E-How Beauty: ‘Fashion Advice For Women- How to Wear Knee-High Boots With Denim Jeans’

Source:E-How Beauty- with a look at denim jeans in boots.

SourceThe Daily Press

“When wearing knee-high boots with jeans, it’s always a good idea to wear skinny jeans to ensure they fit inside your boots. Look great with your knee high boots and jeans with help from an image consulting firm owner in this free video on women’s fashion.” 

From E-How Beauty 

I love sexy women who know they are sexy and not afraid to show it. To me this is part of freedom and one of the many benefits of living in a liberal democracy. The freedom for people to be themselves and to live their own lives. As long as they aren’t hurting anyone else with their freedom. And not having big government tell them what they can and can’t do with their lives. Sexuality is part of that freedom, it’s sexual freedom.

The ability for people to show others what they have in a physical way. It’s the difference between living in a liberal democracy like America and authoritarian country like Iran. In America people have the right to essentially be themselves as long as they are not hurting anyone else with their freedom. This is in the Constitution, which is unfortunately isn’t always enforced equally for everyone.

The Equal Protection Clause isn’t always enforced properly unfortunately. We constantly have people fighting for their constitutional rights in court that they believe were violated by others. But under our constitution people essentially have the right to live their own lives. It’s just one difference between living in a liberal democracy like America and an authoritarian theocracy like Iran.

Iran a country where freedom is constricted to what the central government believes is moral. Even if people aren’t hurting anyone with their actions. Thank God for women’s liberation of the 1960s that if anything just grew stronger in the 1970s that led up to the designer denim jeans revolution of the late 1970s that went into the 1980s. That came back even stronger in the late 1990s, that we as culture are still go through almost twenty-years later culturally.

Amber's Beauty Chair: 'How to Wear Tall Boots With Denim Jeans'

Source:Amber's Beauty Chair- Amber, in her jeans in boots.

Source:The Daily Press

“Fashion Hack: How to wear tall boots with jeans”

From Amber's Beauty Chair

To me a sexy woman is a woman that's of course at least pretty, cute as well, but in a sexy way and not sounding and looking like a little girl with the personality to match, but looks and sounds sweet, but looks and sounds like a grown up woman, as well a being well-built, with tight curves, a woman who stays in shape and eats full balanced meals. 

Not an obese woman who looks like they live in front of all you can eat buffets. Or a stick-figure who eats nothing but rice cakes, vegetables., fruit and vomits half of that up. But a well-built healthy woman and what they look sexiest in as well as still looking classy with style, not looking like a woman who needs to look good to make a living, like a prostitute for example. To me the sexiest clothing on women are tight jeans, skinny jeans that are low-rise, but don’t show a woman’s butt crack when they stand up or bend over. 

But tight modern jeans and one thing that's  great about tight jeans, as well as their sex appeal, is their versatility. Women can where them casually with a t-shirt or tank top. Like on the weekends or to appointments and shopping. Or in some cases where them to work, with a suit jacket, blouse, sweater. They can where them when they are going out on the town. They look great with leather, boots and jackets especially, as well as suede.

Every time I see a sexy woman on the street or in a store or at a restaurant or bar, or at a ball game, it's like being in paradise for me. It's a great moment that's hard not to forget. Especially watching sexy women walk, especially up stairs or bending over. Men should thank God that sexy women love tight jeans and where them as often as they do.

James Miller Center: President Bill Clinton- 1994 State of The Union Address: Health Care Reform

Source: James Miller Center- President William J. Clinton: 1994 speech to a joint session of Congress on health care reform.

"President Clinton applauds the successes in breaking gridlock, cutting the deficit, and passing the Brady law. He hopes to further reduce the budget; to update unemployment, welfare, and health care; and to support democracy throughout the world."

From James Miller Center

I'll give President Clinton a lot of credit for having the guts to take on health care reform, Welfare reform, crime, deficit reduction and free trade, all in his first two years as President. As well as Family Medical Leave and even gays in the military, before a lot of these issues were popular. He wasn't the first President to take on these issues, but perhaps the first to do them all around the same time. He could've easily of taken the safe route as President and gone with the status quo. Perhaps just concentrating on a few issues and cruised to reelection with an improving economy. But Bill Clinton was a Liberal Democrat and a Progressive and the status quo didn't impress him very much. And he also had a Democratic Congress to work with. So I'm guessing he was thinking this might be his best shot to accomplish what he wanted to reform. And if you look at his batting average as far as what he wanted to accomplish in his first two years as President, he got a lot done.

