Wednesday, January 30, 2013

Raquel Welch: Ready to Groove

Source:The Pin Up Channel- Raquel Welch grooving.
Source:The Daily Press

"Raquel Welch I'm Ready to Groove."

From The Pin Up Channel 

“A great issue of Twen, published in January 1968. It features Raquel Welch on the cover, an interview with Heinz Edelmann about his artwork for The Beatles’ Yellow Submarine movie, plus some fantastic fashion editorials and lots of other gorgeous 1960s art and illustrations throughout, including a double page illustration of ‘Ringo in Wonderland’ which measures 21″ x 13¼”. This issue seems to be quite scarce at the moment, but occasionally a copy turns up for sale on Ebay, however, incase you haven’t managed to find one yet, this is a brief glimpse of the aforementioned contents.” 
Source:Twen- Raquel Welch Bikini Edition.

Raquel Welch the sexy performer with a great voice. The cutest, hottest, sexiest thing on stage. She was built and created for the 1960s when you had all of these sexy funny musical comedies come out, including the hippie movies as well. Raquel came out at the perfect time for her as far as what was going on in Hollywood and what she brought as far as talent. Hot baby-faced adorable woman, with a great body, great voice, who moves very well, who can also act and is a hell of a satirist.

Physically Raquel is one of the top Hollywood Goddess's of all-time, but she's one of the top Hollywood goddess's of all-time as an entertainer as well. She's in the same class as Marilyn Monroe and Sophia Loren, as far as women who look incredible, but who are also great performers as well.

I don't know much about the movie A Swingin Summer. But the fact that Raquel is in and did this number is the only reason I need to see it. The movie might be trash and one of the worst things ever made. But she's in it and she's great. Or the movie could be very good and very funny Myra Breckinridge, with Raquel in, but with Raquel in it the movie is that much better. She brings guys to movies just to see her.

That is the sign of a Hollywood star. People thinking they might be taking a risk seeing this movie, but since Raquel is in that is a risk worth taking. Because again she's in it I'm going to keep an eye out for this movie so I can see it and get a copy of it if I like it. I did the same thing with Myra Breckinridge which is now one of my favorite satires of all-time.

Associated Press: 'Bill Gates On Poverty & The U.S.'

Source:Associated Press- billionaire businessman/activist Bill Gates.

"Microsoft founder and philanthropist Bill Gates talks with The Associated Press about progress on foreign aid and issues he believes are important for President Barack Obama's second term." 

Tuesday, January 29, 2013

Associated Press: Senator Bob Menendez: 'Lightning Speed Approval' For John Kerry'

Source:Associated Press- left to right: U.S. Senator Bob Menendez (Democrat, New Jersey) Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee & incoming Secretary of State John Kerry. Perhaps Senator Menendez wished he stepped on a stool, before standing next to Senator Kerry, in front of cameras.

"The Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday swiftly and unanimously approved President Barack Obama's choice of Sen. John Kerry to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of state. " 

Leathered Life: Woman- Taking a Bath in Leather Jeans

Source:Leathered Life- wetlook leather jeans.
Source:The Daily Press

“Taking a bath in leather pants.” Originally from Leathered Life, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Sexy woman, in tight leather jeans and boots, getting wet in the bathtub fully clothed. Is this porn? I'll let you be the judge, but she's fully clothed, not engaged in sex with anyone, (including herself) not even making out with anyone. A very attractive woman, in a tight outfit, in a bathtub getting wet.

Jim Morrison, who of course was the frontman for The Doors in the late 1960s, wore black skin-tight leather jeans everywhere, for about three years. Including to church, to parties, even in the hellish California desert in the summer. For a movie he made about him traveling on a highway he even stopped and got out and took a swim in his black leathers and cowboy boots. Now, was that porn, or just an attractive man having a good time in the desert, in a wearing a very sexy outfit. Where his leathers were so tight that he couldn't even have a boner in private.

The woman in this video, is obviously a very attractive and sexy woman and she could get a lot of guys attention here. But I don't see anything crude or pornographic in this video. It's someone getting wet wearing a tight outfit.

Friday, January 25, 2013

Senate Democrats: Majority Leader Reid: 'Democratic Principles For The 113th Congress'

Source:Senate Democrats- welcome to the U.S. Senate, where you are more likely to see the Super Bowl of absolutely nothing, then to see and hear a real debate or any legislation passed.

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid spoke on the Senate floor regarding compromise and Democrats' legislative priorities for the 113th Congress." 

Wednesday, January 23, 2013

Foreign Affairs: Fareed Zakaria: 'Can America Be Fixed?'

Source:Foreign Affairs- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) apparently looking at a potential infrastructure project.
"In November, the American electorate, deeply unhappy with Washington and its political gridlock, voted to maintain precisely the same distribution of power—returning President Barack Obama for a second term and restoring a Democratic Senate and a Republican House of Representatives. With at least the electoral uncertainty out of the way, attention quickly turned to how the country's lawmakers would address the immediate crisis known as the fiscal cliff—the impending end-of-year tax increases and government spending cuts mandated by earlier legislation.

As the United States continues its slow but steady recovery from the depths of the financial crisis, nobody


"Speech by Fareed Zakaria during the panel discussion on "The Future of Freedom and Democracy" at the 14th Forum 2000 Conference entitled "The World We Want to Live In".

The conference took place in Prague on October 10-12, 2010. Nearly 100 global leaders from business, politics, academia, religion and civil society participated in discussions and debates on key issues facing our civilization." 

Source:Forum 2000- Fareed Zakaria at Forum 2000.

From Forum 2000

"The crisis of democracy identified in the 1970s never really went away; it was just papered over with temporary solutions and obscured by a series of lucky breaks. Today, the problems have mounted, and yet American democracy is more dysfunctional than ever -- and it has fewer levers to pull in a globalized economy. This time, the pessimists might be right./p"

At risk of sounding partisan as a Democrat but factual, America under the leadership of President Bill Clinton in the 1990s, was already on course to not only finish the 1990s as not only the only superpower in the world but becoming a more powerful superpower. Not just militarily but economically as well, with a booming economy, low unemployment, budget surplus and a national debt that was actually declining, a military that could not only defend the United States but play a useful source in building and sustaining peace in the world and help those who need and deserve it to be able to fight for their own freedom. And prevent ethnic genocide especially in Europe.

