CBS News: President Obama- ‘Gabby Opened Her Eyes For the First Time’

Posted on January 13, 2011 by Erik Schneider

IMG_5596

Source:CBS News– First Lady of the United States Michelle Obama and Captain Mark Kelly, the wife of U.S. Representative Gabby Giffords (Democrat, Arizona)

“At the memorial service for the victims of the shooting in Tucson, Arizona, President Obama said that Rep. Gabrielle Giffords opened her eyes for the first time after his visit.”

From CBS News

As far as President Obama’s speech in Tucson tonight I thought it was a speech that Tucson wanted and perhaps needed to hear. Perhaps thats what they wanted to hear after what they went through last weekend. Perhaps they needed to be cheered up and be reminded of all the positive aspects of life in Tucson.

But I’m not sure President Obama’s speech is a a speech that will unite the country that the rest of the country wanted to hear. Perhaps the President did that intentionally figuring that this was the night to try to make Tucson feel better and feel good about themselves. That he was their President and he was in Tucson and he felt that was his role and this is time to unite the country around some greater purpose whatever that is would come later.

I thought the President made some good points about the political tone in Washington in the country as a whole. That the rhetoric is not to blame for the Tucson shooting, but the tone has clearly not helped and that it’s time to get back to debating ideas, rather than if people you disagree with are good people or not.

Posted in Barack Obama Presidency, FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MSNBC: Countdown With Keith Olbermann: ‘Lewis Black Talks About Republicans’

Posted on November 6, 2010 by Erik Schneider

Lewis Black Talks About Republicans

Source:MSNBC– comedian Lewis Black on Countdown With Keith Olbermann.

Source:The Daily Press

“Lewis Black Talks About Republicans. 4th November, 2010 MSNBC.”

From the so-called Liberal News Channel

Political satirist Lewis Black on Countdown With Keith Olbermann on MSNBC. I’m guessing there to talk about American politics and the latest Republican who pissed either of them off. But call that a guess.

Lewis Black

Source:MSNBC– comedian Lewis Black on Countdown With Keith Olbermann.

Keep in mind, Lewis Black is a comedian. Which is as newsworthy as it snows in Wisconsin in January. Not what a sane, sober, competent, person (hopefully that person is not unique) would call breaking news. And my only point is that Lewis Black makes a living making fun of other people. And since he’s primarily a political satirist, he primarily makes fun of politicians and political activists, political media people. And since he’s a partisan Democratic political satirist, he primarily makes fun of Republicans.

MSNBC Talk that Countdown With Keith Olbermann is part of, is a left-wing, partisan, media outlet, that when they’re making any money at all, they’re doing it by attacking and critiquing Republicans, especially hyper-partisan, right-wing Republicans, like the Sarah Palin’s of the world. As well as establishment, mainstream, Democrats. You know, Democrats who can and do get elected outside of Height Ashbury San Francisco, or Greenwich, New York, or can get elected statewide in a state other than Vermont or Massachusetts.

Having said all of this, Sarah Palin is not a politician. She’s a political reality TV star and celebrity, who makes her living raising money for other Republicans. But not someone who deserves to be taken seriously as a public official or even political candidate. Who speciality is not public policy and government affairs. But she’s an excellent political attack dog and political satirist for the Far-Right.

Posted in New Left, The Daily Press | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CBS: Evening News- Ben Tracy: ‘Tea Party Plan For Capitol Hill’

Posted on November 4, 2010 by Erik Schneider

Tea Party Plan for Capitol Hill

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

Source:FRS FreeState 

“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

59cb1-4774136823_af2e0b3718_o

Source:FRS FreeState– 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.

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

Associated Press: Mark Hamrick- ‘Gridlocked Congress Could Threaten Economy’

Posted on November 3, 2010 by Erik Schneider

Associated Press_ Mark Hamrick- 'Gridlocked Congress Could Threaten Economy'

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

Source:FRS FreeState 

“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)”

From the 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.

Posted in AP Video, FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CBS News: 60 Minutes- Leslie Stahl- Interviewing House Minority Leader John Boehner

Posted on October 31, 2010 by Erik Schneider

Rep_ Boehner_ The Next Speaker

Source:CBS News– from a 60 Minutes interview of House Minority Leader John Boehner (Republican, Ohio)

“Rep. John Boehner will become the speaker of the House next month, but few know this Ohio Republican beyond his life in Washington. Lesley Stahl profiles the congressman.”

From CBS News

I hate to say this but it’s looking more and more likely that current House Minority Leader, John Boehner (not boner or bonehead, as many think) will become the next Speaker of the House going into the 112th Congress.  According to independent polls from Gallup, Politico, the Hill, etc., as many as 90 Democratic House seats are in play for Republicans.  Republicans have to pick up only a net of 39 seats to win control of the House, i.e., 39 out of the 90, while holding their own. That’s only 43% of the seats in play to win control of the House.  I think that’s too tall an order for Democrats fill to retain control if the House.

For House Democrats, the only drama  on Wednesday morning will be the election of the next Minority Leader.  They were in this position for twelve straight and painful years from 1995-07, an experience they haven’t forgotten.

Assuming the polls are correct and Republicans do win control of the House Tuesday night, I think that current House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, will step down as the Democratic Leader and, perhaps, even leave the House all together.  She probably won’t have the votes to be reelected Minority Leader, a position she held from 2003-07, very skillfully.  But times have changed.  House Democrats, especially Blue Dogs, assuming there any left after Election Night, (not a safe assumption) could argue that she led House Democrats to  defeat with all of the unpopular legislation that she talked them into passing, like the cap and trade bill that will never become law in its current form, deficit spending, and the Affordable Health Care Act (AHCA).

Blue Dog Democrats are fiscally conservative and generally don’t support these things.  Not one single Blue Dog who voted for AHCA is mentioning that vote as they run for reelection.  They could argue that these unpopular votes, pushed by Speaker Pelosi and Leader Steny Hoyer, led House Democrats, especially Blue Dogs, to defeat.  The House Democratic leadership should have been smart enough to see this ahead of time.

This leads me to the status of House Leader Hoyer, who has a lot of support amongst all of the factions in the Democratic Party, progressives, liberals and Blue Dogs alike.  You could make a case that Leader Hoyer, whom I’m proud to have as a fellow Marylander, had a role in leading House Democrats to their defeat.  I don’t think House Democrats have a clear leader going into the 112th Congress if they lose Tuesday night.  I think they’ll have a leadership fight after Tuesday night.

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

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

Posted on October 31, 2010 by Erik Schneider

The Book Archive_ Chris Hedges- 'American Fascists_ The Radical Christian Right'

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

Source:FRS FreeState

“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.

Posted in Book TV, FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

CBS News: Evening News- Katie Couric: ‘Return to Moderation?’

Posted on October 30, 2010 by Erik Schneider

CBS News_ Evening News- Katie Couric_ 'Return to Moderation_'

Source:CBS News– U.S. Senate candidate Sharron Angle, R, Nevada: Harry Reid’s, only ticket to reelection.

Source:FRS FreeState 

“The capital prepares for the Million “Moderate” March; The 2010 midterm campaign hits the home stretch; And, yet another controversial comment from New York’s Republican Gubernatorial candidate Carl Paladino.”

From CBS News

Return to moderation? As a liberal, I know exactly where I stand on the current issues of the day. I don’t call myself an expert on anything. Others can judge that for themselves. I do know where I stand and I think my readers know that when I write about something I don’t flip a coin to decide what my position is going to be or split the difference. Nor do I look for a position that will offend the least. As someone who’s not currently a politician, I have the freedom to say exactly what I think.

One of the things I love about blogging is that I can get all of the best available objective evidence before I make a judgement about what is in the best interest of the country, or whichever jurisdiction it is involved. If it’s an issue on which I’m confident that I’m well informed, such as civil rights, I can proceed without further research. I would like to think that the average politician operates in the same way but I have my doubts.

When I’m considering voting for someone, especially for the first time, I’m not interested in a candidate who claims to be a moderate or centrist and says vote for me and I’ll work for the best interest of the country, not possibly knowing what that could be ahead of time. Once in office, such politicians can take positions that come as complete surprises to their constituents. I think voters have the right to know where candidates stand on the issues before they get to office. After all, they’re running to represent us.

I especially don’t respect politicians who claim to be moderates or centrists but vote like Liberals or Conservatives. They’re centrists in their private lives but once it gets down to voting or governing their liberalism or conservatism comes out. Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman claims to be a centrist in public but its hard to tell the difference between him and Liberal Democratic Senator John Kerry, one of my political heros, the “Northeast Liberal”. The only issues they’ve disagreed on have been the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Sen. Kerry is very proud of his liberalism and Senator Lieberman is not.

Then there’s Senator Arlen Spector who’s admitted to being a Goldwater Libertarian Republican in the past, “Government out of my wallet and bedroom,” and that sort of thing. On domestic policy, Senator Spector tends to be more progressive than Senator Barry Goldwater had ever been, especially in medical research and infrastructure spending. Senator Spector woke up from a Republican nightmare just eighteen months ago, saw the light and decided to become a Democrat again, a liberal Democrat, I might add. (Perhaps it had something to do with getting reelected.)

Senator Spector has a progressive record on civil rights, civil liberties, women’s rights (incluiding reproductive), and gay rights and is as much as a centrist as the current Pope is a Muslim. I mean who did he think he was fooling? Arlen Spector should’ve remained a Democrat for his whole career, especially, in a blue state like Pennsylvania. He could’ve been Governor of Pennsylvania if wanted to.

He, along with Ted Kennedy, voted against Robert Bork for Supreme Court Justice. As a Pennsylvania Democrat, he would’ve never had to worry about a primary challenge from the far right and probably not from the far left either.

I have more respect for Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, Social Democrats, Socialists, Theocrats, and Authoritarians than I have for Centrists. With the former, you know where they stand on the issues, whether you agree with them or not. Two politicians for whom who I have some of the most respect are Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan, both Conservative Libertarians, because you knew where they stood and they were loyal to their principles. They didn’t take positions just for presumed political advantage.

Republican Senator Tom Coburn is a Republican for whom I have a lot of respect. He is a true fiscal conservative, not someone who claims fiscal responsibility just because his party is out of power, but someone who’s always been there. I have a lot of respect for Liberal Democrat Jack Kennedy, even though he was a little late to the party on civil rights, but he finally made it. He had clear liberal convictions on most issues. I also have great respect for Jack’s brothers Bobbie and Teddy. They were ahead of their big brother on civil rights.

I have a lot of respect for Liberal Democrat Sen Russ Feingold. I desperately hope that he gets reelected on Tuesday night though it’s not looking good for him. Unfortunately his convictions are probably going to cost him his seat on Tuesday. For Russ Feingold, it’s not about getting reelected. It’s about doing what he believes is best for the State of Wisconsin and America. Today, that might sound corny but it’s true. The problem with Congress is not Sen Russ Feingold, it’s that there are not enough Russ Feingold’s who are willing to vote their convictions. For a lot of members of Congress, everything is about the next election.

Does centrism have a place in politics? I don’t see it as a governing ideology. Could you imagine a centrist as their party’s nominee? First of all, a centrist would never get the presidential nomination of the Democratic or Republican Party today. But, for a second imagine that did happen. What would their campaign theme be? “Vote for me because I’m stuck in the middle trying not to get squashed?”

The problem with Washington is not the lack of moderation. The problem is a lack of bipartisan cooperation. Thats not moderation, thats combining the best from both sides of the aisle to make legislation that works. We as a country have a long tradition of bipartisanship and we could use more of it today. What you get with moderation is splitting the difference. A computer can do that and it’s not Leadership.

Posted in American Politics, FRS FreeState | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Ham Papartiet: Legalization of Marijuana in Utah?

Posted on October 30, 2010 by Erik Schneider

Ham Papartiet_ 'Marijuana to be legalized in Utah_'

Source:Ham Papariet– People in Utah, high on pot? (Pun intended)

Source:FRS FreeState

“Marijuana to be legalized in Utah? It could happen in California, but Utah too?”

From Ham Papariet

Utah probably has more registered Republicans, right-wing nuts and NRA members per capita than any other state in America. You’d have a better chance of seeing a man with multiple wives there than an elected Democrat (sorry, bad joke).

The legalization of marijuana use (considered a capital crime by some Christian theocrats) is being considered by the State of Utah. That is a sign that similar efforts in California should make headway and it’s a message to the rest of America that it’s time to rethink the War on Drugs. Perhaps (putting it mildly) punishing people for what they do to themselves instead of what they do to others and treating them as drug dealers and career criminals is not the best approach to this problem.

I’ve made these points before so they might be as refreshing to read as a drivers manual but my argument hasn’t changed. Utah’s exploration of marijuana legalization reinforces my argument so I’ll take the time to make it again.

The prohibition of alcohol 80 years ago proved that if people want to do something badly enough they’ll find a way to do it, regardless of the consequences. If they can make a successful business out of it, it becomes doubly attractive. That’s one of the reasons prohibition was repealed.

I believe that we should legalize marijuana and that let that be the end of it. I’m not advocating the legalization of heroin or cocaine. We should legalize marijuana with appropriate regulation and taxation designed to discourage, or limit, it’s use. We should treat marijuana the same way that we treat alcohol and tobacco, two legal drugs that both have negative health effects.

Junk food and drink, with their excessive fat, sugar, salt and caffeine are serious health hazards in America. Obesity, which leads to deadly diseases, is caused by junk food and lack of exercise. It is the 2nd leading cause of preventable deaths in America, right behind cigarette induced lung cancer. Alcohol abuse is the leading cause of liver cancer. All of you who drink, smoke, eat a poor diet and don’t exercise and oppose the legalization of marijuana use should think about the choices you are making. By the way, if you have all of these bad habits and stay the course, you’ll have a hard time making it to the age of 60.

Marijuana, used and grown without control in a black market in America, isn’t a leading cause of any disease. With legalization and regulation of use there would be control and record keeping for public health purposes. Prohibition doesn’t make attractive substances or go away. We already have legal drugs in America that are killers but they’re regulated to make them as safe as possible. We can do the same thing for marijuana We know it will be grown and used. We should make it as safe as possible.

Posted in FRS FreeState, War on Drugs | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Gral Hueter: Woman in Skin-Tight Jeans- In Stiletto Boots

Posted on October 29, 2010 by Erik Schneider
The Daily Press_ Gral Hueter_ Woman in Tight Denim Jeans- in Stiletto High Heel Boots

Source:Gral Hueter– Beautiful, sexy woman, in skin-tight jeans in stiletto boots.

Source:The Daily Press

“Woman in Stiletto High Heel Boots.” Originally from Gral Hueter. The video has since been deleted or blocked on YouTube.

When I’m walking down the street somewhere or sitting down in public and see an attractive well built woman walk by, or she’s ahead of me by ten feet or so, and she’s wearing tight jeans in or over boots, like cowgirl or work boots, of course I take a look. Unless I’m in such a hurry that I don’t have the time.

It’s hard for a guy not to stare at a women dressed like that. Sexy women love jeans, because they look good in them and they feel good in them and it makes them feel good and comfortable and perhaps even like being checked out in them. And let the world no that they’re put together and have great style as well. Women don’t wear skinny jeans (denim or leather) because they’re trying to hide and don’t like being seen in public. The opposite is true whether it’s popular celebrities like Sofia Vergara, Mariah Carey, Janet Jackson, (to use as examples) or beautiful sexy women in your neighborhood and hometown.

I just love the sound that the boots make on the ground. It’s like listening to Frank Sinatra sing or Jimmy Hendrix play guitar. It’s poetry in motion to me. Men should thank attractive well-built women who dress like that. These women look great and are not afraid to show the world that they look great. They’re wearing what I believe to be the sexiest combination in women’s fashion right now tight denim with boots.

Of course guys are going to notice women dressed like that. We would have to be blind not to. And tight denim meaning skinny jeans have become so mainstream now thanks to the designer jeans revolution of the late 1970s and then the next one of the late 1990s and early 2000s, that women feel they can wear skinny jeans especially dark wash denim practically everywhere. Perhaps short of to their weddings or church. But women now wear dark wash jeans and boots to the office and dress them up. And not just on Casual Friday.

I’ve said before that I’m not interested in what I call the hooker look, the boots over knees look. Women dressed like that look to me as if they think that they need their sex appeal to make a living. When it comes to tight jeans with boots, I’m interested in women who wear modern jeans cut to show off their rear, but not to the point of showing their rear cleavage when they bend over or stand up. Women dressed like this look sexy to me, but also look like they use their intelligence in their profession.

I like sexy and intelligent women, women who are proud of their appearance, dress to display it in accordance within modern social norms, and stay away from the boundary of the hooker look. Sexy with style is I guess the way I would describe what I at least believe is the modern sexy look. Women who know they look great ad have great legs and want that to be clear in public. But do it in a professional stylish mature way. Low-rise tight jeans, but not to the point that the woman’s cleavage comes out when she stands up or sits down. But shows that she has great legs and a great butt.

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

Sexy Latex Val: Sexy Val- In Her New Guess Black Denim Jeans- in Black Zipper Boots

Posted on October 28, 2010 by Erik Schneider
Val

Source: Sexy Latex Val– Sexy Val, in her black Guess jeans in boots.

Source:The Daily Press

“Sexy Val In Her New GUESS Black Jeans and Zipper Boots”

From Sexy Latex Val

When I think of sexy women, not women who could pass as hookers, I think of women who are  attractive, well-built, and wearing tight denim with boots, tight jeans in boots or jeans over boots.  You see biker chicks, rocker chicks,  cowgirls, female construction workers, and waitresses wearing them.  You see women wearing tight jeans to the office.  If you’re a guy and you’re religious, you should thank God for casual Friday.

This beautiful redhead takes it a step further by wearing a short tight top, and a black leather Jacket with skin-tight black denim Guess jeans and black leather zipper boots.  She is filmed, presumably, by her boyfriend or husband.  Out for the day, we see her out moving around in her sexy outfit. Val has a great body.  She knows it and is not afraid of the world seeing it because she knows who she is. She takes the attitude that if you have it, you should be proud of it and not be afraid to show it. Gotta love her for that.

By the way, I wish black denim jeans were more popular among women.  Black leather jeans are fairly common now.  Black denim jeans they might be just as sexy as blue denim jeans. They sort of have the look of leather jeans.  I  understand why women wouldn’t want to wear black jeans in the summer in the State of Maryland where I live because of the heat and humidity.  But in the fall and winter, why not.

So my hat’s off to “Sexy Val” for taking care of herself, looking great, and  not being afraid to show the world how great she looks. She makes black denim jeans look as sexy as possible and I would love to see more women take her lead, especially in the winter, when those jeans would help keep them warm as well.

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