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.

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.

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.