We moved away from that in the last decade under President Bush and decided that if America should do or want something we should just do it and worry about the costs of it later if at all. Well we are worrying about the costs of two unfunded trillion-dollar wars, a 700B$ Medicare Advantage plan and two unpaid for tax cuts of a trillion dollars each. And stop investing in things like infrastructure and didn't do a thing to reform and strengthen our entitlements and broader social insurance system.

Because of what America did as a government in the last decade by not not progressing, (I don't mean that in ideological terms) countries like China, Russia, Brazil and India were moving forward, America was moving backwards. And instead of being the leader, we ended borrowing from the countries that are emerging as superpowers and if anything would like to surpass us as the number one superpower in the world. And as we were running up debt, our living standards started declining, moving forward in these directions.

So as a result we now have more people unemployed, more people in poverty and infrastructure system thats crumbling as we've seen with broken bridges and hurricane Katrina and other disasters. So this is where we are as a country, but it doesn't have to be where we end up if we simply start moving forward as a country and not just try to hang on.

As I see it America needs to concentrate and work on five key areas and do them correctly to move forward again as a country.

Infrastructure investment- According to the Core of Engineers we have a 1T$ or more deficit in this area. We need to make that investment and pay for that by not borrowing over a 5-10 year period.

We need a national energy policy that moves this country towards energy independence with a menu of natural resources that are all produced in this country. Including oil and gas but also nuclear, wind, solar and so-forth. We need to fully utilize all of these resources which would create new American jobs and American companies.

We need comprehensive immigration reform that encourages high-skilled workers to immigrate to this country legally. And address the 10-15 illegal immigrants by moving them into the mainstream and have them pay a fine for the amount of time they've lived in this country illegally plus whatever back taxes they may owe. And secure the border by clamping down on employers who hire illegal immigrants.

We need to get the national debt and deficit under control to the point that it's no longer growing faster than our economy and back to 40% of GDP rather than 100% and do this over ten years. And to do that we need to get back to 18-20% of GDP that the Federal Government spends instead of 24-25%. That means getting the military budget back to FY 2001 levels and using the drawdowns from Iraq and Afghanistan to pay for deficit reduction or most of those savings, not back to the defense budget. And spending more on defense as it relates to counter terrorism and intelligence so we can prevent future attacks rather than trying to police the world and having developed nations defend themselves. Rather than America being responsible for the national security of Europe, Saudi Arabia, Japan and Korea at our expense.

And reforming both our entitlement and broader social insurance system. Making our entitlements more effective and more affordable and having our public assistance system be an empowerment system thats designed to empower people to get themselves out of poverty. And not just take care of them while they live in poverty.

We need comprehensive reform with our public education system where students go to the school thats best for them. Not based on where they live, where schools are funded based on what they need to do a good job. Not based on where they are located. Where teachers are paid based on how much their students learn, not based on how long they've been teaching. Where we essentially has universal higher education.

One of the few things I've agreed with Occupy Wall Street on as far as goals they've pushed, where all qualified high school students in this country would have access to an affordable higher education and not just the students who come from wealthy families or have scholarships. These are areas that the Federal Government can help in with the financing, but they shouldn't be running the public education in this country, but instead setting basic standards for the whole country to meet with the resources to accomplish them and is something the Feds can do.

America doesn't so much need austerity as much as it needs to be be reformed, especially the Federal Government. And cut back in areas where we are over committed both in the military and in social insurance. But we need to be investing more in some areas like in infrastructure and education and reforming in other areas like in public assistance and public education so we have more people working and making a good living on their own. Because we all as a country have access to a quality education wether we are still in school or have been out of school but lack the skills to move forward.

Tuesday, January 22, 2013

The New Republic: Noam Scheiber: 'He Was Always a Liberal, But Now He's Defending Liberalism'

Source:The New Republic- President Barack H. Obama (Democrat, Illinois) 44th President of the United States.
"Much of the reaction to the president’s speech so far has taken the form: He used to be obsessed with process—with driving the rancor and cynicism out of politics—whereas today he set aside the procedural mumbo-jumbo and tipped his ideological hand. As James Fallows put it: “[I]t's almost as if he … knows he will never have to run again and hears the clock ticking on his last chance to say what he cares about.” 

There’s no question that Obama spent most of his 2,100 words today laying out what he cares about. But I don’t think that’s what makes it such a departure for him. Obama has laid out his worldview in a variety of settings, even in big thematic speeches like this one. It would be hard to read, say, his June 2008 victory speech without a sneaking suspicion the guy is a liberal. The key difference is that Obama actively defended his worldview this time, which is not something we’ve see him do on these stages. 

At the start of his first term, Obama was of the na├»ve if admirable view that most people don’t really disagree about the objectives of public policy, or even about the policies themselves. The problem in his mind was that our political system had become an impediment to doing what most people want done, rather than the means for accomplishing it. 

In his early speeches, Obama would assert the existence of this consensus rather than make the case for the policies it encompassed. Here, for example, is a typical riff from his 2004 Senate campaign:

[T]he American people at their core are a decent people. And they get confused sometimes. They watch Fox News, they listen to Rush Limbaugh. Or they read President Bush's press releases. … But if you sit down with them and you ask, “What do you expect out of your government, and what do you expect out of life,” it turns out their expectations are extraordinarily modest. They know they've got to work hard, to raise their families. They know that nobody's going to do it for them. But what they do expect is, if they're able and willing, they should be able to find a job that pays a living wage. That they shouldn't be bankrupt when they get sick. They should be able to send their child to a school that is comparably funded, and when that child is old enough, and they've done the work, they should be able to go to college, even if they don't come from a wealthy family, and they expect that every senior citizen should be able to retire with some dignity and respect. That's it. That's not a lot. 
And when you tell them that we could be delivering those things, just with a slight change in priorities … then people respond. 
Put simply: We basically agree on the need for good jobs, reliable health care, quality education, and a dignified retirement, and for a role for government in all of the above. The only reason it’s not happening is that people sometimes get distracted by the bloodsport that is politics. Just end the bloodsport, and the problems would very nearly solve themselves. Or as Obama put it in his first inaugural: “[W]e come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.”

