Geo Beats: ‘How To Pick Denim- Women’s Fashion Guide’

Posted on May 26, 2011 by Erik Schneider
Attachment-1-526

Source:Geo Beats– A great rear view 

Source:The Daily Press

“How to Pick Denim – Women’s Fashion Guide as part of the Women’s Style series by GeoBeats.

When shopping for denim, the number one place you want to look is the back. Most people look at the front, we look at the side, make sure nothing is hanging out, but we are not spending a lot of time back here. This is where you need to look. So make sure you have got a three-way mirror and you have got a good view of what is going on back here. This is a classic five pocket jean, which means you have got the two pockets on the front plus a coin pocket on the right side and then your two pockets back here. You want to make sure the pocket size is no, just a little bit smaller or maybe a little bit bigger, about the size of your hand, not grossly out of proportion from this.

Because, the pocket size, if it is a tiny little pocket and you have got some junk in the trunk, your butt is going to look that much bigger. If it is this huge pocket and you are very small back here or very flat, it is just going to make it look worse, and you have pound cake butt. So what we want to make sure we are doing with the pocket placement, if they are too high, any volume sitting down here is going to feel like you have got that saggy mom butt. If they are too far down here, it is going to look like your butt is coming out the middle of your back. Same thing with the sides. The more these pockets move out this direction, the larger this proportion becomes, and that is going to give you more volume. That can be good and that can be bad. Contrastly, pockets that are too far in, we start to get a larger a volume of space over here, and we do not want to look too hippy.

So, on Adrianne here, we have got good pocket placement. We want it to be just about right here where it is cupping the bottom of your butt, where really starting to give some definition. And you want to make sure we have a little bit of this inverted heart shape right here. Not so tight that it looks like your butt is eating your pants, but we want to still see some shape. If I can grab fabric here without even pulling, they are too big. So you want to make sure you have always got this. So as long as you can keep these things in mind, inverted heart shape, pocket size and pocket placement, you are going to be successful in your denim shopping, every time.”

Source:Geo Beats

As a man, you gotta love women who know they are sexy and aren’t afraid to let the world know it. It’s a major reason why we love women and what get’s our attention at first sight. And once they have our attention, then we can get to know them. If we like them not just physically, but personally as well, then we see them again. If they like us, it’s a beauty in the male-female relationship.

We get each others attention with our eyes. “Hum I think I’m attracted to that person, I would like to meet them”. And if you discover you like them personally as well and they like you, then you go out with them and you continue to see each other. As long as you get along and find each other interesting. But it’s the physical attraction that get’s our attention first, it’s really that simple.

Some might say that’s superficial, others like myself believe that’s just honest and truthful. If you see an unattractive women or man in a bar, restaurant, club or whatever, your first instinct, unless there’s a financial motivation involved, generally won’t be to walk up to them and get to know that person. Generally speaking, that’s just being honest and truthful.

It’s people’s eyes that draws their attention to other people in public. Especially at bars, restaurants and clubs. And sexy women and men know this, which is why they’ll look and dress in a certain way to get people to notice them. And when they have our attention, we’ll approach them if we believe they are single and approachable, generally. And we take both take it from there.

Posted in Style, The Daily Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Democratic Strategist: Ed Kilgore- ‘Don’t Draft Rick Perry’

Posted on May 25, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Don’t Draft Rick Perry - Google Search

Source:Yahoo News– Governor Rick Perry (Republican, Texas)

“With Mitch Daniels officially out of the race, Haley Barbour and Mike Huckabee now a distant after-thought, and Newt Gingrich’s campaign running on fumes, pundits of all political stripes are finding it hard to shake a persistent belief that there’s a gaping hole in the Republican presidential field. Indeed, the most frequent theme that keeps cropping up in smart analysis of the current state of play is that the contest cries out for a late-entering, credible southern candidate. The figure most often pointed to is Texas Governor Rick Perry, on the grounds that, well, southerners are especially inclined to vote for southerners, and no matter who wins Iowa or Nevada or New Hampshire, the real deal may go down in Dixie.”

Read the rest at The Democratic Strategist

With changing demographics in America, where we are moving towards becoming a majority-minority country both racially and ethnically and with the Republican Party so dependent on Anglo-Saxon-Protestant-Southern, rural voters just to be competitive in American Politics, how will the modern Party of Dixie  remain competitive as a major political party in America, if they don’t expand its base?

