Monday, November 19, 2012

Leathered Life: Chrissie- In Leather Jeans

Source:Leathered Life- model Chrissie.

Source:The Daily Press

“Leathered Life Chrissie in Leather Pants” 


“Chrissie… great leather girl.” 

Source:Leathered Life- model Chrissie

From Leathered Life

"Leathered Life Oldies: Chrissie in tight leather pants." Originally from Leathered Life. The photo was from a Leathered Life video, which has since been blocked or deleted on YouTube.

Source:Leathered Life- Chrissie, for Leathered Life. 
Great outfit, but the girl is a little too petite for me. Imagine a women 5'6-5'7 or taller or maybe only 5'4, which would make her average height, but with great legs. Strong thighs, tight round butt and everything else, wearing this outfit. Because that is what leather jeans which are basically skinny jeans, but made from leather instead of denim, are made of.

Skinny denim jeans, are common with beautiful sexy women especially if they're tall. Because it's a great way for women to show off their legs and show off their butt. "Check me out in my tight jeans, because I have a great body." Which I believe is what sexy women are saying when they wear those pants. Especially with boots and a tucked in blouse or short top.

They can also bring too much attention for women when they're in a more formal setting, but that's a different discussion. Leather jeans are also a great way for sexy women to show off their bodies. To bring positive attention to them, as well as negative.The woman in this video, great outfit, but a little small at least for me.

November Revolution Men: Professor Noam Chomsky: 'Neoliberalism vs Democracy'

Source:November Revolution Men- Professor Noam Chomsky talking about what he and other leftists call neoliberalism.
"Chomsky and other intellectuals on neo-liberalism and corporativism."


The Frenchman who spoke in this video who was talking about liberalism, said (and I'm paraphrasing) that the Adam Smith's and other Liberals from his era, would be rolling in their graves about what's and who is supposed to pass as liberalism and Liberals today. So let's talk about what's supposed to pass as liberalism and the people who are supposed to be as Liberals today and then I'll get into who Liberals really are and liberalism actually is. 

To put it simply, everyone and everything on the left, from the center-left, to left-wing, to far-left, even the far-left in Europe and the rest of the developed world outside of America, is supposed to pass as liberalism and people who support those political factions, are supposed to be the Liberals today. At least according to the so-called mainstream media in America, as well as American pop culture, not to the mention the closeted Socialists in America who still call themselves Liberals, because being outed as a leftist, scares the hell out of them. 

It's not just the so-called Progressives (whether they're actually progressive or not) who get called Liberals today or self-describe that way(even if they're actually not that progressive) but Democratic Socialists and Communists as well, people who either want social democracy in America or think communism is the way to go and that it's not just capitalism that needs to be replaced, but democracy and even individual rights, checks and balances, etc.  

To put it more simply and lightly, if you are an antiestablishment, hipster, revolutionary, who sort of talks like you just woke up and found out that it's no longer 1971 and it's now 2012, but you still have the same politics, lifestyle, culture, language, etc, and you are still trying to take down the man (meaning the establishment) and replace it with some type of socialist system, the mainstream media would call you a Liberal today. Even if you don't and that you weren't even called a Liberal 40 years ago, but a leftist instead.  

The fact is this is what liberalism really is: 

"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on the rights of the individual, liberty, consent of the governed, political equality and equality before the law.[1][2][3] Liberals espouse various views depending on their understanding of these principles. However, they generally support private property, market economies, individual rights (including civil rights and human rights), liberal democracy, secularism, rule of law, economic and political freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of religion.[11] Liberalism is frequently cited as the dominant ideology of modern history.[12][13]

Liberalism became a distinct movement in the Age of Enlightenment, gaining popularity among Western philosophers and economists. Liberalism sought to replace the norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy, the divine right of kings and traditional conservatism with representative democracy, rule of law and equality under the law. Liberals also ended mercantilist policies, royal monopolies and other trade barriers, instead promoting free trade and marketization.[14] Philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct tradition based on the social contract, arguing that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, and governments must not violate these rights.[15] While the British liberal tradition has emphasized expanding democracy, French liberalism has emphasized rejecting authoritarianism and is linked to nation-building." 

From Wikipedia 

The reason why we have terms like Classical Liberal and Modern Liberal, I think a lot of that has to do with the Cold War. Before communism became a force in the Western World, it if anything was considered cool (or swell) to be a Socialist and perhaps even Communist, especially during the Great Depression in the 1930s, because Socialists and Communists then were seen as people who would look after working people and defend their rights to exist and have a quality life. 

The Cold War changed Americans views of socialism and communism, to the point thanks to U.S. Government and private right-wing propaganda, Socialists and Communists were then during the Cold War, seen as Un-American and people who wanted to take down the American form of government and way of life and replace it with some type of socialist state and system.  

Socialists have always been around in America, it's just that Cold War sort of forced them to go underground politically and call themselves Liberals or Progressives, but still have their socialist philosophy, ideas, and antiestablishment, hipster language. They went underground politically in the 1950s, 60s, 70s, etc, a certain extent today of leftists (who are called Socialists in the real world) who are terrified of people finding out they are Socialists. You would think socialism is some disease for them that they don't want touching them. Even though they're proud to publicly express their socialist beliefs, values, and rhetoric.

But for me, political philosophies and values don't change, people do. Liberalism is about individuals and defending their individual rights. Not always looking to expand the government, so the government can do the most possible for the people and people would have to do the least for themselves. 

To go back to my original point about liberalism, the first Liberals would be rolling in their graves if they could see how so-called Modern Liberals have tried to hijack their great philosophy and tried to turn it in the opposite of what it's always been, which is about the individual, not the state.

Andy Greenshaw: 'Why We Should Let The Bush Tax Cuts Expire'


Source:Andy Greenshaw- Since when does the Left (especially the Far-Left) care about the budget deficit and national debt.

"I couldn’t agree more with Fareed Zakaria’s latest article in the Washington Post about the Bush Tax Cuts.

Republicans and Democrats both agree that the massive U.S. budget deficit looms as one of the most dangerous threats to our nation’s economy.  And Congress has the opportunity to immediately eliminate a fourth of that deficit by doing nothing.

The Bush Tax Cuts are set to expire this year, which will inevitably cut about $300 billion from the U.S. budget deficit.  These massive tax cuts – passed in 2001 and 2003 – lowered taxes for the wealthiest 3 percent of Americans." 


"It’s been clear for a while that President Obama has all the leverage in the tax debate. Now it’s clear the Republicans know it.

On Friday, Obama met with congressional leaders for the first time since his reelection. The subject of discussion was how to handle the tax hikes and automatic spending cuts set to take effect on January 1. House Speaker John Boehner came with a proposal: Instead of racing to craft an alternative package before the new year, Boehner suggested, why not just pass a bill preserving the status quo for six more months, giving everybody a chance to work out a deal? But nobody expects Obama to go for it, unless Republicans agree to a deal on taxes that's largely to Obama’s liking. A senior Democratic aide on Capitol Hill thinks he sees a game of Texas hold 'em underway, with Obama winning... 


This idea of letting all of the Bush tax cuts expire even on the middle class at least in the short-term, would be a disaster. 

Pre-2001 people in the bottom tax rate making up to I believe 75K$ a year, paid 15% in income taxes, after the Bush tax cuts and there were some actual good provisions in it, lower middle class and middle class workers were paying 10% in Federal income taxes, they've seen a 50% tax cut over ten years, so if you were a plumber or construction worker making 50K$ a year back in 2000, you paid, 7,500K$ a year in income taxes. After 2001 someone with the same income was now paying 5,000K$ a year in income taxes. They saw a 2,500K$ reduction in income taxes and with how badly the economy has done the last. 

Ten years with a lot of people in that income bracket out-of-work or working less then they would prefer or could even afford. That extra 2,500K$ a year could be the difference in someone making their car payments or mortgage payments, putting money away for their kids. College education and not being able to do that because the Federal Government is taking an extra 2,500K$ a year in taxes.

So raising or increasing taxes on people who can't afford it right now, is bad for the economy and deficit reduction. Because without a strong economy, with strong economic and job growth, we'll never get the debt and deficit under control. Because we'll never generate the revenue needed as a country to accomplish that. 

House Republicans will never go along with the 250K$ cutoff point to where we increase taxes in this Congress or in the next Congress, even if the Democratic Senate were to pass that. And going over to the fiscal cliff to try to prove me and others wrong on this, is not the way to find out, we need to avoid that. 

We need to come up with a balanced approach that will work that both Democrats and Republicans can agree to that that won't hurt anyone who can't afford to be hit right now and with how Speaker Boehner is talking right now, we can do this.

At some point whether it's in this Congress or not, Speaker Boehner will go along with something like a millionaires tax. As long as its used to pay down the debt and deficit and comes with serious budget cuts as well and thats what we need, new revenue and budget cuts that we can do, without hurting people who can't afford it and more importantly hurting the economy. 

We can get the debt and deficit under control by making entitlements stronger, as well as the broader safety net stronger and more affordable and reforming them in a way where we can actually put these people to work and get them off of public assistance all together. And have these people paying taxes because they can afford it and we can do more with the defense budget and get past a cold war strategy and more ready for the 21st Century, but middle class tax hikes doesn't get us there.

As the President says we need a balanced approach that works and doesn't hurt anyone who can't afford it and actually solves the problems in front of us and something like a millionaires tax and entitlement reform and more savings in defense. Will get us there and then of course something to spark new economic growth will get the job done but you. Don't increases taxes on people that you want to spend money, if you are trying to spark new economic growth.

Friday, November 16, 2012

VOA News: 'US Pushes Syrian Kurds to Join Rebellion'


Source:VOA News- U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland.

"As the Obama administration pushes to solidify Syria's political opposition, it also is working to improve ties between Syrian Kurds and groups battling Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. VOA's Scott Stearns has more." 

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 U.S.-funded international broadcaster.[4][5] VOA produces digital, TV, and radio content in 48 languages,[6] which it distributes to affiliate stations around the world. It is 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 would make the Syrian opposition even more united.

Thursday, November 15, 2012

FDR Presidential Library: 'We Work Again (1937)'


Source:Film Preservation- from the 1937 film We Work Again.

“We Work Again (1937)
Production Co.: U.S. Works Progress Administration. Transfer Note: Copied from a 35mm positive preprint preserved by the National Archives and Records Administration. Running Time: 15 minutes.

Priceless historical footage can be “lost” within unlikely films. We Work Again, a Depression-era documentary on African American reemployment, also includes a forgotten record of the first professional play staged by Orson Welles.

It had long been assumed that no sound or moving images survived from Welles’s legendary “Voodoo Macbeth,” his 1936 Harlem stage production of Shakespeare’s play, set in Haiti with an African American cast. As one of Welles’s many biographers lamented in 1996, “Nothing remains but still photographs and memories.” However, We Work Again turns out to include the…


“We Work Again – FDR Presidential Library 1937 – Video 352 – From IMDB. In the 1930s, the economic depression has been especially hard on African-American families and communities. But the federal government’s Works Progress Administration now provides many new opportunities for employment and advancement. Both skilled and unskilled laborers are employed in many public works projects. Others find work in a wide range of fields, including education, medicine, and even music and the performing arts. Written by Snow Leopard.” 

Source:Public Resource- from the 1937 film We Work Again.

From Public Resource  

I believe this photo is from the Franklin D. Roosevelt Presidential Library. It’s about the domestic legacy of President Franklin Roosevelt, which of course is the New Deal.  


Source:FDR Library- President Franklin D. Roosevelt (Democrat, New York) 32nd President of the United States (1933-45)

If you are familiar with the Great Depression of the late 1920s and 1930s, you know that it was an economic hell for America: 20% unemployment rates, negative 10% economic growth rates, 1/2 Americans unemployed and living in poverty, homelessness and hunger became crisis’s in America, even in big cities and urban areas.

Even with the Great Depression, President Franklin Roosevelt still wanted to get reelected in 1936 and managed to do that, because the economy started improving somewhat. But by 1937 we were still trying to recover from the crisis of the Great Depression and the FDR Administration needed something positive to show the voters. And I believe that’s what you see here which is really just a government propaganda film in favor of the New Deal. 

You can also see this post on WordPress

Professor Noam Chomsky: ‘On Liberalism, Freedom & Democracy’

Source:AZ Quotes- Professor Noam Chomsky talking about capitalism and what he calls libertarian socialism.

“I think it is useful to set up as a framework for discussion four somewhat idealized positions with regard to the role of the state in an advanced industrial society. I want to call these positions: (1) classical liberal, (2) libertarian socialist, (3) state socialist, (4) state capitalist, and I want to consider each in turn. Also, I’d like to make clear my own point of view in advance, so that you can evaluate and judge what I am saying. I think that the libertarian socialist concepts, and by that I mean a range of thinking that extends from left-wing Marxism through to anarchism, I think that these are fundamentally correct and that they are the proper and natural extension of classical liberalism into the era of advanced industrial society.

In contrast, it seems to me that the ideology of state socialism, i.e. what has become of Bolshevism, and that of state capitalism, the modern welfare state, these of course are dominant in the industrial societies, but I believe that they are regressive and highly inadequate social theories, and a large number of our really fundamental problems stem from a kind of incompatibility and inappropriateness of these social forms to a modern industrial society.

Let me consider these four points of reference in sequence, beginning with the classical liberal point of view.”

From Noam Chomsky 

“Chomsky on Classical Liberalism, Freedom, & Democracy. Edited clips with Magee, Foucault, and others.” 

Source:Understanding Power- Professor Noam Chomsky I believe being interviewed by PBS News anchor Bill Moyers in the late 1980s. But I don't know for sure.

From Understanding Power 

I have a lot of respect for professor Noam Chomsky’s honesty and being able to communicate exactly where he is politically and being able to articulate what he thinks about other political ideologies. Noam Chomsky is an admitted Libertarian Socialist and very honest about that. Which means he’s like a Social Democrat or Democratic Socialist on economic and foreign policy.But Noam Chomksy is a Liberal-Libertarian on social issues. So we probably agree on most social issues.

My issue with professor Chomsky has to do with the fact that he sort of has this “you are either with me, or you are selfish and believe in selfishness and inequality. And that poor people should be kept down and so-forth”. He’s somewhat exclusive with his politics, you either agree with him and share his politics completely, or you’re a bad person, or something. It’s not that you disagree with him, but that you are a bad person all together. Which I don’t have much respect for.

As far as libertarian socialism vs. liberalism, classical Liberalism, even: I believe he’s right for the most part. That people who are Liberals today, are not Social Democrats or even Progressives. But people who share my politics or are similar are actual Liberals instead. Where people who are called modern Liberals, are essentially Socialists or Social Democrats.

Today’s so-called Progressives (who are actually Socialists or Social Democrats) who believe that the state, especially the Federal Government has a big role to play in taking care of the people and insuring economic equality and that they are somewhat liberal on social issues, depending on what type of leftist that they are, aren’t very liberal at all. Today’s leftists actually don’t like Liberals and liberalism, because they don’t believe in individuals and individual rights. But instead believe in the collective and collective rights, or what they would call welfare rights. Today’s leftists believe in the welfare state over the individual, which is why they’re not very liberal at all. 

You can also see this post on WordPress

Brookings Institution: Bruce Katz & Mark Muro: 'Brookings Podcast: Remaking Federalism and Renewing the Economy'


Source:Brooking Institution- Mark Muro.

"In this post-election season and with a fiscal cliff looming, states and metros have begun the work of meeting their many challenges. They're implementing game-changing initiatives to create jobs and restructure their economies for the long haul. The federal government needs to take notice and get on board, note Metropolitan Program policy experts Bruce Katz and Mark Muro as they urge a move for remaking our federalism and renewing the economy. Katz and Muro explain in this episode of @ Brookings.

Read their paper at:Brookings." 


Just to start off with: it's a great to hear a center-left institution like Brookings or any other center-left institution, making the case and arguing in favor of federalism. 

Progressives (who are center-left) always get stereotyped as big government, national government, do-gooder, know-it-alls, who think that there's a national government solution for everything in America. And that if anything, there's too much power with the states and localities, and even individuals, and that we need a bigger, more centralized government in this country. And for good reason, because people who call themselves Progressives (who are actually closeted Socialists or Social Democrats) are always arguing in favor of a bigger Federal Government, more Federal taxation, more Federal spending, more Federal regulations and prohibitions. 

But what Brice Katz and Mark Muro from Brookings are arguing here, is that there are real economic and fiscal challenges that America faces and the Federal Government can't simply solve all these problems itself, especially being buried in debt and deficits that it currently is. That we need to look at what the states and localities are doing, be more creative in how we try to deal with these economic issues. And if anything, get more power out of Washington and down to the states and localities.

Liberal Democrat

Liberal Democrat
Liberal Democracy