As far what President Clinton tried to push through Congress and what he got out of Congress, it's a pretty good record as far as modern times as well as historically. It's just health care reform and Welfare reform, that he was unsuccessful in pushing through Congress in his first two years which was a mammoth failure. And one of the main reasons why Democrats lost control of both chambers of Congress in the 1994 mid-terms. Bill Clinton even wanted to work with the Republican minority in Congress in both Chambers. But other than trade, the Republican Leadership made sure that never happened. Why did health care Reform fail in 1994, well several reasons. I'll give President Clinton credit for having the political guts to at least write a health care reform plan and sending it to Congress, unlike President Obama. I believe President Clinton had a very good idea what he wanted to do in health care reform.

I believe President Clinton's ideas was to have  a system thats built on freedom of choice in health care, where all Americans would decide for themselves where they would get their health insurance and health care through the private sector and help the people who can't afford health insurance on their own, purchase health insurance. As well as small business's who want to provide health insurance to their employees, but can't afford to pay for it. As well as having a Patients Bill of Rights in his legislation. If you look at what President Clinton attempted to pass and what President Obama finally got out of Congress in 2010 the Affordable Care Act, it's very similar. Just that 111th Democratic Congress as well as President Obama understood the mistakes of President Clinton and the 103rd Democratic Congress. Because a lot of them served in both Congress's and new not to repeat them. As much as Congressional Republicans claimed the Clinton health care plan was Canadian or British style "socialized medicine".

Where the Federal Government would take over at least health insurance in America if not health care in general. As brilliantly as they communicated that with their communication and advertising and their members expressing that in committee, or on the House and Senate floors, it wasn't. It was a brilliant con job on the GOP part, that they took to winning control on Congress in 1994. Also as sound as President Clinton's plan was in the beginning, he made it more complicated than it had to be. Thinking that he needed to please as many people as possible to get a health care bill out of Congress and made the bill so big at the end, that no one understood it. I'll give President and the 103rd Democratic Congress a lot of credit for what they set out to accomplish and did accomplish in 1993-94. But they failed to communicate it to the American people and paid a heavy price for that. That as a party were still paying for today, because the Republican Party won the communications war. And Democrats are still dealing with those stereotypes today. Of tax and spend and socialized medicine today.

The Associated Press: 'Raw Video: Fidel Castro Makes Surprise Showing'

Source:The Associated Press- Cuban Communist leader Fidel Castro in public.

"Fidel Castro made a surprise appearance at a Communist Party Congress in the Cuban capital of Havana Tuesday, earning a thunderous applause from the crowd. (April 19)"

From the Associated Press

With Fidel Castro making it official that he's no longer President of Cuba and in charged of the Communist Republic that he built with his brother Raul being President and running that government for that last few years, Cuba is finally ready to move forward as a country become a member of the Americas and the 21st Century and move forward. 

If you look at Cuba it's a very rich country as far as resources and potential and its society. Two things that the Castro Regime had actually done well in Cuba, was with its education and health system. They are very well-educated and get the health care that they need. The problems with Cuban economy is that there aren't enough good jobs for a lot of the workers who have the skills to get good jobs, because Cuba's Marxist-Communist, state-owned, command and control socialist economy. 

Cuba did have a Marxist-Communist economy where the State owns the means of production in the society. Meaning the economy and all of the business's and industries. Even including small business's, which the Cuban people are more than capable of running as well as big business's in Cuba. But one thing that President Raul Castro has recognized is that Cuba's command and control economy doesn't work and hasn't worked for a long time. And has moved to privatize small business's like restaurants and hotels as well as the agriculture sector. Which the Cuban people will benefit from. 

But they need to take other steps especially when it comes with social policy, which President Castro has already announced with term limits for the Presidency, for Cuba to ever have an official relationship with America again. I'm in favor of America once again opening up diplomatic and economic ties with Cuba, as long as its done under certain circumstances. 

One, that Cuba stops arresting non-violent political protesters. 

Two, that they release all non-violent political protesters from custody. 

Three, that they move to privatize a lot of their economy, so the Cuban people benefits from whatever benefit comes from an American-Cuban trade agreement. So that the Cuban Regime just doesn't pocket most of the revenue instead. 

Four, that Cuba stop heavily taxing all money that comes into Cuba from Cuban America to their low- income relatives. 

Five, that Cuba allows free and open travel for its citizens, so they don't have to try to escape their country just to go to Florida or Dominican or Bahamas. That the Cuban Regime allows its own citizens to move as freely around Cuba, as they allow their tourists. 

If Cuba were to do these things then it would no longer make any sense for us to isolate a country thats clearly not a threat to us. Especially when we are currently have economic and diplomatic relations with another Communist Republic, the People's Republic of China, which is clearly a competitor with us. 

I would like to see Cuba make other reforms to its country like, open and free multi-party elections. Allow private media in the country including foreign media. As well as freedom of assembly and protest and religion. But again we already have economic and diplomatic relations with other authoritarian republics that work with us. So we shouldn't hold Cuba to another standard for us to have a relationship with them.

CBS News: Evening News- Ben Tracy: 'The Tea Party Plan For Capitol Hill'

Source:CBS News- U.S. Senator Jim DeMint: one of the Tea Party leaders in Congress.

"At least 39 Tea Party-backed candidates are headed to Washington. Ben Tracy reports on the movement's plans for office in January."

From CBS News

Source:Towelroad - U.S. Senate Candidate Sharron Angle, R, Nevada

A lot of Republicans, especially incoming House freshmen, won in the Congressional races last night.  Many of the incoming Republican Representatives were also members of the Tea Party.  That's the glass half full analysis of the effect that the Tea Party had for the Republicans last night.

The glass half empty view is that there's still the Democratic Senate that they're going to have to deal with in the 112th Congress, along with a Democratic administration .

They needed to pick up 10 seats in the Senate to become the majority but they only got six,  assuming Patty Murray holds on in Washington State.

The Tea Party blew it for Senate Republicans and relegated Mitch McConnell to Minority Leader for at least one more Congress. Its pretty simple, had the Republican party nominated establishment conservative candidates or center-right Candidates in states like Delaware, West Virginia, Colorado and Nevada, like they did in Indiana, with former Senator Dan Coats, they might easily have picked up 10 seats. Once they were in the 10 seat neighborhood, then 11 or 12 seats becomes a possibility because they could divert resources to other states instead of spending them in states that they should have had locked up.

In Delaware, Tea Partier Christine O'Donnell, who doesn't look old enough to run for the Senate and proved that she doesn't have the qualifications to run for state office anywhere, won the Republican primary and started out  20 points behind Democratic County Executive Chris Coons. She never closed the gap.

Had Republicans nominated veteran U.S. Representative Mike Castle, who is a Republican in the Ronald Reagan tradition (low taxes, strong defense, government out of our wallets and bedrooms etc.) but  isn't a religious conservative  and isn't trusted by the Christian Right, he would probably have been elected to the Senate by 10 points against a little known county executive. This was blown opportunity number one for Senate Republicans. 

In West Virginia, the Tea Party Republican Senate candidate, Mr. Measse  (and I apologize for not knowing his first name) was against things like the Minimum Wage, Medicare and Social Security, despite the fact that these are very important to a lot of West Virginians.  A Republican establishment candidate would probably have given popular GOV. Joe  Manchin a run for his money. 

In Colorado, the Republican Tea Party nominee, Ken Buck spent the last two weeks trying to get his foot out of his mouth  on such issues as separation of church and state, Medicare and Social Security.  An establishment Republican candidate probably would have beaten the incumbent, appointed Democratic Sen. Mike Bennett who spent the last month working his tail off just to get back into the race and make it competitive.  He finally pulled out a victory for himself and Senate Democrats. 

Finally, in the Nevada Senate race, Republicans had the good fortune to run against the unpopular Senator Harry Reid.  They nominated Tea Partier Sharon Angle, who seemed to be trying to do everything she could to lose the election.  Every time she opened her mouth, she demonstrated that she is a complete fool, e.g., declaring separation of church and state unconstitutional (it's explicitly stated in the U.S. Constitution).

She proclaimed loudly that she was against the minimum wage, Social Security, and Medicare.  These provide important financial support for many Nevadans.  She said that she could not tell the difference between Latinos and Asians.  The Republican party threw this election away by nominating a Tea Partier instead of an establishment candidate.

It was a good night for House Republicans.  They will no longer be the minority party, at least for the next Congress.  Democrats should be feeling that they dodged a bullet because Republicans could've had a much better night.  They blew it by fielding many very low quality (Tea Party) candidates. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

The Book Archive: Chris Hedges- 'American Fascists: The Radical Christian Right'

Source: The Book Archive- Chris Hedges, on the American Christian-Right.

"American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America is a non-fiction book by American author Chris Hedges, published in January 2007. Hedges is a former seminary student with a master's degree in divinity from Harvard and was a long-time foreign correspondent for The New York Times. He had previously criticized the Christian right in articles such as his cover story in the May 2005 issue of Harper's magazine called "Soldiers of Christ".

Hedges' title comes from a prediction by his Harvard ethics professor, James Luther Adams, who 25 years earlier had warned his students that they would all be fighting the "Christian fascists".[2] Hedges argues that this prediction has come true in that extreme forms of American Christianity now share many features with totalitarian movements, including suppression of individuality, a belief in magic, a shifting ideology, a "binary" good-or-evil view of the world, and a deep intolerance of people outside the movement. He writes that "Christian radicals" are often so consumed with power and wealth they are no longer practicing Christianity in its traditional sense, as a religion focused on compassion and caring for the downtrodden.

He contrasts the fundamentalist understanding with that of his own, where the Bible is recognized to have contradictory, and even hateful passages, and scientifically, is simply limited to what people knew at the time. For example, according to Hedges, Genesis was not written to explain the process of creation, of which these writers knew nothing. It was written to help explain the purpose of creation...to help us grasp a spiritual truth, not a scientific or historical fact. Hedges says that doubt and belief are not, as biblical literalists claim, incompatible and those who act without any doubt are frightening." 

From The Book Archive

It would be funny, if it weren't so tragic, when hypocrites who complain about big government, are in favor of incorporating the tenets of their religion in government rules to form their own version of big government. A Christian theocracy in the U.S. would be just as oppressive as the Muslim theocracy in Iran. Social freedom would be severely curtailed. Women and ethnic and racial minorities would be treated as second class citizens.  Homosexuals would be treated as criminals. 

The whole idea of America is that the people are in charge of their own lives and have the right to choose the social paths that they take without interference by government. 

Our nation's forefathers rebelled against the United Kingdom to escape high taxes, authoritarian rule, and government enforced religious dictates. Freedom of religion is part of our Constitution, the 1st Amendment thereof, so that Americans would have the right to decide for themselves whether or not to practice religion and which religion, if any, they would practice.

There cannot be any dictation  by the U.S. government on choice of  religion or practice of religious tenets.  The 1st Amendment is explicitly clear that government shall neither sponsor nor intrude upon the practice of a religion.  There is an explicit separation between religion and the State in America, regardless of  what the Christian Right, Nevada Senate candidate Sharron Angle or Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell says or thinks.

I'm troubled, and somewhat amused, when Christian Conservatives complain about the intrusions of big government while they promote authoritarian Christian theocracy.  Are they completely ignorant of the provisions for separation of church and state in the U.S. Constitution or are they just ignoring it to achieve their religious goals? Either one is truly dangerous. They must be prevented from succeeding for the sake of the United States of America. 

You can also see this post on WordPress.

Associated Press: Mark Hamrick- 'Gridlocked Congress Could Threaten Economy'

Source:Associated Press- John Boehner (R, Ohio) incoming Speaker of the House of Representatives.

"Will the midterm elections, which are expected to leave Congress at least partially controlled by Republicans and squaring off against a Democratic White House, be a help to the economy?  Don't count on it.(Nov. 2)"

Source:Associated Press

A few nights ago, this blog  predicted that the House Republicans would pick up 45-50 seats and win control of the chamber.  It also predicted that Senate Democrats would lose seats but retain control.  I was 2/3 right.  The Republicans won control of the House for the 112th Congress. Senate Democrats retained a small majority.  Instead of picking up 45-50 seats, the House Republicans gained in the neighborhood of 65 seats.  This will give them a working partisan majority. Incoming Speaker John Boehner (bayner, as in the vocalization of a jackass, not boner or bonehead) and incoming Leader Eric Cantor will be able to push their agenda through the House even though it will die in the Democratic Senate.

65 is a bad neighborhood to be in if you're a Democrat, especially if you're a House Democrat. It   means that Republicans will be in control of the House for at least two years, which, as a Democrat is bad enough for me, but, also, that the incoming Democratic Leadership, who will run the minority,   has a lot of work to do to get back to majority.  They're looking at being in the high 180's to low 190's.  They'll have to pick up in the neighborhood of 30 seats in the 2012 election to regain majority.

They'll need a very strong showing by President Obama in the 2012 election to regain majority. I don't think a narrow victory by the President in 2012 will bring back a Democratic House. I think the President will have to win the popular vote by around 55%, similar to Ronald Reagan in 1980  (over Jimmy Carter), and win about 35 states. I think thats possible, considering the likely Republican competition, especially if the economy starts to improve and unemployment  follows.

The good news for House Democrats is that while House Republicans are regaining most if not all of the seats they lost in 2006 and 2008, they're also picking up Democratic seats.  Potentially, a lot of freshman Republican Representatives could lose in 2012 because they represent normally Democratic districts. 

As I said a few nights ago, If House Democrats lose big, Speaker Pelosi and  Leader Hoyer need to step down.  It's time that House Democrats go in a new direction and elect new leadership. I would be looking at young but veteran House Democrats, especially outgoing committee chairman, who might be more interested in serving as Minority Leader and potentially the next Speaker of the House  than as ranking member of a committee. 

The good news for House Democrats, in an otherwise bad night, is that this is one election and, depending on how voters view the Republican House over the next two years, it could be a short time in the minority for them.  

You can also see this post on WordPress.