2008 was in a lot of ways an incredible presidential election, it made history in multiple ways, nut in one way it was incredible, is that Democrats won in areas and in states that Republicans have traditionally won and have to win the last 30-40 years. Candidate Barack Obama won North Carolina, Virginia, Florida, and Ohio. Republicans can’t lose theses states and hope to win the presidency or win or keep a majority in the House.

The problem is the GOP is so dependent on Anglo-Saxon Protestant, Southern, rural voters, while everyone else in the country votes Democratic generally and the Party of Dixie only wins Anglo voters by a little more than half, because they haven’t reached out to other voters like racial minorities.

“The Party of Lincoln” on a good year wins 10% of the African-American Vote, because Conservatives have fought against civil rights in the past and now. And the Conservative Democrats that fought against civil rights in the 1950s-60s, are today Republicans.

The party where Ronald Reagan said that immigrants are welcome to America, can only count on 25-30% of the Asian and Latin-American vote. Even though these voters tend to be conservative on cultural and fiscal issues. Now the GOP with their Christian and Neo- Confederate allies have set their sites on gays and muslims, so now they turned another faction of the voting base against them.

For the Party of Dixie to remain a major political party in the future in American politics, they are going to have to expand their base to different voters in different parts of the country. Or risk becoming a Far-Right-Neo-Confederate party. America needs to have at least two strong political parties and the Democratic Party frankly needs competition. One-party democracy is almost a contradiction.

The case for Governor Rick Perry not just running for President, but winning the Republican presidential nomination, is that the can win in the New America and win New American voters. He’s always done very well with Latin-Americans in Texas, where Republicans have to win in order to win statewide in Texas, because he appeals to them economically and believes in comprehensive immigration reform. While sticking with his Conservative-Republican credentials on fiscal and economic policy. And perhaps Governor Perry represents the future of a new Republican Party that once again can win nationally.

Posted in Originals, Republican Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Erik Schneider: Have Congressional Democrats Found Their Voice Again?

Posted on May 24, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Have Democrats found their voice and if so what took them so long?

Sometimes it takes a good kick in the butt (like in November 2010) to wake you up. Sometimes you need competition from the other side and to even lose big to realize that you are in a and you either have to play and step up or you can get wiped out.

I don’t think Democratic intensity is back because Americans and the party base, has concluded that they were wrong. And the Democratic Party is truly great and we should’ve been behind them all the way. I’m a Democrat because I believe in progressive Democratic values and liberal democracy, not because I’m in love with party and neither are most American voters.

2009-10 Democrats had all the power, White House and Congress. They inherited a lot from the Bush Administration to deal with, not just the Great Recession. Independent voters didn’t like how they handled it and didn’t like the health care reform debate that led to the Affordable Care Act becoming law that I still support.

The Democratic Far-Left flank didn’t think the Democratic Leadership was moving fast enough or of course far enough to the left. So they decided not to show up and vote in the mid term elections. Along with the Republican Leadership in Congress in both Chambers as well as their allies  being united against Democrats at every term, hoping they would fail and bring them back in power. All this plus other things, adds up to a poisonous pot that led Democrats losing 1/3 of their power in Washington, the House of Representatives.

Now that the House GOP Leadership has discovered its agenda (which at risk of sounding partisan as a Democrat) which is basically to tear down or privatize the safety net in America, Democrats and their allies of course are against that as well as American voters who either like the safety net or benefit from it and now have turned against the House GOP Leadership, where Speaker Boehner is currently enjoying a 28% approval rating.

The Democratic voice as of right now is defending the safety net and preventing it from being dismantled and taking that out on the House GOP. And forcing the Senate GOP to take a stand on the House GOP agenda in the Senate where Democrats are still in majority.

The Democratic path back to power in the House right now is to defend the safety net and only offer an alternative vision when called upon. Which they hope will lead them to the President being reelected and keeping the control of the Senate. We’ll see if it works.

“Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT), in a fiery speech, rejects the Paul Ryan budget and the attempt to privatize Social Security and Medicare.”

_ - 2021-05-20T142507.957

Source:CSPAN– U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders (Democratic Socialist, Socialist Republic of Vermont) talking about U.S. Representative Paul Ryan’s (Republican, Wisconsin) plan to reform Medicare.

From Senator Bernie Sanders

Posted in Democratic Party | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Zoltan Toth: 1980s MISL

Posted on May 23, 2011 by Erik Schneider

MISL-80s Part 1

Source:Zoltan Toth– 1980s Major League Soccer.

Source:The Daily Press

“Major Indoor Soccer league in the 80s History Videos in 4 Parts.”