Monday, January 21, 2013

Deri Cizmeleri: 'Outfit of The Day -Black Leather Jeans & Patent Boots'

Source:Deri Cizmeleri- OOTD: leather jeans & boots.

Source:The Daily Press

"OOTD - Black Leather Pants & Patent Boots." 

The second model I believe is a model from Leathered Life, because I've seen her on social media with that page. Beautiful, sexy, brunette, in the black leather suit, with the jacket, jeans, and boots.

Source:Leathered Life model all leathered up with the jacket, jeans, and boots.
I love jeans and boots on sexy women. That is women with bodies who aren’t skinny or fat, but well-built and put together. Healthy looking women who don’t vomit even at the sight of food, or don’t stiff their faces in every plate of food that they see. Except when that plate of food is a salad, of course.

Jeans and boots whether they’re denim jeans and boots, which is by far the most common jeans and boots look, even in Europe, or leather jeans and boots which is more common in Europe and America, like french fries or fried potatoes with cheeseburgers. Kareem and Magic, Jordan and Pippen, ( to use sports analogies ) the perfect combination. Cherry pie with vanilla ice cream, would be another good one. Because you take a sexy stylish pant like skinny denim or leather jeans and then combine them with style footwear.

The boots and jeans look, is not too formal and yet adult so you don’t look a high school kid who only wears jeans and sneakers even when they go out at night. Or have dinner with the family. It’s a sexy, adult, stylish, way, for women to dress, especially with a stylish top. Which is why jeans and boots and to a certain extent leather jeans and boots when they’re dressed up, are common at the office now.

Sunday, January 20, 2013

CBS News: ‘President John F. Kennedy’s Inaugural Address’

Source:CBS News- President John F. Kennedy (Democrat, Massachusetts) giving his 1961 inaugural address in front of a joint session of Congress,

“On January 20, 1961, President John F. Kennedy was sworn into office and delivered one of the most famous inaugural addresses in U.S. history.”

From CBS News

Inaugural address’ are interesting at least for this reason and depending on who the President at the time says can be interesting for that reason as well, but they are at least interesting because it gives the President the opportunity to layout for the country the situation that the country is in and where he wants to take the country in the next four years.

And if the President is reelected an opportunity to layout where the country was four years earlier. The progress that has been made and the challenges that still lay ahead.

But inaugural address’ aren’t partisan in the sense that the President will hammer the opposition party, but to layout their own political and governmental philosophy which will be different from the opposition party.

These addresses are also for the President to layout what he  believes the role of government is. And based on that where he wants to take his administration and what direction he wants to lead the country. And that’s the opportunity that President Obama will have tomorrow: “This is where we were, this is the progress we’ve made and this is where I want to lead the country based on my thinking and the facts on the ground.”

As a Liberal Democrat I would like to hear Barack Obama tomorrow speak in the spirit of Jack Kennedy. Not to quote him exactly, but speak in his spirit of terms like: “Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country.”

I would like to hear President Obama speak in terms of Bill Clinton’s opportunity society: “There’s nothing wrong with America that can’t be cured with what’s right with America. That we’ll expand freedom and opportunity for all as well as demand responsibility for all.” Speak in terms of individual freedom for all. Especially for Americans that don’t have it and are still struggling.

President Obama should speak in terms of how government can empower those who don’t have the individual freedom to take care of themselves to have the same freedom and opportunity that the rest of the country has and how we as Americans ourselves can build the best America. Rather than what government can do for us. Which is different from a speech by Franklin Roosevelt. (To use as an example) The difference between a liberal democratic speech and a social democratic speech.

To be honest, I’ll be surprised if President Obama speaks in these terms tomorrow and probably will give a somewhat safe speech. And go out of his way not to offend anyone and not leave much to be remembered. Or give a speech that’s full of great words and phrases that few other people can do as well. But not have a lot of meaning to them. A speech that sounds good, but with not a lot of meat to it.

But tomorrow is an opportunity for President Obama to not only layout for the country where he wants to take America, but where he wants to lead the Democratic Party and I hope he takes advantage of it. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Leathered Life: Sandra B- In Tight Leather Jeans and Boots

Source:Leathered Life- Sandra B from Leathered Life, in tight leather jeans in boots.
Source:The Daily Press

"Blond girl in tight leather pants." Originally from Leathered Life, but the video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

Who says blonde women don't have curves? Sure! I've seen blonde women who look like rail-thin valley girls and many times are rail-thin valley girls. Moderate height to tall, but with no body and perhaps consider eating meat as animal cruelty and freak out about picking up an ounce of fat and even layoff potato chips.

But there very sexy Nordic and Northern Slavic blonde women, American and otherwise who are tall, but are filled out. Because they eat right and workout and take care of themselves. Especially in the upper Midwest where curvy women of all ethnic backgrounds, are very common. Just because of the climate, culture lifestyle and to a certain extent ethnicity. Where you have a lot of German and Slavic women in those communities who tend to be curvy. Again because of the food and culture they grew up on. Take Illinois and Wisconsin, to use as examples. Western Pennsylvania, would be another hot spot for curvy women and even curvy blonde women.

And that is what you see in this video. A blonde woman with a tight well-built body, looking great in skin-tight leather jeans. Who fills out those pants perfectly.

Saturday, January 19, 2013

ODN: 'Bill Clinton-Monica Lewinsky Scandal: Former US President's Denial, Grand Jury, and Admittance'

Source:ODN- President William J. Clinton: "I did not have sex with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."
Source:The Daily Press

"Bill Clinton's presidency was rocked by the Monica Lewinsky scandal. We revisit the affair that dogged his terms in office. Monica Lewinsky, the onetime White House intern whose 1990s affair with Bill Clinton nearly brought down his presidency, broke a long silence on Tuesday, saying she regretted what happened. Writing in Vanity Fair magazine, the 40-year-old said she was made a "scapegoat in order to protect his powerful position." Ms Lewinsky added, "I, myself, deeply regret what happened between me and President Clinton. Let me say it again: I. Myself. Deeply. Regret. What. Happened." Report by Ashley Fudge."

From ODN

The person I blame most for the Monica Lewinsky White House intern scandal and perhaps the only person I blame, is President Bill Clinton for acting as irresponsible as he did, for getting involved romantically at all with an intern. Doesn't mean I believe he should've been impeached for it and definitely not convicted which the Senate didn't do. Independent Prosecutor Ken Starr and the House Republicans if anything acted more irresponsible than President Clinton. But the fact is this scandal doesn't happen without Bill Clinton.

And Clinton, gave the meat to the Confederate Republicans (that I now call them, not all Republicans, but the far-right in the party) who've been looking to kick Bill Clinton out of office since he became President back in 1993. And if anything were looking to kick Clinton out of the Governorship in Arkansas when he was Governor there in the 1980s. Clinton was a Baby Boom Liberal Democrat from the 1960s, who believed in things like civil rights, equal opportunity, reducing poverty. But who also believed in things like fiscal responsibility. And not someone they could label as a tax and spend Socialist and beat in an election. So the path for them to defeat Bill Clinton was much harder.

Bill Clinton, I believed scared the hell out of the Far-Right in America, because he reminded most of the country of John F. Kennedy. And someone who was part of the New Democratic Liberal coalition in the party. That had moved past the Roosevelt-LBJ Progressive Era. And someone who could communicate to a wide ray of Americans and had moved past the 1950s culturally. And understood that it was no longer the 1950s and that the country was becoming more diverse. Ethnically, racially, culturally, regionally. And Confederate Republicans hadn't moved past the 1950s yet. And we're still in that little box and weren't ready to see Americans that most of the country wasn't familiar with in the 1950s.

The Far-Right, or New-Right, isn't ready for a country that was becoming more liberal and libertarian culturally and socially. As well as economically and they saw Bill Clinton as a threat to their way of life and what they saw as Traditional America. And someone who had to be stopped. 

Without President Clinton's irresponsible behavior, this scandal and grand jury testimony never happens. President Clinton's behavior was the red meat that Confederate Republicans thought they needed to kick him out of office. Since the rest of the country wouldn't do it for them and they betted that the country with fall inline with them. To oust President Clinton from office, which of course didn't happen.  

VOA News: 'Virginians Push For Mental Health Awareness to Prevent Tragedies'

Source:VOA News- in Fairfax, Virginia.

"In the wake of the mass shooting in Newtown Connecticut, President Barack Obama has announced proposals aimed at curbing gun violence in the United States. The shooting is deeply felt in Virginia, where the deadliest school shooting in U.S. history -- at Virginia Tech - ripped apart families in April 2007 and left people searching for ways to help the mentally ill. VOA's Carla Babb tells us how some Virginians are trying to make a change." 

From VOA News

"Voice of America (VOA or VoA) is the state-owned news network and international radio broadcaster of the United States of America. It is the largest[3] and oldest of the U.S.-funded international broadcasters.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 48 languages,[6] which it distributes to affiliate stations around the world. Its targeted and primary audience is non-American.

VOA was established in 1942,[7] and the VOA charter (Public Laws 94-350 and 103–415)[8] was signed into law in 1976 by President Gerald Ford.

VOA is headquartered in Washington, D.C., and overseen by the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM), an independent agency of the U.S. government.[9] Funds are appropriated annually under the budget for embassies and consulates. As of 2022, VOA has a weekly worldwide audience of approximately 326 million (up from 236.6 million in 2016) and employs 961 staff with annual budget of $252 million.[10][11]

Voice of America is seen by many listeners as having a positive impact while others see it as American propaganda; it also serves US diplomacy." 

From Wikipedia

This has to be done. Mental healthcare is going to have to be a priority in this country to prevent future gun violence.

Friday, January 18, 2013

Hoover Institution: Uncommon Knowledge WithPeter Robinson- Interviewing Christopher Hitchens & Anne Applebaum: 'Is The New Left History?'

Source:Hoover Institution- Author Christoper Hitchens, on Uncommon Knowledge with Peter Robinson, back in 1998.
"In 1960, John F. Kennedy ran to the right of Richard Nixon, arguing that under Republicans, the United States had become too weak in the cold war. A dozen years later, the Democratic presidential candidate was George McGovern. How did the Democratics go from hawks to doves in just twelve years? And what does the history of the Left imply for John Kerry, the Democratic Party, and the war on terror today? Peter Robinson speaks with Anne Applebaum and Christopher Hitchens."

From Hoover Institution

I don't like to as a Liberal Democrat talk about liberalism and the Democratic Party as if they are part of the same organization. Just as if Conservative Republicans don't like to talk about conservatism and the Republican Party as if they are part of the same thing. Liberalism is a political philosophy and the Democratic Party is a political organization that Liberals have used over the years and use today to get elected and advance their political movement and accomplish political goals.

And even though the Democratic Party is the closest thing that we have to a liberal party in America, it's not a party that's just made up of Liberals, but a party thats very diverse and made up different political coalitions. Including Liberals such as myself, but Progressives, as well as leftists  people who call themselves Progressives. ( Socialists, really ) But so-called Progressives who are more statist than liberal and believe that the role of government is to protect and defend people even at times from themselves.

And there are Socialists who sound like Liberals on social issues. People who are called Socialist-Liberals or in Noam Chomsky's case Socialist-Libertarians. So the Democratic Party is a coalition of democrats ranging from center-left to far-left with Moderate-Liberals in between.

I believe the future of American liberalism is very good and I don't just say that as a Liberal. But if you look at where the country is now and where we are going politically and that as younger we get as a country the more liberal-libertarian we are becoming with the belief that government's role is to try to create and environment where all Americans have a good shot at making a good life for themselves that we believe in opportunity.

And what Bill Clinton called an opportunity society where all Americans would have a good opportunity to make a good life for themselves and of course what they do with that opportunity is up to them. But that they would have the opportunity to make a good life for themselves while they are currently still growing up.

Or low-educated and low-skilled adults would have the opportunity to make a good life for themselves. And that all of this would be based on good education, education opportunity and the ability for all Americans to have good access to a good education. That's where the Democratic Party is economically and least the leadership. And that's how Liberal Democrats have countered the Goldwater-Reagan Revolution with the notion of the opportunity society.

The Democratic Party has transformed over the last eighty years. Going from more of a progressive party with a Dixiecrat-Confederate right-wing coalition in it. But today the FDR/LBJ progressive coalition is still there, the Dixiecrats are gone, but they now have a social-democratic socialist win in it. That at times are seen as part of the Far-Left in the Democratic Party.

Back pre Reagan-Revolution were the leaders of the party and represented what Franklin Roosevelt built. Back then and to a certain extent Lyndon Johnson and George McGovern built as the modern Democratic Party back then.

Today thats basically the old Democratic Party and today we are more of a liberal party. Very liberal on social issues, tough liberal internationalists on foreign policy and an economically. A liberal party that believes in what I just called an opportunity society and we've moved from a party that believed in the safety net or welfare state. That government's job was to take care of people, to a party that believes that a role of government is to make sure that all Americans have an opportunity to be successful in life and be able to take care of themselves.

I feel good about American liberalism and the Democratic Party today because of where we've moved as a party. And where we've moved as a country. Liberal Democrats are now in position to show Americans what liberalism actually is and not how it's been stereotyped. And that we aren't wild-eyed Socialists or Anarchists who are soft. But people who are responsible and do believe in freedom but we believe in freedom for all and not just the few or establishment.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Brookings Institution: Robert McDonald: 'U.S. Tax Structure Hampers Competitiveness'

Source:Brookings Institution- talking to Robert McDonald.

"Robert McDonald, Procter & Gamble: Competiveness is key for economic growth and American competiveness is hampered by a tax structure that makes it hard for U.S. businesses to compete with corporations around the world. This has to change.

On January 15, the Brookings Institution brought together a distinguished group of private and public sector leaders for a day-long series of panels addressing fiscal challenges, U.S. manufacturing and government performance. Brookings experts have released several new papers on these topics with recommendations focused on the first 100 days... 

Minus what's known as corporate welfare and private companies able to move their workers and money out of the United States and even get subsidized by American taxpayers for doing exactly that, (which doesn't help American workers or our national debt and deficit outlook) I agree with Robert McDonald that our corporate tax rate is way too high, especially in the liberal democracy and capitalist system that we have. 

So eliminate corporate welfare or at the very least eliminate all the waste in the corporate tax code and we could have a corporate tax rate at around 15%. And start subsidizing our American workers, especially low-income and low-skilled workers and improve our economy, as well as our national debt and deficit outlook.

Sunday, January 13, 2013

Raquel Welch: 'On Meeting Mae West- For Myra Breckinridge'

Source:Boy Culture- Hollywood Goddess Raquel Welch, talking about Mae West, in 2012.

Source:The Daily Press

"On February 10, 2012, Raquel Welch sits for a Q&A with Simon Doonan at Film Society of Lincoln Center and speaks about meeting Mae West—including an impromptu impersonation."

"RAQUEL WELCH on Meeting Mae West for MYRA BRECKINRIDGE + Impersonation"

Source:Tidy Baa- Hollywood Goddess Raquel Welch, talking about Mae West, in 2012.

From Tidy Baa

A very funny sexy baby, Raquel Welch. She’s like 72 at this point and still sounds and looks this adorable and gorgeous and the body. I mean her with those curves at this point of her life gets me to thinking that maybe there is an afterlife. And that we don’t die, but come back as something better.

I think Raquel is a sexier woman now than when she was in the 1970s. Especially if you look at her bootie. But we’re not just talking about a red-hot adorable sexy goddess in Raquel Welch. But a woman who is a hell of an actress especially when it comes to satire. As you see with her impression of Mae West, (speaking of funny people. She has Mae down and it would have been priceless to see Mae’s reaction to Raquel playing her. I believe she would have taken it well and even made a joke about it.

Not sure if the Raquel Welch-Mae West combination was ever designed to work. If you look at Myra Breckinridge, I believe they only had one scene together anyway. Mae, came from an era that was learning how to drive basically. Where airplanes were only read about in sci-fi fiction stories. Where even radio was new where watching movies was like going to library except for a big screen in the room, because all the movies in the 1920s were silent.

Raquel, is about as modern of a woman as any woman has ever been. Actually, Myra Breckinridge might be as modern of a movie that has ever been and perhaps 10-20 years ahead of his time. When you’re covering both open homosexuality, where queens have a big role in public in the movie. But you’re also covering transsexuality. And men who were thought to be gay, not comfortable as gay men and they become women.

Mae West, who I believe is one of the best entertainers, as well as actress’s of all-time who was hysterically funny in Myra Breckinridge, had to be impressed with Raquel Welch when she met her: I mean I think you almost have to be blind, death and gay not to be impressed by Raquel Welch. I actually think gay men when meeting Raquel for the first time might say to themselves: “OMG! what have I been missing all of these years? Instead of acting like a woman, I could just have them instead.” A little tongue in cheek there, but that wouldn’t surprise me.

Raquel and Mae, weren’t a generation apart, but at least two generation’s apart. Mae, grew up when horse carriages were still a dominant form of transportation. And Raquel grew up with televisions and movies where people actually talked to each other. So they were very different, but they made a hell of a funny movie together.

Saturday, January 12, 2013

Boots N Leather: Mandie- in Leather Jeans in Boots

Source:Boots N Leather- Mandie, in leather jeans in boots.
Source:The Daily Press 

"Boots N Leather: Mandie- In Leather. Mandie in Leather Boots, Pants, Gloves & Jacket Outfit.”
"The New Democrat Boots N Leather: Mandie" 
Source:Boots N Leather- Mandie showing off her leather jean asset.

From Boots N Leather 
A very sexy woman in skin-tight leather jeans in boots. You can tell she’s sexy just by listening to the sound those jeans makes when she moves and stretches. You can tell how well they fit on her and her legs and butt are able to fill out those leather jeans. 
That is what skinny and skin-tight jeans are about, whether they are denim or leather skinny jeans. They are for sexy women and for sexy women with curves, which to me at least all sexy women have which are tight curves. Muscle on their legs and waist are, butt and tush. Which is why you see sexy women in skinny jeans tucking their shirts into them. To show off the legs of course, but also their butts and tush. Which is what this woman did in this video. 

Friday, January 11, 2013

Leathered Life: Leather Fashion Show With Sarah

Source:Leathered Life- model Sarah, all leathered up in her black jacket, jeans, and boots.

Source:The Daily Press

“Leather fashion show with Sarah.” 

"Leather fashion show with Sarah" 

Source:Leathered Life- Leathered Life model Sarah, in leather jeans and jacket 
From Leathered Life

Sarah from Leathered Life, in skin-tight Miss Sixty leather jeans. With a leather jacket and black leather boots. My favorite look from these models at Leathered Life. Skinny leather jeans, the exact same look as skinny denim jeans. A thinly cut pant, that's made from leather instead of denim. That look great on women with legs. Who aren't obese or rail-thin, but have real legs and real muscle on them. And not just skin, bone and fat. Who also have a real butt that is not flat or flabby.

Leather jeans, aren't for everybody and skinny leathers even more so. Because of what I just said, because they're skin-tight and hug a woman's, legs and will keep you real warm in the winter, especially if you're wearing boots with them.

But a woman with a good body, will look even better in them. A woman who is obese or rail-thin, will look even fatter or thinner in them. Because there's no forgiveness in them.

Sarah, more of a petite model compared with the other models at Leathered Life, in height and build, has the legs and butt, to look good in skinny leather jeans.

Foreign Affairs: Chuck Hagel: 'A Republican Foreign Policy'

Source:Foreign Affairs- then U.S. Senator Chuck Hagel (Republican, Nebraska)


The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that killed nearly three thousand Americans were signposts of a new era, a turning point in our history. Terrorism is a historic and existential challenge that redefines traditional notions of security, and combating it must be at the top of the nation's agenda and therefore at the core of a Republican foreign policy. But the war on terrorism cannot be considered in isolation, without taking into account the wider crisis of governance throughout the developing world, especially in the greater Middle East.

In taking military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban... 

"The war on terrorism must top the U.S. foreign policy agenda--but it cannot be waged without also attending to the broader crisis in the developing world. Recognizing this, a Republican foreign policy should be guided by seven principles that seek to encourage stability, expand democracy, and strengthen key alliances. Above all, Washington must recognize that U.S. leadership depends as much on principle as it does on the exercise of power." 


"The Generational Challenge

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, that killed nearly three thousand Americans were signposts of a new era, a turning point in our history. Terrorism is a historic and existential challenge that redefines traditional notions of security, and combating it must be at the top of the nation’s agenda and therefore at the core of a Republican foreign policy. But the war on terrorism cannot be considered in isolation, without taking into account the wider crisis of governance throughout the developing world, especially in the greater Middle East.

In taking military action against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan, President George W. Bush understood that the war on terrorism must be more than the rightful use of military force. There must be a U.S. purpose commensurate with our use of power. As President Bush told a joint session of Congress on January 29, 2002, “we have a greater objective than eliminating threats and containing resentment. We seek a just and peaceful world beyond the war on terror.”

A wise foreign policy recognizes that U.S. leadership is determined as much by our commitment to principle as by our exercise of power. Foreign policy is the bridge between the United States and the world, and between the past, the present, and the future. The United States must grasp the forces of change, including the power of a restless and unpredictable new generation that is coming of age throughout the world. Trust and confidence in U.S. leadership and intentions are critical to shaping a vital global connection with this next generation.

The challenges to U.S. leadership and security will come not from rival global powers, but from weak states. Terrorism finds sanctuary in failed or failing states, in unresolved regional conflicts, and in the misery of endemic poverty and despair. Rogue regimes that support terrorism seek legitimacy and power through the possession of weapons of mass destruction, rather than from the will of their people. Terrorism and proliferation go hand in glove with the challenges of failed and failing states.

Five billion of the world’s six billion people live in less developed regions. Most of the world’s population growth in this century will come from these regions, where nearly one in three people is under the age of 15. As this younger generation grows into adulthood, it will be the greatest force for change in world politics in the first half of the twenty–first century. Many governments in the developing world, especially in Africa, the greater Middle East, and Asia, will not be able to meet the basic demands of their growing populations for jobs, health care, and security. Although poverty and despair do not “cause” terrorism, they provide a fertile environment for it to prosper. The strains of demography, frustrated economic development, and authoritarian governments contribute to radicalized populations and politics. The developing world’s crisis of governance thus cannot be separated from the United . . . 

Tuesday, January 8, 2013

The New Republic: Nate Cohn: 'A GOP Civil War? Not Yet, But Wait Until 2016'

Source:POLITICO- New Republic columnist Nate Cohn.

"Charles Krauthammer is going a bit too far in describing an "internal civil war" among House Republicans, but as others noted last week, the vote on the Senate's "fiscal cliff" compromise revealed a deep divide between northern and southern Republican congressmen—a divide many attributed to non-competitive and deeply GOP districts. But a deeper analysis of the vote reveals that the partisanship of districts is only part of the story: The party's north-south split appears to be a matter of ideology, too. That bodes poorly for the GOP's ability to adjust after November's elections, and promises yet another messy, protracted primary in 2016.

Although a strikingly high proportion of GOP-held seats in red states are safely Republican, southern Republicans were still more likely to vote against the Senate compromise after adjusting for the partisanship of their district. Just two of the ten southern Republicans reelected in districts with a Cook PVI between R+3 or R+6 (roughly as Republican as Florida or Indiana, respectively) voted for the compromise, compared to 13 of the 16 Republicans from similarly partisan districts in the Northeast or Pacific coast. And while six of the ten northeastern and Pacific coast Republicans from districts with a Cook PVI between R+7 and R+12 (roughly as Republican as Montana or Kansas, respectively) supported the compromise, the Senate’s measure was only supported by 5 of the 32 Republicans from the South with similarly partisan districts. Are southern, red-state Republicans less likely to compromise because of the danger of a Tea Party challenge, or because of their own ideology? It's impossible to say from these data, but general-election vulnerability probably doesn't explain most of the gap between southern and northern Republicans. 

One split along geographic lines isn’t enough to declare a civil war, especially since most GOP disagreements center on tactics, not policy. Nonetheless, disagreements over tactics have been enough to hint at real fractures within the House Republican caucus, with some Republicans, like Georgia Rep. Tom Price, going so far as to argue for “red-state leadership,” since Boehner and Cantor hail from states carried twice by the president. Indeed, 52 percent of House Republicans now hail from states carried by Romney, and just 34 percent of House Republicans come from the Pacific Coast or Northeast. While the red states have more clout in the next Republican caucus than the last, the blue states would hold even less sway within the House GOP without gerrymandering, which counter-intuitively is helping to moderate the House GOP caucus. In Michigan and Pennsylvania, for instance, Republican redistricting efforts yielded a larger number of Republicans from modestly safe districts in northern states, which tend to produce relatively moderate Republicans. The GOP delegation from Pennsylvania, perhaps the most GOP-gerrymandered blue state, unanimously voted for the compromise, and a majority of Republican representatives from Michigan and Illinois voted “yes,” too.

With potential caucus-splitting issues like gun control and immigration coming early in 2013, there's potential for the north-south divide to widen over the next few months. But even if Republicans survive 2013 without Krauthammer's civil war, it's easy to envision how it could come in 2016. Republicans do not yet agree on how to adjust to the demographic and generational changes that increasingly favor Democrats. Some Republicans prefer radical approaches like distancing the party from social conservatives or the wealthy, while others think the GOP can largely preserve its platform and reframe its message to appeal to a broader audience while cutting a few wedge issues, like immigration, marijuana, or gay marriage. It doesn't seem likely that the GOP could determine its approach without an intra-party fight; and such a battle over the future of the GOP seems likely to break along the same geographic lines evident in the fiscal cliff vote. As long as southerners keep supporting Tea Party candidates and northern Republicans keep supporting establishment-friendly candidates, neither side will prevail. 

The Republicans could nominate a unifying candidate in the 2016 primaries—you never know—but a contested primary would probably break along geographic lines. In retrospect, the 2012 primary might have been a sneak preview. Even though Romney possessed vastly superior resources and acceded to every substantive demand of the right, the GOP primary electorate divided neatly between north and south. Southerners concerned with nominating an authentic conservative never embraced Romney: Despite the help of a divided field, Romney only broke 31 percent of the vote in one southern state, Florida. Geographic polarization ensured that the 2012 Republican presidential primary lasted until April. The fiscal cliff vote shows that such polarization is becoming the rule rather than the exception. If a blue-state Republican secures the GOP presidential nomination thanks to winner-take-all contests in blue states like New Jersey and California, Krauthammer might actually get his civil war." 

Monday, January 7, 2013

The New Republic: Alec MacGillis: 'Barney Frank's Fiscal Plan: Join The Senate, Soak The Near-Rich'

Source:Linkedin- Alex McGillis.

"It's somehow perfect that Barney Frank's first order of retirement, after 32 years as a member of Congress, was to show up at a community reading of Moby Dick in New Bedford, the erstwhile whaling hub in his former district where the book begins. Frank was given the honor of being the lead reader at the Saturday event, which means that it was he, with his notorious North Jersey garble, who got to utter the famous first line: "Call me Ishmael."

That retirement, however, may be short-lived. The day before the reading, Frank's line was a different one: essentially, "Call me Senator." After initially disavowing any interest in an interim appointment to John Kerry's Senate seat, Frank declared Friday that he is, in fact, eager to serve in that role--and he has told Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, who will make the decision. Like most things Frank does, this caused a stir: having him in the Senate while, in all likelihood, Scott Brown and Rep. Ed Markey vie for the seat, would almost certainly be more consequential than going with a mere time-server. 

When I reached Frank on Friday, he gave the same explanation he had given others for his change of heart: watching the debate over the "fiscal cliff," and seeing that major decisions about spending and taxes had been left to be decided in the next few months had convinced him that he could make a real contribution in a brief interim role in the upper chamber. "March and April will be the most important months in American economic history, and I don't think I'm being immodest to think I could impact it," said.

But Frank went further in our discussion, laying out the exact approach he would advocate. Simply put, he thinks Democrats should push for additional revenue through an increase in the payroll tax for upper-income earners--not just the very rich, but also the near-rich who made out quite well in last week's fiscal cliff deal. With President Obama backing off of his original pledge to raise tax rates on family incomes over $250,000 and shifting the threshold to $450,000, the Democrats left vitally needed revenues on the table. The answer for the next round is clear, says Frank: Get more money out of the exempted swath of income -- from both those whose incomes fall within that window and above it -- via the payroll tax.

"We did not get at taxes between $250,000 and $450,000, which makes it good territory for putting it out for the Social Security payroll tax base…There is a segment of income from people who make between $250,000 and $450,000 who we think could sustain an increase in taxes," he said. "If they had been [hit with an income tax increase] I'd say we don't want to double-hit these guys, but now it's a second cut at the apple for this [income range] in a politically popular way, to protect Social Security rather than taking it out on the old woman in Boston living on $15,000 a year." 

Frank is referring to Congressional Republicans' proposal to save some money by limiting the growth in Social Security payments over time by changing the way inflation is calculated. The proposal is opposed by many on the left but is likely to return as a bargaining chip in the next round of debate. Frank's revenue suggestion offers an entirely different way to sustain Social Security, one that has been little-mentioned until now: raising payroll taxes on upper incomes. As it now stands, the payroll tax for Social Security is applied only to the first $110,000 of income, which means that a family making $100,000 pays just about the same in payroll taxes as one making $500,000 or $10 million. It's the most regressive part of the tax code, and its regressiveness became all the more noticeable last week when the tax-cut compromise ended a payroll tax holiday that had cut two percentage points off the rate.

Frank's approach would partly remedy that. It would also provide a way of getting revenue out of the $250,000-$450,000 income range that is easier to argue for than other options. After all, after both sides made a big show of agreeing to set the income tax-hike threshold at $450,000, it would seem a total nonstarter among Republicans for the White House to seek more revenue now by pushing to lower the income-tax-hike threshold after all.

But will Frank have the chance to push for his idea? There were signs over the weekend that he is not necessarily going to sail into the seat now that he's decided he wants it. Why is that? Well, partly because the personal dynamics around a Frank appointment are not uncomplicated. For starters, as the Boston Globe's Glen Johnson reminds us, there has been tension over the years between Frank and Markey, who arrived in Congress the exact same year. Most recently, Markey succeeded at getting the 2010 redistricting drawn to his benefit and to Frank's disadvantage. 

Patrick has not tipped his hand beyond saying that he demands that whoever serves as interim not run for the seat. But his former chief of staff, Doug Rubin, raised eyebrows with this tweet on Saturday: “I respect Cong. Frank and what he has accomplished, but there are better options for MA Senate interim appointment." Rubin expanded on this to Glen Johnson: "The theory that we have to send experienced people to Washington to break the gridlock; the experienced people are the ones creating the gridlock...If we get beyond the traditional names, there are a lot of smart, talented individuals from Massachusetts who could bring some fresh ideas and energy to Washington, and that’s what we sorely need.”

Adding intrigue to Rubin's comments is that he most recently worked for Elizabeth Warren's successful campaign to unseat Brown for the state's other Senate seat. Rubin says his comments reflect only his own thinking, not Warren's or Patrick's, but one cannot help but wonder what his shot at Frank would mean for the Frank-Warren dynamic, should they serve alongside each other for a few crucial months. The pair has a productive history together: Frank helped author the 2010 financial reform law, Dodd-Frank, that created the Consumer Finance Protection Agency that was Warren's brainchild and which she proceeded to set up before leaving to run for the Senate. "I worked very closely with her," Frank told me.

Making matters even more interesting is the fact that, in crafting the law, Frank also had a quite productive partnership with Scott Brown--to the point of causing grumbles among some Massachusetts Democrats. Senate Democrats identified Brown as a possible supporter of the legislation and asked Frank to make the overture to his fellow Bay Stater, whose state Senate district had overlapped with Frank's House one. Frank assured Brown that the legislation would protect large Massachusetts financial institutions such as Mass Mutual and State Street that had not been at the heart of the Wall Street collapse, going so far as to break off a gym session to assuage Brown. They eventually butted heads over Brown's successful opposition to a new tax on banks to help pay for future bailouts, but a working relationship had been established. 

That did not stop Frank from lining up strongly with Warren in her race last year, and sharply criticizing Brown for ridiculing Warren's claims to Native American heritage. But Frank still speaks of Brown as a breed apart from his fellow Republicans. "He's got some appeal, personally -- he's not a right-winger," Frank said to me. That said, Frank added, he'll be rooting for Brown's opponent, whether it's Markey or anyone else, because Brown "is a member of a party that is still hostile to the president...As long as the Republican Party is still in the grips of the right wing, you're an enabler of this."

Frank is confident that Markey or another Democrat can beat Brown. "It's an easy member to make to the people of Massachusetts: you voted overwhelmingly for the president. Do you want to now vote for someone whose victory would be an embarrassment to [Obama]?"

But other Democrats in Massachusetts are more cautious about predicting victory. They note that Brown has retained a high favorability rating, despite the loss to Warren, and that turnout in a June special election will in all likelihood be much closer to that of the January special election Brown won in 2010 than this past November's general election. "Brown emerged [from his loss against Warren] very nicely," said Lawrence DiCara, a former president of the Boston City Council. "But for the failed biology students in Indiana and Missouri [Richard Mourdock and Todd Akin, whose odd declarations about rape were not helpful to Brown in Massachusetts] he may have won." While Brown's opponent will have even more evidence to point to of his party's obstinacy, DiCara added, he or she won't be able to make the case that Warren did that a Brown victory could decide Senate control, since Democrats now hold a five-seat edge. And Andrea Nuciforo, Jr., a former state senator who lost a run for Congress last fall, noted another difference: the Democrat will not "be running against the international Elizabeth Warren juggernaut." 

I don't see Barney Frank returning to Congress as a Senator to fill John Kerry's seat as Senator Kerry will become the next Secretary of State. Representative Frank has his own baggage and perhaps is not quite up to running statewide, even in a state as far to the left and as Democratic as Massachusetts.,(perhaps the Democratic version of Mississippi) as far as how far in one direction that a state leans politically but not even Democrats have sent to the U.S. Senate. 

Democrats as far to the left as Barney Frank, Ted Kennedy being the closest who might be every so-called Progressive hero. (Democratic Socialists, in actuality) But one of the reasons why Senator Kennedy was called the lion of the Senate was his ability to legislate. And work with other Democrats who weren't as far to the left as he was and also work with Republicans in both the Senate and House. And even White House to finally pass legislation out of Congress that the President would sign. Which is what made Senator Kennedy such an effective committee leader as both Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Labor Committee.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy