order to survive this money in return. That they improve themselves, finish school, further their education so they have the skills that they need to be able to take. Care of themselves because now they'll be able to get themselves a good job and work their way off of. Public assistance so we empower people on public assistance even low income workers who lets say live in. Public housing or collect Medicaid or food assistance or a combination of all of those things. To get the education that they need so they can get themselves a good job and get off of public assistance.

These last two blogs are mostly about so called income inequality and how to balance economic freedom with the role of government. And to make Liberal economics another way of saying private enterprise work for everyone and with the right foundation in place. Every American would have economic freedom in this country and the term income inequality would go away. Or thats the goal anyway we'll probably always have low income people in this country but we simply need to get that percentage. Down so we are more competitive with the rest of the World. But we also need to go further in infrastructure and in energy two areas where I believe Congress and the President could work together on this year. And I'll have a blog about those things as well later on.

Thursday, February 21, 2013

Foreign Affairs: Economy: Jerry Z. Muller: Capitalism and Inequality: Balancing Liberal Economics With Social Insurance: Part 1

Capitalism and Inequality: Inequality is rising across the post-industrial capitalist world. The problem is not caused by politics and politics will never be able to eliminate it. But simply ignoring it could generate a populist backlash. Governments must accept that today as ever, inequality and insecurity are the inevitable results of market operations. Their challenge is to find ways of shielding citizens from capitalism's adverse consequences -- even as they preserve the dynamism that produces capitalism's vast economic and cultural benefits in the first place.

FRSFreeState-

Part 1
How do you create and economic system where the people are free to reach their full potential and accomplish their dreams. And live a long successful life not dependent on others or government in order for them to make ends meet. But also have a system where people for whatever reasons fall down and for a period of time aren't able to take care of themselves. And don't have that same freedom to be able to take care of themselves. How do you create a system that rewards and promotes success and opportunity but also empowers people who don't have those things. To yes be able to take care of themselves in the short term but forward looking are able to get themselves the same freedom that the rest of the country. Has and are able to take care of themselves and be successful in life. This has been the dominant question that America has struggled to answer and deal with since the 1930s and perhaps even longer. Then that and the answer to that question at least from my point of view gets to what the role of government in America is. And what should it be doing for the people.

I don't like terms like income inequality or the income gap and not because I think its okay that we have people in this country. That have a lot and in some cases so much and don't know what they should do with all of that money and know they'll never spend all of it. On one side of the economy and on the other side we have people that barely have anything and are worried if they are going to be homeless at. The end of the month or how are they going to be able to feed both themselves and their families that week. I don't have a problem with people who have so much wealth that they aren't sure what to do with it. As long as they've made that money by being very productive and successful which leads to good jobs for other. Americans and haven't made that wealth for themselves by basically screwing others. Its not just good that I'm successful but how do I ruin the competition so I don't have any of it to compete. With people who become wealthy, that I have a big problem with.

The main problem I have in this discussion is that America currently has an economic system. That leaves roughly 1/5 Americans out of having the same economic freedom that 4/5 Americans have in. This country that we have a Capitalist economy that works for 4/5 Americans, well 80% generally speaking thats pretty good right. But when the rest of the developed world has a system that works for roughly 90% of the country give or take. And we have this huge diverse country with a surplus of all of the natural resources in the World that any developed country could dream of having. In a 16T$ economy, thats a big problem because it means our competition meaning the rest of the developed world. Is doing very well with less when it comes to their economic system as far as people have access to economic freedom . And we on the other hand aren't doing very well with more where a small percentage of the country collects most of the rewards.

The reason why I don't like the terms income inequality or the income gap. Is successful people have done the things in life to make them successful whereas people in poverty for whatever the reasons. Have not and sometimes that gets to lack of opportunity but other times it gets to people not taking advantage of the available opportunities at their disposal. So of course we are going to have successful people with a lot and lets say unsuccessful people or people who are currently unsuccessful. With barely anything in life, so to have a ladder lets say with a few people at the top and a lot more people at the. Bottom is not income inequality, the people at the top are just enjoying the rewards that comes with economic success. While the people at the bottom are trying to deal with the consequences of having a lack of opportunity or not finishing school or making mistakes early in life.

The economic problem with America at least as it relates to our economic system. Is not that we have too much economic freedom and that we aren't Socialist enough with a big enough Federal Government. The problem is we don't have enough economic freedom for too many people which is the next and current challenge. For American Capitalism, how to create an economic system where more Americans can enjoy economic freedom. That makes us more competitive with the rest of the developed world, as well as emerging world powers. And that gets to having a better public education system, better job training and making work pay more then not working in this country and in part 2 I'll layout how I believe those things can be accomplished.

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

Helmer Reenberg: President John F. Kennedy's 51st Press Conference- March 6, 1963


Source: Helmer Reenberg- President John F. Kennedy-
Source: Helmer Reenberg: President John F. Kennedy's 51st Press Conference- March 6, 1963

John F. Kennedy, when he became President of The United States in 1961 wanted to do a few things as it relates to economic policy. Go further in social insurance so more people could have access to affordable health care, especially senior citizens. In the areas of health insurance, but also more hospitals and health care professionals. But also in tax reform, lowering marginal tax rates where back in the early 1960s income tax rates ranged from 25-90%. Which was a drag on our economic growth, because Americans weren't seeing much benefit from their success and production.

So President Kennedy, wanted to lower taxes rates, because the Federal Government got a big chunk of what Americans were making. Which is why President Kennedy wanted to cut tax rates across the board. See more money in the economy, more take home pay for Americans to spend that money to see more economic growth. And these tax cuts served as an inspiration for the tax cutters on the Right in the late 1970s and early 1980s. That led to tax cuts at the state levels in the late 1970s and of course President Reagan's Economic Recovery Act of 1981.

But a Kennedy tax cut and a Barack Obama tax cut, are very different from a Reagan tax cut, or a George W. Bush tax cut. President Kennedy, didn't have this idea that tax cuts automatically paid for them self. And unlike supply siders he believed that deficits mattered. And that if you cut taxes, you should do that by paying for them. And he did that by cutting wasteful loopholes in the Federal tax code. Jack Kennedy, wasn't a Conservative as some on the Right like to suggest. And he wasn't a big welfare state Social Democrat that today's so-called Progressives like to believe he was. He was a  Liberal in the true sense. Not anti-government, but believed a limited government could help people who needed it help them self.

Tuesday, February 19, 2013

Economist: Video: Europe: Special report: The Nordic Countries: A Model For Small Developing Countries



I hate it or find it laughable when I here Social-Democrats in America compare the Nordic States to America. Look how Scandinavia takes care of its people and how their government and economy is set up. And how it works there so this is what the United States should do and it would automatically work here. When they don't mention or aren't aware of that Scandinavia as a whole is physically a large region basically the size of continental Europe not including the. United Kingdom but of only twenty five million or so and that includes Iceland, Denmark. Norway, Sweden and Finland, Sweden by itself is a country physically the size of Turkey or close. But Sweden only has around 10M people a smaller population the Cuba and Turkey has around 70M people one of the. Largest countries in the World and some point this century will also have one of the largest economies in the World. But economically they look more like America then they do Europe and have moved towards the American model. With privatization and so fourth.