From Zoltan Toth

As someone who grew up as a sports junky, but now considers myself a recovering sports junky as an adult, who still have a healthy appreciation for sports, even though it’s no longer my main interest, perhaps not even by far, I was introduced to indoor soccer in my late teens. Seeing the MISL on ESPN and the Baltimore Blast who are still in business today on local sports TV. I got to appreciate and understand the game. Its sort of like a combination of basketball and hockey, as far as the side of the field and the ball movement. With the positives of soccer as well, but its a much faster game inside. Smaller field, fewer players and faster, with no offsides. So players have more freedom to actually try to score and to win.

In outdoor soccer, managers and teams, tend to play not lose and for a tie. Which happens a lot in soccer. And with this sports fast paced and high scoring, I always wondered why the sport has never taken off. And least become as popular as Major League Soccer. I just don’t believe the sport which I call futsal, which is what it’s called in Europe and I believe in Mexico, has been marketed very well and doesn’t have a strong enough connection with pro soccer. And it doesn’t have a farm system, like pro minor Leagues as well as college level leagues. Or like little leagues for kids. Americans, generally don’t grow up playing futsal. They come by it as pro soccer players, because they haven’t made it to the majors generally.

I’m glad the MISL has merged with the United Soccer Leagues or USL. Which is basically in charged of minor league soccer in America. Because this will save the MISL and prevent it from going out of business. But I believe the MISL is a lot better than a minor sports league. And at some point could become a major pro Sport in America, like in Mexico. Because the players are here to make that happen. But for that to happen, I believe the MISL needs to merge with Major League Soccer. And have each MLS franchise sponsor and run a MISL franchise in their market. With the MISL playing in the fall and winter and of course the MLS playing in the spring and summer. This would save the MILS indefinitely, because the leagues could market each other together and grow together.

Posted in Sports | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

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

Posted on May 19, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Fashion Advice for Women _ How to Wear Knee-High Boots With Jeans

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

Source:The 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, its 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.

Posted in Style, The Daily Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Hill: Peter Kasperowicz: ‘CBO Says Taxing Cars by The Mile Could Raise Money For Highways’

Posted on May 18, 2011 by Erik Schneider

IMG_5708

Source:Washington Examiner– life is a highway that some Americans ride all day long.

“The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) on Tuesday said the imposition of a new tax on cars and trucks based on how many miles they drive would be one way of generating revenues for the federal Highway Trust Fund.

Joseph Kile, CBO’s assistant director for microeconomic studies, told the Senate Finance Committee that a tax on vehicle miles traveled (VMT) would help the Highway Trust Fund meet its spending goals, in particular because the Fund is already spending more than it collects through the federal gas tax.

But he also said the tax would better align highway costs with revenue generation, and promote the more efficient use of the highway system.”

From The Hill

With all this talk about our crumbling infrastructure and how we should fix it, with the Core of Engineers projecting that we have around 200B$ in infrastructure that needs to be repaired, everything from roads, bridges, airports, schools, our water, these are all well-paid and well- skilled jobs that could put thousands of people back to work. People that currently are not working right now.

Infrastructure investment is something that our country needs so we no longer have kids going to crumbling schools. And people driving on bridges that could collapse. We could ease our highway and road congestion with better roads and more roads. Get less people off the road which would be better for our environment and help bring down our high gas prices, with more trains, subway as well as Amtrak. But none of these things can be done if we don’t put in the work that has to be done to make this happen. By improving our crumbling infrastructure and expanding our infrastructure.

We are currently 14T$ in debt with a 1.6T$ Budget Deficit, money we have to pay back in  one way or the other. Thats just basic economics, there’s no such thing as free money, it has to come from somewhere, we can’t borrow the money indefinitely. Our gas tax is not financing our current infrastructure needs. So the idea of increasing that tax that would mostly just effect struggling middle and low-income people right now. Is basically off the table.

But there is something that we can do, create an infrastructure bank or service that would be self-financed and independent of the Federal Government. That would be responsible for infrastructure needs of the country. That would raise the money through the private sector to pay for these projects around the country. That business’s would invest in and make money off of. That the Federal Government, as well as state and local government’s could go to when they have infrastructure projects that they want work on. And this IB would decide if the project is worth doing or not. And if they decide it’s worth doing, would raise the money for and hire the company to do the work.

A national infrastructure bank makes good financial, economic and political sense, because it would provide a lot of good jobs for the country. It would pay for itself and operate independently with its own management. So Congress and the Administration can’t screw it up (one of the few things that they wouldn’t be able to screw up) and it would eliminate pork-barrel spending. So it’s something we should do as a country.

Posted in Originals, The Hill | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Hill: Andrew Restuccia- ‘Senate Rejects Bill To Cut Oil Tax Breaks’

Posted on May 18, 2011 by Erik Schneider

IMG_5702

Source:New York Times– American free speech and democracy at work.

“The Senate rejected a bill Tuesday to cut billions in tax breaks for the largest oil companies, but Democrats vowed to revive the measure as part of high-stakes negotiations on the budget and debt ceiling.

Democrats’ pledge to continue pushing the bill signals that they view the effort as a winning political issue amid $4-a-gallon gas, soaring oil company profits and growing concern about the deficit.”

From The Hill

I support eliminating tax subsidies for big oil as a broader approach of deficit reduction, as part of eliminating corporate welfare. But with all of this talk (and let’s be honest its talk) let’s face it, Big Oil is always a big target, especially with high gas prices like we have now. And especially in a struggling economy with low economic growth, we could eliminate these oil subsidies right now and wouldn’t bring our budget deficit down by a dime or bring our gas prices down by a dime.

The vote in the Senate today was mostly about making Big Oil and their GOP backers look bad. Senate Democrats knew they didn’t have the 60 votes going in. This was about making the Senate GOP look bad and making Democrats look like they were on the side of Americans paying the high gas prices.

Posted in Congress | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Hill: John T. Bennett: ‘Experts: House Panel’s Defense Authorization Bill An Illusion’

Posted on May 16, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Experts_ House panel’s defense authorization bill an illusion _ TheHill

Source:The Hill– U.S. Representative Buck McKeon (Republican, California) Chairman of the House Armed Services Committee.

“The House Armed Services Committee planted the first flag in the 2012 defense budget debate last week, but Pentagon observers say there is little chance any other military spending bill will approach the size of its plan.

The panel approved a 2012 defense authorization bill with a baseline spending level of $553 billion early Thursday morning, matching the Obama administration’s request.”

From The Hill

With all the talk about fiscal responsibility and deficit reduction and the need to get our fiscal house in order, the House Armed Services Committee passed a whopping 700B$ Defense Authorization Bill early last Thursday Morning.

The United States has borrowed 3T$ the last ten years to fund our military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. All of that money being put on our National Debt Card. 25% of our national debt that we have to pay back to our foreign lenders: China, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Brazil, have to be payed back.

The question is how we pay or debt back: on our terms or our foreign lenders? And does IMF (International Monetary Fund) come to Washington to take over our Federal budget, like they have done with Greece.

One of the worst things about this House vote, was that it was overwhelmingly bipartisan. Both Republicans and Democrats overwhelmingly voted for it. Very few if members from either caucus voted against it.

This bill is completely unrealistic: you can’t make a credible argument that in a budget of 700B$, that represents about 1-5 of the total Federal budget, that there isn’t any waste in it, that every dime we spend on defense has to be spent, that with all the talk about deficit reduction, we can’t find overall savings and cuts in defense.

Shared sacrifice is just that: that everyone including defense sacrifices and contributes for the greater good to get our fiscal house in order, so we are no longer borrowing from other countries just to meet our obligations. Defense, Medicare and Social Security together represent over 60% of the Federal budget. They simply have to be on the table in deficit reduction. Not to make those programs weaker, if anything reform them and make them stronger. And make them more cost-effective, so we can finally start paying down our Federal deficit and debt.

We are starting to bring troops home from Afghanistan and Iraq. Let’s put that money to deficit reduction. Let’s stop defending developed nations around the world that can afford to defend themselves. And bring those troops home from Germany, Saudi Arabia, Japan, Korea and put that money to deficit reduction. Shared sacrifice means everyone contributes for the greater good.

Posted in Originals, The Hill | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The Hill: Alexander Bolton- ‘Budget Chief Wants Plan with 50-50 Split Between Spending Cuts and Tax Hikes’

Posted on May 11, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Budget chief wants plan with 50-50 split between spending cuts and tax hikes _ TheHill

Source:The Hill– U.S. Senator Kent Conrad (Democrat, North Dakota) Chairman of the Senate Budget Committee.

“Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) on Tuesday presented a budget proposal to Senate Democrats that calls for an even balance — 50 percent to 50 percent — of spending cuts and tax increases to reduce the deficit.

The emerging consensus on Capitol Hill is there should be at least $4 trillion in deficit reduction over the next 10 years. To meet that goal, Congress would have to increase tax revenues by $2 trillion over the next decade with an equal amount of spending cuts.”

From The Hill

Senator Kent Conrad (Democrat, North Dakota) officially Chairman of the Budget Committee, is really Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s  lead point-man on fiscal policy, is going to release a deficit reduction plan and debt ceiling bill in the Budget Committee, that will include a combination of budget cuts, as well as tax hikes on high-earners. Hopefully it will also include ending corporate welfare, especially for big oil which is doing great on its own right now.

Chairman Conrad unlike Chairman Paul Ryan in House and I speak a very similar language on deficit reduction and fiscal policy as a whole. Chairman Conrad was in the Senate the last time Congress and the Administration took on deficit reduction in the early, mid and late 90s. He played a role in drafting the 1990 Deficit Reduction Act which had a tax hikes on high-earners, as well as budget buts in areas where we could afford to cut, like in Cold War defense.

Senator Conrad was also in Congress in 1993, 1997 when we went though deficit reduction with President Bill Clinton and those bills had budget cuts as well as entitlement reform. The 1990 and 97 bills being bipartisan, the 1993 Clinton bill being party line. Chairman Conrad unlike Chairman Ryan, actually has experience at deficit reduction and doing it successfully.

Senate Democrats really should go on record on deficit reduction and get the White House on board. And draft their own plan, because the Senate minority party can’t block budget items. Democrats have 53 members: they should form a united front and pass their own bill in the Senate and send it to the House.

Americans should have a choice: do you want to do deficit reduction responsibly or do it by ending Medicare. And giving women tax hikes for getting an abortion. It would be a win win for them on policy and political grounds.

Posted in Congress | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

The New Republic: Jonathan Chait: ‘Face it: Republicans Are Never Coming Up With a Health Care Plan’

Posted on May 9, 2011 by Erik Schneider

Jonathan Chait_ Face it_ Republicans are never coming up with a health care plan_ - Google Search

Source:New York Magazine– Congressional Republicans talking about health care plan.

“Face it: Republicans are never coming up with a health care plan.
One of the things Republicans seem to have forgotten, in the wake of the introduction and swift passage of their Dickensian budget crafted by Paul Ryan, is their unshakeable commitment to health care reform. Remember that? Throughout the health care debate, they were determined to rally around their own reform plan. And now the House has passed a long-term budget that yanks health insurance away from more than 40 million Americans and neglects to put anything in its place. Maybe it’s just an oversight, like the time in freshman year when I turned in a history paper with no bibliography. But it’s kind of starting to look like the Republicans don’t actually plan to do anything for the uninsured.”

From The New Republic

Trying to gage where the GOP especially in the House, stands on health care reform, is a little tricky. Sort of like judging the whether in Washington: it can change day by day. 50 and rainy one day, 80 sunny and humid the next. Like a couple of weeks ago. I apologize, that joke is for Washingtonians.

Democrats have been clear: regulate the health insurance industry, with essentially a Patients Bill of Rights to prevent and punish abuses from that industry. And assist people and small business’s who want to purchase health insurance, with a Tax Credit. And make sure everyone in the country gets health care. Good luck finding someone who doesn’t pay for their health care, which is what the health insurance mandate is about, to help bring down health care costs, which is what the Affordable Care Act is about.

Democrats also wanted to include a public option for health insurance, that would bring more competition and freedom of choice for our health insurance from a non-profit health insurance service, but couldn’t get that through the Senate.

Like I said, judging the GOP on health care reform is a little tricky. In 2009-10 there seemed to be a consensus on what a Patients Bill of Rights would look like, like stopping health insurers from dropping health insurance, just because people actually need it. Or eliminating lifetime caps on health insurance.

The House GOP Leadership had their bill that was voted on as a substitute to the ACA in the House. That was projected to cover about 25% of what the ACA would cover (according to the Congressional Budget Office) but they haven’t offered that bill since. That bill also had most if not all the Patient Protections that the ACA has.

After the ACA passed and since the House GOP position on health care reform has changed to now repealing the ACA, denying the people who currently benefit from it. And then putting a health care reform task force together (all Republicans of course) to perhaps eventually come up with a replacement. Instead of just leaving in what they said they like and eliminating what they don’t like.

The Paul Ryan health care plan the latest version of GOP health care reform, its mostly about Medicare reform, turning it into a voucher system and forcing people off of Medicare and into the private market. Leaving them with less freedom of choice in health insurance. That blew up faster than a car with an oil leak with a lighted match. So now I guess they’ll start over again.

If the House GOP is serious about health care reform (not exactly Atlantic City bet) then they need to broaden who they talk to. Instead of just talking amongst themselves. If they want to pass something out of Congress, because Democrats already passed their bill that is now law. And they like that bill.

Posted in Originals, TNR | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment