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.

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.

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... 

From the Brookings Institution

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.

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."

From Boy Culture

"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.

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.”

From Boots N Leather 

"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. 

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.” 

From Scione Andre

"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 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... 

From Foreign Affairs 

"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." 

From JSTR

"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 . . . 

From Columbia University