The other thing that Social-Democrats fail to mention about Scandinavia, small countries with a good deal of land. Except for Iceland and Denmark and with also a lot of natural resources like oil and gas. They are energy independent not potentially but in reality and these countries are all run by Democratic-Socialists. So when you put all of these factors together, they can afford to be generous with their so called welfare states. If you want to compare other developed countries with America. Look at Germany which is still the economic powerhouse of Europe and has a mixture of American Capitalism with European Capitalism. By the way all of these countries have Capitalist economies, some are more Capitalist then others thats all. Or look at Japan, Brazil even, France, Britain, Canada and so fourth. All large economies but but not the model for America to be following either. Except for Brazil and Germany as it relates to energy and infrastructure.

Countries that are still developing and looking to advance and progress economically and perhaps across the board. That should look at the Nordic model would be countries like Cuba which of course with the Castro-Revolution. Has strong Socialist leanings but would like to see more freedom there and a country that economically is ready to take off. They already do some things very well like when it comes to education and healthcare. They have the people and workforce and could produce their own food and so fourth and produce the things they need to. Live well but they need their government to get out of their way and allow for these things to happen. And they could develop an economic system that allows for the Cuban people to live their own lives. And be able to make out of life what they make out of it and be successful on their own. But with the government providing the basic human services and infrastructure that all economies need to be successful.

America with our Liberal traditions and values will never be as Socialist as Scandinavia. Nor do we need to but we do need an economic system that works for more people where we have a. Larger middle class and workforce, where we are producing our own energy and importing a lot less if at all. A modern public infrastructure system that puts people to work but allows for all of us to get around the country in a timely and affordable way. And a public assistance and tax system that promotes success, economic development and freedom over dependence. With a public education system that empowers Americans to reach these things on their own.

Monday, February 18, 2013

The Invention of Sight: Video: Michelle Alexander: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in The Age of Colorblindness



I'm not very familiar with Michelle Alexander and haven't read her book The New Jim Crow. But I saw a speech she gave on BookTV on C-Span 2 and I don't agree with everything she said but her. Basic point is good that in the United States thats suppose to be a Liberal-Democracy. We have the highest poverty rate in the developed world at least amongst large countries and economies. Where roughly fifty million Americans in the country even though they are legally and technically free. Don't have the freedom that the rest of the country has because they are confined to living in poverty. Without much help of getting out they are essentially in prisoned in poverty without an opportunity to get out of it. Sorta like someone whose still fairly young lets say twenties or thirties but looking at a 40-life prison sentence. Even they aren't technically serving live in prison and there's a chance of them getting out of prison. One day they are basically looking at serving the rest of their productive years in prison just like someone in poverty. Unless they are able to get a good education and skills are looking at a life sentence living in poverty.

This post is mostly about the American prison system and I only mention poverty because they both relate. We have so many inmates in this country that came from poverty and saw crime as their only shot at making it in life. Because they were stuck going to schools that gave them no hope of making a good life for themselves. So we have two problems that I see it to the fact of why America a country I love, from and currently live in. Is not as Liberal as a Democracy that it could be where most if not the entire country lives in freedom. Where the country essentially works for everyone and where we don't lead the free and developed world in. Poverty and incarceration and these two things have to do with poverty and incarceration. Poverty is a big fuel of why we have so many people in prison in this country and if we solve both of them. Or only one of them, we would solve the other problem where we have a true Liberal-Democracy where al Americans live in freedom.

We are never going to wipeout poverty and incarceration in America. Every country in the World free and Authoritarian have those issues to deal with. But we don't have to have as much of it as we do and frankly can no longer afford to have as much as we do. If we want to be a true Liberal-Democracy with a Liberal amount of freedom and Liberalization. Where all Americans are free to live their own lives and chart their own course in life. And that starts with a better public education system that doesn't leave as many people out of from having the shot at. Living in freedom in this country, a public assistance system that empower people to get themselves out of poverty. And a true corrections system that empowers inmates to become productive people in prison but also productive citizens once they are out of prison.

Sunday, February 17, 2013

The Economist: Video: Europe: Italy's Close Election Race: Silvio Berlusconi's Incredible Comeback



Italy sounds similar to a lot of the other Socialist Republics in Europe. That rely too much on the state to take care of its people and run their lives for them especially as it relates to. The economy where Italy really needs is not to necessarily adopt the American model. But they do need some type of Liberal economic model and liberalize their economy where the people have the. Economic freedom to chart their own course in life and make out of it what they put into it. With a strong foundation that drives economic and job growth. Like a strong education and infrastructure system, a tax code that promotes economic and job growth and success. And a safety net that helps people who fall through the cracks of Capitalism and empowers them to get. Themselves back up so they can take care of themselves again. Instead of centralizing so much power with the Federal Government to run the lives of roughly sixty million Italians in Italy. But empower Italians to make more of their own economic decisions.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

USA History Writer: Video: FNC's The O'Reilly Factor: Bill O'Reilly Interviews Fran Tarkenton


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press on Blogger

I guess I have mixed feelings about Fran Tarkenton who is one of the greatest quarterbacks of all-time. And probably would be in my top ten, but I like a lot of other people who follow the National Football League I judge QB’s by not only how they play in big games, big regular season games that determine division championships, playoff positioning as well as playoff games, but I also judge QB’s by how they played in the biggest game. Which of course is the Super Bowl and yes you can argue that those Minnesota Vikings teams were the second best team in each Super Bowl that Tarkenton was involved in.

And I’m not looking down on Fran because the Vikings lost all of those games. But I’m looking down on him for the fact that he didn’t do everything that he could to lead the Vikings in winning those games. He had three shots at the Super Bowl and didn’t play very well in any of them, couldn’t even get the Vikings to the end zone in Super Bowl 10 against the Pittsburgh Steelers. A game where the Vikings defense played very well and kept them in the game the whole way, but where their offense did almost nothing.

So that’s where Fran Tarkenton comes up short with me, but as far as how QB’s have done before the Super Bowl, Fran is one of the best of all-time in games before the Super Bowl, not many better. John Unitas, Joe Montana, John Elway, maybe Roger Staubach. Not necessarily in that order, but Unitas is number one with me at least overall. And if you look at QB’s and what they are able to do with the tools that they work with and the talent they have around them, Fran is one of the best ever.

Fran is one of the best of all time, leading a mediocre New York Giants team in the late 1960s to a winning record. Didn’t have a running game or a very good offensive line to use as an example. Defense came up short as well, but he was a great QB who always knew who to throw the ball to and how to get the ball to the available talent that he had. Like WR Homer Jones and TE Bob Tucker who were good players, but this wasn’t the West Coast San Francisco 49ers or any team like that. But Fran got the most out of what he had to work with.

In defense of Fran Tarkenton, this idea that he had a weak arm. If you look at his highlight films, you see him completing a lot of long passes and he did have good WR’s. Like Sammy White, John Gilliam, Ahmad Rashad, Chuck Foreman was the Roger Craig of his era and like another WR. And you also see Fran drilling some passes into tight coverage. He didn’t have a cannon, but a strong enough arm to make the right throws. And the Vikings of that era were a possession passing team anyway. So he was a great QB, but I don’t have him up higher because he came up short on the biggest stage three times and never came up big.


PotTV Network: Video: Mandatory Minimums and Your Medical Cannabis Business: The War on Marijuana



Just when you think Canada at least with their Federal Government is more Liberal then America and our Federal Government on social issues. And perhaps as it relates to narcotics, Canada has a War on Drugs including marijuana as well. And they have things like mandatory minimum sentences where so called offenders can be sentenced to prison. And have to serve a certain amount of time in prison if you posses a certain amount of lets say pot and of course heroin. Cocaine and meth as well but if you posses a case of wine or beer and you are twenty one or over at least in the. United States you wouldn't have any legal consequences come down on you unless you posses that alcohol for the purpose to sell to people who are under twenty one. In America and perhaps in Canada as well, if you are caught with lets say ten ounces of marijuana. Or cocaine, you could be looking at 3-5 years in prison and you are caught and convicted of attempting to sell those drugs. You are probably looking at a longer time in prison.

Here's just an example of why the War on Drugs in America is stupid and why our so called criminal justice system is not much smarter. And why we have so many people who are currently doing time in prison right now. People who could otherwise be producing and working for the country and contributing positively to society. Instead of taking up space in a jail or prison cell living freely if you want to call that living. Off of people who work for a living when these inmates who don't represent a threat to society. And are only in prison for possessing or attempting to sell narcotics and in an era of high debt and deficits in America. Where we have to get these things under control for the long term health of our economy. We need to look at the War on Drugs and what's clearly not working there and where we can save money by ending. This bogus war that should've never been started in the first place.

If we simply just treated marijuana like alcohol in America and transfered our current War on Drugs prison inmates. Who are only in prison for using or possessing marijuana to halfway houses to use as an example. Where they would work and pay rent there as they transition back into society. We could cut our prion population by hundreds of thousands of people and save billions of dollars every year. And collect tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue. But thats if we treated narcotics in this country based on intelligence instead of ignorance.

Friday, February 15, 2013

Foreign Affairs: Opinion-Kimberly J. Walsh: America's Misguided Approach to Social Welfare

Source: Foreign Affairs-
Source: Foreign Affairs: Opinion- Kimberly J. Walsh- America's Misguided Approach to Social Welfare

"The amount of resources the American public and private sectors commit to all forms of welfare is massive -- the fifth highest outlay in the world. Yet the American way of distributing that money does less to reduce poverty and inequality than that of virtually any other rich democracy. The United States can, and should, reform its welfare state, and it does not need to resort to European style socialism to do so./p"

FRSFreeState

America is especially by Social Democrats in this country that are always arguing for a much larger safety net or welfare state run by the Federal Government, is always compared with social democracies around the world like Canada and in Europe. And saying that we are way behind the rest of the world because they provide all of these benefits and so-forth and have far less rates of poverty and what's known as income inequality. (Which is a term I don't like and maybe I'll get into that later) And they say America should be more like Europe and so-forth because those countries do it better.

To me America is America and what we do we well, we do very well and what we aren't as good at like moving people out of poverty, we don't do well enough. That it's not that we are bad in some areas, but the things that we are good at we don't do them well enough so it expands to the country as a whole. And doesn't leave out 1/5 Americans. So the things that we do well, we just simply need to be doing them a lot better and have economic system thats expanded to the country as a whole and doesn't leave out 1/5 Americans.

A problem with America is not that we have too many rich people but that we don't have enough. We don't have a large enough middle class. Sure, it's probably still the largest in the world when it comes to numbers, but on a percentage basis it's not large enough which is why we have so many people living in poverty. A problem with America is not that we have too much economic freedom, but that we don't have enough economic freedom. Again we don't have an economic system that reaches enough Americans and have too many Americans without access to a good education where it starts and too many Americans without the skills so they can get a good job and be able to take care of themselves.

It's not that America is not socialist enough, but that we aren't liberal enough as a country in the classical sense. A liberalize economy where economic freedom is available for the whole country where enough Americans have the freedom to live their own lives and be able to take care of themselves. Which is how you get an economy 1/5 Americans who live in poverty, because they are living without the freedom to live their own lives and be happy.

We probably don't spend enough as a country and I'm not talking about government, but the country as a whole. We probably don't spend enough on social insurance in America and should probably invest more there. But like I said before social insurance or every part of government or any organization in the private sector shouldn't be judged by how much you spend on those programs, but what you are getting with the money you are spending. Do the people have adequate housing, enough quality food, are their communities safe enough. Are they getting quality health care, do they have access to education and job training, are they in and completing those programs.

Are there jobs for people once they have the skills to work and get a good job and so forth. Are their kids in school and are they getting a good education or not. If this was how we judged social welfare in this country instead of by how much we spend on it and how we stack up with other countries in what they provide for their people, we wouldn't have 1/5 Americans living in poverty and would be much more competitive with the rest of the world.

This also gets to the discussion or debate of why do we have a social insurance system and what should it be for. Should we have a what's called a European style welfare state and become a lot more socialist. And have this huge system thats there to take care of people and save them with having to make decisions and take responsibility for their own lives.

Should social insurance be there to take care of people and meet especially people who live in poverty and their everyday needs. Or should we do what I want to do and again here's the L word again, but become more liberal as a country. And empower these people so they can get the tools that they need to have the same freedom to live their own lives and be able to take care of themselves. And I believe you know where I am. And it's not so much that we don't spend enough as a country when it comes to social insurance. But more about how we invest those resources.

My position when it comes to social insurance is pretty clear. I want it to be so effective that it becomes obsolete knowing that we'll probably never get there, but we are always striving for that goal as a country. So we can have the best social insurance system that we can have with the fewest amount of people living in poverty. Also knowing we'll probably never eliminate poverty in this country just like we'll probably never eliminate crime. Doesn't mean you don't try to accomplish those things but you shoot for the stars and see how far you can get.
:Professor Drew Halfmann: How Do The American and Swedish Welfare States Differ?

Thursday, February 14, 2013

Chris Van Hollen: Video: "House Republicans Refuse Vote on Democratic Plan to Replace Sequester": Why The Sequester Doesn't Have to Happen



If the sequester isn't replaced which is across the board budget cuts which only happens in Washington. Where you would cut things across the board, we have a budget deficit so lets cut things that we need to do as well as things that we don't need to do. And if anything lets cut the things we need to do more then the waste in the budget. Yeah thats a real good idea, if you work for the Federal Government but if you don't work there. You might be thinking no wonder their approval rating is so low because these people don't know what they are doing. They don't know how to run an organization and if these across the board cuts aren't replaced. We are going to see job losses in defense, homeland security, medical research and other areas when. We don't have to when the economy is already sluggish and where we still have high unemployment in this country. But again we are talking about the Federal Government that believes they have to scare the hell out. Of each other to force both sides to do the right thing. I love Washington the city and wouldn't want to live anywhere else, I'm just not crazy about the. People who work there who are suppose to be representing us.

Some people I believe on both sides have suggested that both party's don't believe that the debt and deficit. Is a big concern with them, otherwise they would've already solved the problem by now. Because both sides know what we have to do to solve this problem. We have an unaffordable healthcare system that Medicare and Medicaid the two largest health insurers in. The country are part of not by themselves, a lot of their problems have to do with how they were set up. And the broader healthcare system but they are certainly part of the problem and a big chunk of it. We have a overcommitted defense department and borrowed way too much money being in places we don't have to be at. We have a wasteful tax code that does little if anything to promote economic and job growth. And costs us about a trillion dollars a year that could be used for deficit reduction. And we have too many people who are unemployed and living in poverty otherwise we don't have the debt and deficit situation we have today.

So if this was real world, Congress and the President would've solved the debt and deficit about eighteen months ago. Or be working on it right now, got half of the deal done back in the summer of 2011 and right now working on the other half. Instead of trying to find ways to blame each other for a sequester thats about to happen that again is a crisis that was created by. The Federal Government and no one else and they would be working together on an economic and job growth plan that would reduce unemployment and poverty. But the problem is they don't live and work in a real world and are operating in Fantasy Land.

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

AP: Video: RAW: Liberals and Conservatives See Options: Where Democrats and Republicans Can Come Together



There were some areas last night in President Obama's speech where there's common ground for Democrats and Republicans to work together. And in a couple areas already Democrats and Republicans are already working together in Congress. On comprehensive immigration reform where there are already Bi Partisan agreements in the House and Senate. As far as frameworks to draft a bill, hold hearings and markup bills this year and at least in the Senate. They are looking to pass a bill by the summer and we'll see what the House does. And there's already movement in the Senate to prevent gun violence in areas of background checks and dealing with. Mental health in this country and the Senate will take up a bill in March. Another area will be in the Senate where again Senator Tom Harkin and Senator Lamar Alexander the. Chairman and Ranking Member of the Labor Committee that oversees education in this country will have a bill to deal. With the Elementary and Secondary Education Act which covers public education in this country and the role that the Federal Government plays in it.

Another area where I believe Democrats and Republicans will be able to work together especially with the new rule changes. Where now the Senate will at least be able to debate and vote to amend bills which will make it more difficult for Senate Republican to obstruct. Because now they'll be able to weigh in on legislation, is in the area of infrastructure investment. Where infrastructure in this country has Bi Partisan support and where this country needs a lot of. Work and would put a lot of Americans back to work and be a big boost for the country. So I expect to see President Obama and the Senate Democratic Leadership will push a bill in the. Senate and hopefully will be able to work with Senate Republicans on that and at least get a bill out of the Senate. Which would be their jobs bill and hopefully the House will do something there as well.

The 112th Congress was different politically because of the Tea Party members in Congress and with Republicans winning back the House. And with Democrats worried about losing all of the power they had left, the White House and Senate. And Republicans obviously looking to get back all of the power and add the White House and Senate. So there wasn't much incentive for Democrats and Republicans to work together. But because of Democrats doing as well as they did in 2012 and adding seats and adding to their Senate majority. With the Republican Party less popular there's now incentive for both party's to work together. And get some things done.

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

MSNBC: Video: State of The Union Address: Full Speech: 2/12/2013: Making The Case For Liberal-Democracy



To put it simply I believe that President Obama gave a classical Liberal-Democratic speech tonight and I mean that in the best sense. Remember I'm a Liberal-Democrats and proud of that but let me explain what I mean by that even further. This speech tonight was the closest speech that Barack Obama has ever sounded to President Bill Clinton. But that instead of President Obama saying "that the era of Big Government is over". Looking back at that line from 1996, President Clinton was really just stating the obvious and something that really ended when. Richard Nixon became President in 1969 that we really haven't had a Progressive or Social-Democratic President since. So that era has been gone for a while but what President Obama spoke in terms of was what's called Smart Government. That we need a limited Federal Government to do the things for society that the private sector won't or can't do or do as much. That we need to be done for a functioning society to be functional in a Liberal-Democracy.

I disagree with what CNN analyst John King who I normally like and do respect when he said that President Obama gave the country and Congress. A laundry list of new programs that he wants to be passed but what the President was talking about. That what we need government to do are the things that they are already doing but to do them better and smarter and be more efficient. Which is another thing that Smart Government is about which isn't big or small but limited to doing the things that we need it to do. But we need it to do those things well especially in an era of deficit reduction and as it relates to the economy. We especially need government to do these things well to promote economic and job growth. Which we can't without get to deficit reduction without people making and spending more money with more people working and more. People working good jobs but only do those things and also don't get in the way or stall economic and job growth.

This was not a New Deal or Great Society Progressive or Social-Democratic big speech. Where one of the famous lines is that the era of Big Government is back as bad as Progressives may want. For that to come back but again what did President Obama talked about and it wasn't a laundry list. He talked about the need for new infrastructure investment to all of the work and that the Core of Engineers says we have to do. And we have a 1T$ hole in infrastructure in and that we need a comprehensive immigration reform plan. That brings more high skilled workers into America, as well as workers to do the jobs that Americans simply won't do. And to bring in these workers in this country legally and bring our illegal workers out of the closet so to. Speak under certain conditions and that we reform our public education system so our students have the resources to be successful in life. And be able to go to the school thats best for them and have a teacher thats qualified to teach them and that we can fund our schools. In a fairer way.

The other thing that the President talked about was creating a national energy policy that moves. America towards energy independence by investing in American natural resources. So tonight wasn't some new welfare state speech creating all of these new programs and. Investing all of this money in current New Deal or Great Society programs but a real. Liberal-Democratic speech based on a smart limited government to only do the things that the country needs it to. Do and I believe the President hit this speech out of the ballpark but thats me.

ABC News: Video: Good Morning America: 2013 State of The Union Address 2013 Preview



This will be the first time I've done this as a blogger but today I'm going to write a preview of what. I believe President Obama will say and should say tonight at his State of The Union address and then after the speech I'll write what I think about it all in the same day.

At risk of sounding repetitive but its important because the State of The Union address. Is an opportunity and again only an opportunity for the President of The United States to layout. What the situation of the country is, where we are doing well, where we are lacking, what we need. To work on, what we should do about it and so fourth and then its up to the situation of the. Country as well as up to the President at the time situation politically. His approval rating, the situation in Congress both House and Senate and where they stand and then of. Course the communication skills of the President that will determine his ability to get any of his agenda through Congress or not. And President Obama right now is a perfect example of that. He's up in the polls, his party has a significant majority in the Senate but not large. With a weaken Republican Party at least looking to work with him in the Senate. And even though he still has a Republican House, he has a large Democratic minority there with a weaken. Republican Party that seems ready to work with the President at least as it relates to deficit reduction. Immigration reform and perhaps even infrastructure investment.

So far in 2013 President Obama is off to a good start in Congress. The Senate approved his Secretary of State nominee John Kerry overwhelmingly and about to approve his. Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel with what I believe will be a significant majority as well. The Senate has a Bi Partisan agreement on comprehensive immigration reform that looks similar to what the. President laid out last week, the Senate this afternoon passed the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. And the Republican House is going to have their won reauthorization of that bill as well. And they are working on a Bi Partisan comprehensive immigration bill to, so things right now politically look like they are in Democratic territory. And even though Democrats don't control both chambers of Congress to go along with President Obama. They have a Republican opposition that knows its weaken with the results of the 2012 elections. And that they need to work with Democrats and look productive and bring in new voters.

With economic growth actually shrinking in the last quarter of 2012 for the first time since early 2009. This is of course a problem for President Obama and we obviously don't want to go back in recession. But it also presents an opportunity for the President to focus on the economy and do things there that could boost. Economic growth as it relates to tax reform that would cut waste in the tax code and encourage business's to invest and hire more in America. As well as comprehensive immigration reform where he's already off to a good start in both the. House and Senate with Bi Partisan agreements about to be reached that would bring in more high skilled workers. As well as other workers who'll do the jobs that Americans won't do. As well as developing an energy policy that would move us towards energy independence. Then of course he should talk about the upcoming sequester and how we can avoid that and he's already in. Talks with the Democratic Leadership in the Senate and they'll have a bill to avoid the sequester ready by Thursday.

I expect and believe that the President will focus on the economy tonight as I believe he should. In the areas of tax reform, infrastructure investment, energy policy and comprehensive immigration reform. And he has a good shot at seeing movement on all of these issues in the Democratic Senate especially with its new rule changes. And a Republican Minority that at least seems willing to work with Senate Democrats so they won't actually have to debate. Against bills that are actually popular with Leader Harry Reid now being able to bring legislation. To the floor almost by himself and then we'll get to see how the Republican House responds to. Whatever legislation that the Senate passes but President Obama will have a very good. Opportunity to push for a Liberal-Democratic agenda tonight and we'll see how much success he has with the speech tonight.

Clinton Library: State of The Union Address, 1994- Health Care and The Economy

Source: Clinton Library- President William J. Clinton-
Source: Clinton Library: State of The Union Address 1994- Health Care and The Economy

President Bill Clinton's 1994 State of The Union address is memorable to me for several reasons. One because it was President Clinton's last State of The Union in front of a Democratic Congress. Congressional Republicans thanks to the Gingrich Revolution in November, 1994 won back both control of the House and Senate in big numbers that year. But the 1993-94 period of the Clinton Presidency is memorable for me at least for several reasons. President Clinton's first two years were rough politically with deficit reduction, the 1994 crime bill, free trade and so-forth. The so called Whitewater story was starting to become a problem for President Clinton. Obviously the health care reform debacle of 1993-94, that alone probably cost Congressional Democrats the House and Senate. Otherwise Democrats might of been able to at least hold the Senate, but with smaller numbers and perhaps the House as well, but with much smaller numbers. But how a President is doing politically isn't always how well he's doing legislatively, or when it comes to policy.

But if you look at what President Clinton was able to accomplish when it came to policy President Clinton got his major deficit reduction act passed in 1993, GAT and NAFTA, two free trade bills. Family and Medical Leave, middle class tax relief and tax relief for small business's. Reforming how the Federal Government works to cut waste in it as well as its size. The Federal Government got smaller under President Clinton and yes he's called a Liberal Democrat which is fine and good. At least as far as I'm concern, but he's actually a real Liberal Democrat in the real sense. If he was some type of Social Democrat looking for the Federal Government to solve all of the peoples problems for them, government wouldn't of gotten smaller under him and taxes for the middle class wouldn't have been cut. And he wouldn't of cut overall spending and the size of the Federal budget and Federal Government. Those things would've gone up instead.

As I've said before the State of The Union address is an opportunity for the President to layout what the situation of the country is, where we are doing well, what we need to improve on, where we need serious reform. And what the President wants to focus on in the next year. So President Clinton had a lot to report on in 1994. Because he got a lot done in 1993 and the country was making progress even if his approval rating wasn't showing that. Politically, 1994 could be seen as a waste for the Clinton Administration, because of how badly they screwed up the health care debate. At the tend trying to put together a bill that satisfied everyone including Congressional Republicans that probably weren't going to vote for anything other than perhaps the Dole-Chaffy compromise bill in the Senate. And instead what they should've done was go smaller and come up with a Patients Bill of Rights and tax relief for people who can't afford health insurance. But legislatively they accomplished a lot and even got some Republican support on things like trade and Family and Medical Leave.  

Saturday, February 9, 2013

Martu Uussia: Video: Televisia: Wounds of a Lover: Sexy Mexican Soap Opera


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

Here's a Mexican soap opera from Televisia TV taking place on a what at least in America and perhaps in Mexico would be called a Western ranch. What we call in America Western culture is pretty popular in Mexico, but they have their own Western culture that is not that different from what you see in Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. But takes place in states in Mexico like Tijuana. If you watch the Spanish soap operas on Telemundo and Univision, a lot of them at least when I was watching them on a regular basis ten-years ago or so took place on ranches.

I love these types of shows because it combines the drama, backstabbing, ulterior motives and humor of a good soap opera. With cowboy and cowgirl culture and you get to see all of these Latin beautiful and sexy cowgirls like you see in this video throughout the show. It is sort of like watching Rodeo Girls on A&E, if you are familiar with that, but it takes place in Mexico or perhaps Argentina or somewhere else in South America. Instead of the Southwest or Mountain West in America.


Miller Center: Video: President Jimmy Carter: 1980 State of The Union Address



The State of The Union speech is an opportunity for the President of The United States to lay out how the country as a whole is doing. At least as he and his administration sees it and hopefully as it is and to layout where he wants to take the country for that year. What's been accomplished the last year, what are the challenges ahead and how he and Congress should. Approach them and they generally come with a laundry list as well. I want the Congress to pass these policies and these bills for the good of country and so fourth depending on what the. Challenges are and depending on the condition of the country and where the President stands politically and the. Situation in Congress both in the House and Senate will determine how successful the President will be in pushing his agenda through if any of it through Congress. Who controls the House and Senate and where the opposition party stands with the country and what position they are. In politically to deal with the President or try to obstruct what the President is trying to accomplish.

Jimmy Carter's Presidency was fascinating for lots of reasons especially the time he served as President. In the late 1970s and early 80s because he came in with a lot of power to move the country and was fairly successful politically and in popularity in 1977. He didn't have much of mandate coming in barely being elected President in one of the closest Presidential elections. Of all time in 1976 but he had a Democratic Congress with a House that was almost 2-1 Democratic. And a Democratic Senate with a 3-5 majority meaning it was filibuster proof. If all of the Democratic Senators voted yes. Meaning Congressional Republicans at least early on being both the opposition party but also the minority party in Congress. With small minorities had very little if any power to force President Carter's hand or try to stop him. But as it turned out instead the Senate Minority Leader at the time Howard Baker turned out to be one of. President Carter's best friends in Congress because the Democratic Party was divided between. Northern Progressive-Democrats and Southern Moderate-Conservative Democrats.

After 1977 and especially after Congressional Republicans picked up seats in both the House and Senate. And with a Democratic Party that was divided not only between Progressives and Conservatives but also with what I call Reformed-Liberals or New-Democrats. Which where Jimmy Carter falls into in the Democratic Party, President Carter had to be able to work with. Congressional Republicans especially Minority Leader Baker to get anything done in Congress. Because the Democratic Leadership in Congress controlled buy Progressive or Social-Democrats ran Congress. And with President Carter's approval rating falling by 1978 when the economy went South and looked like we were headed for recession. President Carter had a very hard time moving Congress even a Democratic Congress and the country on anything. And what happened in 1979 and 1980 with economy and the crisis's in the Middle East especially with the hostages. It made President Carter's job very hard when it came to these speeches.

As I've said before the 1980 State of The Union address was a speech that Jimmy Carter didn't want to give. Because he was dealing with one crisis after another all at the same time. Russia on the move in Afghanistan trying to replace a friendly government with Communist regime. The economy tanking, the Iranian hostage crisis and of course being up for reelection with a. Democratic primary challenger from Progressives in Senator Ted Kennedy. Which made President Carter's job almost impossible.

Friday, February 8, 2013

Foreign Affairs: Economy: Roger C. Altman: The Fall and Rise of The West

The Fall and Rise of the West: pWhile the grim effects of the 2008 financial crisis still resonate across the globe, the recession wasn't all bad: it triggered fundamental economic restructuring, and the result is a U.S. economy poised to emerge stronger than it was before. Although it's too soon to say with certainty, even Europe may come out ahead./p

FRSFreeState-
I like where America is headed economically in the next 5-10 years if we successfully address the national debt and deficit quickly. Because we have energy and manufacturing industries that are poised for a boom as well as a housing market thats coming back as well. We still have to move forward in infrastructure investment and encouraging American business's and others to invest in the United States. Because right now they are sitting on trillions of dollars that could be invested in America that would spark. Economic and job growth but because we addressed the Great Recession when we did and are now dealing with. Our national debt and deficit we are poised to rebound and hopefully put our economy back where it was in. 2005 and 2006 but go further and we have work to do as it relates to. Our immigration system and we need to address poverty in America. Bring down our level of poverty and put those people to work so they can take care of themselves and not collecting from. Public assistance which would also help us bring down. Our debt and deficit because we would have more workers paying income taxes.

In the next two years if America address's its debt and deficit successfully and quickly. We'll have the opportunity to address four key areas that will all benefit our economy and allow for us to not only grow. Our economy but expand our economy and make it larger and more productive with rising wages across the board. These four areas are immigration, infrastructure, energy and education and all four of these areas result in investment. In the American economy which leads to economic and job growth, so both America and Canada both are in solid position to move their economies forward. And be able to compete very well with the emerging superpowers in the World. China, Russia, Brazil and India whereas Europe is still stuck in neutral or declining and have issues they still need to address. So their economy can finally start recovering again.

CBS: CSI Miami's Rest in Pieces: Raquel Welch Guest Stars

Still Red-Hot
CBS: CSI Miami's Rest in Pieces: Raquel Welch Guest Stars

Raquel Welch, not only playing a grandmother, but a bad girl on the same show. Nope! Sorry, not buying it. For one, she’s still too damn hot to be playing a grandmother. Maybe when she turns a hundred will she finally be able to pull off the grandmother. And maybe pigs will be flying and Mississippi will become an Islamic State by them. With Billy Joe and Jimmy Ray, wearing turbans as well. And two, she’s too damn cute to be playing a bad girl. Well actually that works for her, because she would be one of the last women people would assume as a bad girl, because she’s still real hot and has the baby-face going for her when she smiles, or is even pissed off. In all seriousness this looks like a good show and I wish I had watch it. Because Raquel is on it, but it looks like a good episode as well.

Horatio, (played by David Caruso) I guess the lieutenant on this show. Really has his work cut out for him. The lead criminal is a red-hot Latina goddess and his professionalism will really be put to the test on this show. He’s going to have to try to catch a women and put her organization away without falling for the urge to want to bang her. (Good luck Chuck!) Or at the very least get very close with Vina Navarro, (played by the red-hot Raquel Welch) who is the leader of a very powerful crime family in Miami. Responsible for several murders and runs a narcotics operation. Perhaps has politicians in their back pockets. A really bad crew as far as the damage they can bring. And Horatio almost has to do this job blindfolded, at least when he’s around Vina, or has David Caruso put it in the promo for this show, he may fall for her power and sex appeal and be sucked in by her.

David Caruso, I believe at least is a great actor. He plays the tough smart cop very well, as you see on this show and if you’re familiar with the movie Body Count back in 1998, he also plays the wise-cracking funny bad guy stoned killer as well. Someone who knows what they want and won’t let anyone stop him. Who also can make you laugh knows how to put people in their place with humor. Raquel Welch, is still so red-hot that she’s been banned from both the North and South poles, because they don’t want any more ice to melt. Scandinavia, doesn’t want her in the winter either. (Ha, ha) And yet she’s also a hell of an actress who uses her tremendous sex appeal and adorability as an actress to bring viewers in, but has this great charm and credibility as an actress that you believe whatever role she’s playing, because she’s playing it. This looks like a real good show and hopefully I’ll see it on demand, or in syndication.


Thursday, February 7, 2013

Leather Honeys: Miss Sixty Babe in Tight Leather Jeans

Miss Sixty Babe
Leather Honeys: Miss Sixty Babe in Tight Leather Jeans

There are times that I certainly write pieces for the pure pleasure of it. And in this case this would be something that would make me feel good and a lot of other guys would feel good, but if someone from the Christian-Right, Moral Majority and that club ever saw it, they would try to send me to hell. That hell would probably be a prison, because that is the closest that they could get to. But when you post a video of a sexy women in all black, including skin-tight black leather jeans that Jim Morrison The Lizard King would be proud of and she's showing her asset, you're not speaking to a church, or a so-called family values group.

I'm not a fan of what is called hard-core porn. And for me that is basically very sexy naked women, or women who only cover up their boobs and lets say mid-section, leaving their legs and chess bare. But I do like sexy women in tight outfits. Especially women in tight jeans and boots. Love leather jeans models, like you see in this video. Love cowgirls, biker women and athletically built women entertainers and women I just see on the street. You don't have to be pornographic to look sexy. You can look sexy and even where tight outfits. Including with skinny denim and leather with boots and other pants and skirts and look sexy, but not have to look like you work at a sex shop.

Sexy women to me, are stylish women. A porno star, would probably get my attention and I'm sure I would check her out. But a sexy stylish women with a nice body who knows how to show her body without being practically naked will be in my memory. And I'll be thinking about her and want to get to know her, because a women like that probably has more going on for her than just her body. But a women who feels the need to be half-naked on a regular basis, or does that to make a living, probably doesn't have much else going on for her.


Vicki McKenna Show: Video: "Liberals Don't Care About Black People": Why African Americans Tend to Vote Democratic



Before I get into the nonsense that Liberals don't care about African Americans. Which is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard, I'll explain why African Americans tend to vote. Democratic and for the most part it goes back to the 1960s with Jack Kennedy who went after their support. And recruited African Americans to his campaign when he ran for President in 1960. And that even though President Kennedy was slow to coming around in favor of civil rights and actually. Sending a bill to Congress and pushing for it before he was assassinated in 1963. He was still in communication with African Americans and had African Americans on his staff working for him. In his administration so a Liberal-Democrat just reaching out to this community that was going. Through hell in this country especially in the South and treated like second class citizens. Or people who weren't even citizens at all in the United States. And then you have the civil rights laws of the 1960s from President Johnson and then the. Great Society to address poverty in America where back then 1/2 African Americans lived in poverty. You can argue about how successful War on Poverty has been but at least the effort was being made.

African American recruitment to the Democratic Party continued with Hubert Humphrey running for President in 1968. George McGovern running for President in 1972 and perhaps the only smart policy he had in that campaign. Making the smart political calculation that because of the civil rights laws of the 1960s. Knew that the Democratic Party had lost the South and the South was going to become safe Republican territory. Knew that the Democratic Party was going to need new voters similar to where the Republican Party is today. Because of all of the Southern Caucasians that were headed towards the Republican Party. Changed the Democratic Party rules to bring in more women and African and Latin Americans to the party to help make up the. Difference of all of the Southern Caucasians that were becoming Republicans. Keep in mind up until the 1960s the Republican Party was pretty competitive with the African American vote. Because they were the party of Lincoln and now have becoming the party of the Confederacy ever since.

As far as Liberals who don't care about African Americans, well I'm a Liberal and I care about all people no matter of race. Which is one of the values of Liberalism if you look at it in its classical terms. Because I take the Martin L. King dream of don't judge people but the. Color of their skin but by the content of their character and care deeply about poverty. But not just as it relates to African Americans but all people including Southern Caucasians and other. Caucasians who live in poverty in other rural areas in this country. And so do many other Liberals like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and others and believe in what's called the. Americans dream the ability for one to be successful in life and be able to chart their own course. And that if you really do care about poor people, you support policies that lift people out of poverty. That empower them to be able to achieve the American dream on their own. And not just support people by meeting their basic needs but actually helping them get themselves. Out of poverty.

I do agree with one thing that Democrats have a habit of taking African Americans for granted. Because the Democratic Leadership tends to take this view that since African Americans have nowhere else to go. That Republicans have essentially given up on them as far as them coming back to the Republican Party. So that Democrats don't really need to address the issues of African Americans because again this community has nowhere else to go. And thats a danger for this community so they need be aware of this and address that. But the problem is there's not much incentive for African Americans to become anything but Democrats right now.

Tuesday, February 5, 2013

David Von Pein: Bedside Interview With Jack Ruby, 12/16/1966

LHO Assassin
The Jack Ruby episode is a perfect example of why so many conspiracy theories came about after the John F. Kennedy assassination. Because first an American president is assassinated and then the assassin, or at least accused assassin is shot and killed as well. And left many Americans to believe that this is too unreal and can't be natural acts. And that something is up that would explain these crazy activities from happening like forces in the Federal Government working to see that Jack Kennedy and Lee Oswald are killed. Because they saw Jack Kennedy as a threat and that Lee Oswald knew too much about not only the assassination itself, but the all of the powers associated with the JFK assassination. And didn't want their power and control to be threatened.

We'll never know the full story of what Jack Ruby knew about this case, because he died three years after the JFK assassination. And we might already know everything that he knows about this case. But Jack Ruby and his associations with organized crime figures in Dallas and the hatred that the Italian Mafia had for President Kennedy and his administration leave a lot people wondering if they put Ruby up to killing the President, because they didn't want Oswald to talk. The only conspiracy theory that has any credibility whatsoever that leaves intelligent sane people like Robert Blakey who worked for the House Assassinations Committee wondering if someone other than Lee Oswald was involved in the JFK assassination is the possible organized crime connection.

Monday, February 4, 2013

Leathered Life 2012: Video: Tessa in Black Leather Jeans


This post was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

A short but sweet video I guess. I like the women, but it would’ve been nice to of gotten a better look at her face. And even more so I liked her outfit. She basically looked like a rocker or biker chick with the leather jacket and leather jeans. Which is a fairly common look for both rocker and biker chicks, especially biker chicks because leather and leather jeans are so practical with what they do and riding their bikes. Because the leather jeans protect their legs especially from hot bikes. And they look real good on biker chicks on bikes and they are a great way for sexy women to show off their bodies especially their legs and butts. So this women wearing a sexy outfit, but this video was just too short for me and would’ve liked to of seen at least a two-minute video of this women in this outfit.


John Kelly: Lady in Cement- Hot Raquel Welch

Raquel Welch Swimsuit Edition-
Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

The Raquel Welch swimsuit edition, at least in a movie from 1968. Lady in Cement is actually a very good movie. Very funny as Frank Sinatra movies tend to be, because he was a very good comedic actor with a very good off the cuff sense of humor. This movie also has a lot of good action scenes in it as well and a hell of a cast. But take Raquel out of this movie and they would have to replace her with another goddess who if she isn't as hot, sexy and adorable as Raquel. She would have to at least be in her ballpark. Someone like Jill St. John who was in the first Tony Rome movie. (Any guesses on what the first Tony Rome movie was called) An actress like Raquel Welch brings guys to movies by herself. Because she's so hot and sexy and adorable and that voice and yet she can also act as well.

Raquel and Frank are twenty-five years apart in real-life and perhaps in this movie as well. And yet the Raquel character Kit, is attracted to Tony Rome, because he's Frank Sinatra. Well actually because Tony Rome is a very charming intelligent funny smartass, who is very good at his job. Rome is attracted to Kit as well, because, as if you don't know the answers to that! But he needs her for the case he's working on and she knows men that might have something to do with the murder he's investigating. If not did the murder themselves and he uses her to get to them, as well as please himself. Kit also tries to use Rome to get him to investigate someone else, with Rome telling her, "when I want it, I'm not going to trade for it." You can tell that they're very attracted to each other in this movie, but that Rome has a job to do and that is what he concentrates on. And its a very entertaining movie.


VOA News: Video: John Kerry Begins Work as Secretary of State



If you look at where America was four year ago when it came to foreign policy. We were dealing with two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Moamarr Kadaffi was still in power in Libya. And Bashar Assad still had a firm grip on power in Syria and Hosni Mubarak still had a firm grip on power. In Egypt, these three men were all Arab dictators, Tunisia and Yemen were still controlled by. Authoritarian regimes as well, this has all changed where now those countries at least have a shot at Democracy and freedom. What the people in these countries will do with those opportunities will be up to them but they didn't have that four years ago. So John Kerry as the next Secretary of State will be inheriting trouble from what happened from the. September, 11 attacks in Libya but he'll also be inheriting a different World and a World with more opportunities to push the. Cause of Democracy and freedom around the World because he'll have new partners around the World. Who at least believe in a certain level of freedom for their people and that Authoritarianism needs to. Go or at least be scaled back so the people have an opportunity to make a life for them self.

What President Obama will have in John Kerry as Secretary of State and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense. Is two men to go along with his Vice President in Joe Biden who all believe in a strong defense. And that we have to do everything we can to protect the security of Americans within reason that doesn't violate our freedom and Constitutional rights. But that there's a limit to what America can do on its own around the World with just our military. And that we need partners around the World to work with us to fight against brutal Authoritarians. Who are holding their people down and beating them down because they seek to have the freedom. That most Western countries have and that America can't do these things on our own. And that countries who have the resources to must do what they can to defend them self as well. A policy that was put in place by President Obama and Secretary of State Clinton already.

This is what Liberal-Internationalism looks like that you need to be strong at home as well as abroad. But that you can't do everything on your own, we simply don't have the resources to police a planet this size. Especially with our current economic and financial situation and that we need partners around the World. To help us with the cause of freedom and this is what new Secretary of State John Kerry will be pushing for.

Sunday, February 3, 2013

Rusted Televisione: A&E: Kennedys Don't Cry From 1975: The Story of an American Political Dynasty



The Kennedys-
This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press: Rusted Televisione: A&E: Kennedys Don't Cry From 1975: The Story of an American Political Dynasty

The Kennedy I have the most admiration for would be John F. Kennedy. Who was our 35th President of the United States, after serving fourteen years in Congress both in the House and Senate. I like him the most for political reasons, because he’s exactly what a Liberal Democrat should be and is. But I probably have more respect for Edward M. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy of course. Just because he never changed, always fought for what he believed in and so-forth. Perhaps the hardest working and most productive person to ever serve in Congress. House or Senate and of course was called the Lion of the Senate a title he definitely earned.

With Robert F. Kennedy, I believe Bobby represented the heart of the family and what his family and Democrats should represent. And be about and I believe was one of the most effective Attorney Generals we’ve ever had in this country. Because of his work of making organize crime a national issue and importance and the people he was able to bring down. Along with his work on civil rights and the Cuban Missile Crisis. The Kennedy family, is the closest thing we’ve ever had to a royal family in America and hopefully the closest we’ll ever come.

The Kennedy’s, are the most successful political family we’ve ever had at one point having the Presidency the Attorney General’s office and a member in Congress. Since 1947, there has been at least one Kennedy serving in Congress House or Senate all the way up until 2009 when Senator Ted Kennedy died and was obviously out of Congress. If you’re last name is Kennedy and you look like you have a future, you’ll always be asked unless you are already in Congress, are you going to run for Congress, or the White House.

The closet thing the Republican Party has probably produced as far as successful political families, is the Bush Family of course. With two members serving in Congress. Senator Prescott Bush in the 1950s and Representative George H.W. Bush in the 1960s. George W. Bush, ran for the House in 1978, but lost, but they have had two president’s. So they’ve been very successful as well politically. I believe these are the reasons why the Kennedy Family is so beloved, or at least respected. Because of everything they’ve accomplished and of course the members of the family themselves.

The Kennedy Family, is a very likable family with very charming people. At times seeming more like a Hollywood family than a Washington family. Weighing in on all the big decisions of the day, which is why they are so famous. They are a story of rags to riches, at least from how Joe Kennedy Sr. started out in life and what he made of his life. And pushed his children so hard that they would never have to live in poverty ever. But it is also a family of tragedy and fortune. Having lost so much as far as life, but have built so much for themselves as well. A truly American family Irish, or otherwise.


ABC News: Video: This Week: Students First's Michelle Rhee Author of Radical Putting Students First



Michelle Rhee representing exactly what education reform is about. Where students would be able to go school based on what's the best school for them rather then where they live. Teachers being paid based on how good of a job they are doing instead of how long they've been doing the job. Funding schools based on what they need rather then where they are located. And judging students, teachers and schools based on how they perform, instead of funding and promoting them. Just because they are students, teachers and schools.

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Brookings Institution: Video: Foreign Affairs: Fiona Hill & Clifford Gabby: Vladimir Putin as Statist: Restoring the Greatness of Russia



I don't believe Vladimir Putin the President of the Russian Federation is a Communist. But he does represent the new Statism or reformed Statism in Russia and is certainly not a Liberal-Democrat. Or even a Conservative but someone who believes that the role of government is to preserve the state. And to look after the state the country as a whole, even if that means limiting individual freedom. And centralizing more power with the Federal Government in Russia and with the Kremlin itself. Valadimir Putin is Russia's version of a Neoconservative in America, not completely Authoritarian. Not a Communist, not believing that all power in the country should be controlled by the Federal Government. But someone who values the state and order in the country over freedom and thats how he's governed there.

The Criterion Collection: Primary 1960- The Democratic Race For President


Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS Daily Press

The 1960s elections especially the presidential election between Senator John Kennedy and Vice President Richard Nixon, were fascinating for several reasons. But it was a fascinating election season before Jack Kennedy and Dick Nixon won their party’s nomination for President. The Democratic primaries had two of the strongest leaders in the Democratic Party competing with each other for the Democratic nomination, in Senator Kennedy and Senator Hubert Humphrey.

The two Senators represented different factions of the Democratic Party and even different generations of the party. Even though they were both from the same generation officially. Hubert Humphrey represented the old guard, or what I call the Old-Left of the Democratic Party, the FDR coalition of Northern Progressives and Southern Conservatives who tended to work together on economic policy and foreign policy, but were different on civil rights obviously.

Senator Humphrey came out in favor of civil rights before it became popular to use as an example. And Senator Kennedy represented what I call the Reformed-Left, people who were called New Democrats in the 1980s, the true Liberal Democrats in the party. The JFK vs HHH Democratic primaries weren’t just about who would try to lead the Democratic Party in the next four years. But who would lead the country and which faction of the Democratic Party would lead the country in the next four years.

And I believe had Jack Kennedy not of been assassinated as President in 1963 and gotten reelected in 1964, the Vietnam War doesn’t happen at least as far as how the United States was involved in it. And that he would’ve realized how big of a mistake it would’ve been for America to try to win that war at least on our own. And what’s called the New-Left that came together in the 1960s because of the Vietnam War and the Great Society, against the war, but strongly in favor of the Great Society.

I don’t believe the New Left emerges that’s become Occupy Wall Street today. Because there wouldn’t of been a need for it and the old FDR/LBJ coalition would’ve stayed in place and the Democratic Party would look different today. Had Senator Humphrey defeated Senator Kennedy in 1960 and somehow gone on to defeat Vice President Nixon in the general election. The Democratic Party would look different today as well because again I don’t believe a President Humphrey would’ve gotten the United States as involved in the Vietnam War as it did.

And the New-Left or Occupy Wall Street isn’t in existence today, because again there wouldn’t of been a need for it. But the Reformed-Left or New Democratic Coalition doesn’t emerge either, or at least not as early as it did. Perhaps Senator Kennedy runs for President in 1968 and gets elected, but a lot of New Democrats of today that came from the Baby Boom Generation that looks up to Jack Kennedy and see him as our leader, I’m not a baby boomer I’m a Gen-Xer, but Jack Kennedy is a big political hero of mine. And I’m a New Democrat as well.

The JFK-HHH primaries was really about the sole or future of the Democratic Party and where we were going as a country. And what the Democratic Party was going to look like in the future. Which is why these primaries were so important and a big reason why people were so fascinated. Because JFK was new as a national leader and spoke differently and had different ideas and a different vision. As far as where he would take the country and Democratic Party. Against HHH who represented the old guard or Old-Left in the Democratic Party that were looking to expand the New Deal.
The Criterion Collection: Primary 1960 Trailer