California has so many people in their corrections system as far as inmates. And so many inmates that they are now under a court order to reduce the size of their inmate population. Not by accident because they arrest too many people. Fill up their prisons with inmates, basically just warehousing them. There are some exceptions and are left to wonder what to do with them once they reach overcrowding, for a State that’s apparently as blue as California, That hasn’t voted Republican for President since 1988, they have a lot of “Bad Laws”, they simple incarcerate too many people who don’t represent a major threat to society. And after they do incarcerate these people, they don’t do a lot to prepare them for once they are released from prison.
California has what I would call a non-violent offender crisis. They incarcerate way too many people for drug abuse and drug obsession, when getting these people into drug rehab and halfway houses at their expense would save California taxpayers a lot of money. California had an opportunity to repeal one of their “Bad Laws” in 2010. To decriminalize marijuana and stop arresting people for use or possession of marijuana, which would’ve save their corrections system and Law enforcement billions of dollars, but that failed.
And California is back where they started. But they could do things like drug rehab and halfway houses at the inmates expense. For Petty Offenders, people who are in prison for dumb mistakes. Like shoplifting and Drug Crimes. California could save its corrections system and law enforcement billions of dollars just with sentencing reform, keeping a lot of their non-violent Offenders out of prison and into halfway houses or drug rehab at the offenders expense.
This would save California a lot of prison space for people who need to be there, putting their inmates to work and paying them so they can cover their cost of living and repealing their bad laws. And they would dramatically lower the size of their inmate population and still be able to protect the state.
Love the woman in the Levis jeans especially. I first saw her on a web site back in like late 2009 called something to the effect of, Girls in Denim Jeans, something like that. She’s called Sexy Cassandra, I doubt that is her real name. I mean seriously, who would name their daughter Sexy as her first name. I mean what sober sane person would do that, unless you’re raising your daughter to be a porn star. Perhaps you’re a porn king or pimp or something.
I’ve seen several photos of Cassandra in her classic Levis. And she looks like a goddess in them and has a real nice body and proud of it and proud to show it. A real sexy woman to me at least who takes care of herself with a real nice body. Doesn’t starve herself, or unable to fill herself up to the point of obesity. But a sexy woman who takes care of herself and proud of her body to the point that she wants the world to see it.
You can also see this post at The Daily Press, on WordPress.
Before I layout what a Federal Union of Europe which I’m guessing this new European superstate would like and what they would need to do, first I’ll tell you what I believe the borders of the country would look like. It wouldn’t be the entire European/Eurasian continent. Going from lets say Belgium all the way over to the Caucus States and Turkey and Middle East.
Because the United Kingdom would probably never want to be part of this because of its history and the fact they are a monarchy and do very well as a power by themselves. You would probably be talking about a country going from Belgium in the Northwest with Brussels being the capital of this new Federalist Republic and I say Federalist for a reason which I’ll get into later.
It would range from Belgium in the Northwest to Poland in the Northeast. To Portugal in the Southwest to Italy in the Southeast with the former Soviet Union Slavic states in Eurasia out of this new country, as well as the former Yugoslavia. As well as Scandinavia which physically is about the size of continental Western Europe anyway. Out of this Federalist Republic as well.
So we would be talking about a huge new country physically about half the size of the continental United States. But somewhere in the neighborhood of 30-50 million more people who would be either the new largest economy in the world or right there with the United States. That would also be military and diplomatic, as well as political power because this new country would replace NATO with a President and executive branch now controlling this military.
This new Europe could compete with anyone in the world economically and everything else that would be a leader in some of these areas as well. That would also be a democracy again if this was done right and set up successfully which is just as important as the idea of a Federalist Republic of Europe getting it right. Similar to how the United States of America was set up in the late 1700s.
So how would a Federalist Union of Europe look like, somewhere between 27-30 states. Federal capital in Brussels and probably similar to the United States that it would have checks and balances, separation of branches simply because of the fact that each state in the union use to be an independent country so they would want their own autonomy over their domestic affairs, but also so the big states in the union like Germany, France and Italy to use as examples do not control most of the political power in Brussels.
So you would have an executive branch like the commission which is called administration in America. With a President at the head with several different cabinet level ministries. But with a legislative branch that would probably be Bicameral Assembly or Congress, or Parliament so the smaller states as well as the people are well represented as well. You would have some type of Federal assembly. With a lower House and an upper house called the Senate or council. The lower House would represent Federal House districts and the Senate would represent the states.
This new assembly similar to how Congress works in America would be able to write and pass their own legislation. In other words write laws with the President getting veto and signing power over them. And the assembly would have to pass the same laws before it would go to the president. The House and Senate would have to conference and pass the same law before it is sent to the President. The President as head of the commission would get to send legislation to the assembly as well as veto or sign assembly legislation.
You would then need a Federal judicial branch that would judge the constitutionality of laws that are passed at all levels. As well as handle civil disputes including a high court. As well as criminal cases that the commission prosecutes which again is similar to how America and a lot of other Western democracies function. The difference being the Europe would be more Federalist with more power going to the states over their own affairs. So Europe probably wouldn’t be a social democracy with so much power centralized with the central government. Because states rights because of the fact these states use to be countries would be highly respected.
Because of all the cultural, ethnic, and national tensions like with creating a national language, Europe would have to be Federalist with the states having autonomy over their domestic affairs. With a lot of power going to the governors and state legislatures. So these states feel well represented in Europe and feel that this new powerful country is home for them and being able to live in their native state and speak their native language. But having a Federal language which would probably be English so the Federal Government could do its business, but also so Europeans of different ethnic backgrounds could communicate with each other.
I first heard Molly in this program.
Thanks, Goddess, and bless her!
She lives forever in our hearts
Summary: Susan Faludi, Pulitzer prize-winning author of a book on the backlash against feminism in the media and society in the 1990’s, and Molly Ivins, political commentator and author, interviewed each other.
Also available on audio-cassette at Amazon:
Women on the Verge!: Susan Faludi and Molly Ivins in Conversation…
Ross Perot is classical version of take the good with the bad. As Molly Ivins I believe was explaining that there is a lot to like about the man. And had I actually been old enough to vote in 1992 instead of sixteen years old, I probably would’ve at least considered voting for him. But his weakness’ in a lot of way outweighed his strengths because he’s got a Texas sized ego in a New Hampshire size body who thinks a hell of a lot of himself.
Whenever Ross is doing something, he tends to give people the idea that what he’s doing is about him. Even as much as he couldn’t stop reminding people in 1992 that he was running for president for the good of the country and I’m sure part of that was true, but he tended to give people the idea that he was the only one who could save the country.
I believe a good way to describe the Ross Perot was that he was a great visionary, but not someone you want quarterbacking your team or a government. Kinda like a good head coach who didn’t have enough skills to play quarterback very well or play other positions, but someone you might want on the sidelines calling the plays.
“Senator Huey Long of Louisiana led a populist “Share the Wealth” movement during the Great Depression. Long planned to run for president on a third-party ticket in 1936. He thought he could throw the election to the Republicans who – he expected – would make a hash of things. Then, in 1940, he expected to make it to the White House. The grand plan came to an abrupt end when Long was assassinated in 1935. He left a legacy, however. His son, Russell Long, became a senator and – in an echo of Share the Wealth – promoted Employee Stock Option Plans (ESOPs) through various tax breaks.”
Franklin Roosevelt and Huey Long were very similar leftist Democrats in that they were both economic Progressives who believed in things like infrastructure investment funded by the public and making American capitalism work for more people. But there were several differences in the two and they mostly resulted around character.
Franklin had a lot of it and wasn’t a corrupt man or a corrupt politician looking to become some dictator over the United States. Huey was exactly that, but a dictator over Louisiana first as Governor where he basically ran the whole state under his leadership and when he left the Louisiana governors mansion to serve in Congress as a Senator, he was still running Louisiana.
But now Huey Long as a U.S. Senator had more national power and since these two men were similar ideologically at least on economic-policy, President Roosevelt saw Senator Long as a threat to his leadership and power and someone who needed to be put down. But Huey Long would’ve gone down anyway because of his lifestyle and how he carried himself in office.
There are a lot of things to me that can make women sexy. But it mostly gets to how they carry themselves. How they act and if they are just being themselves, whoever they are. Thats more impressive to me, even if they are as dull as a glass of milk, then a woman trying to be someone else, even a woman who’s very impressive.
Intelligent women who know who they are and are intelligent. And actually like themselves, which might be the most important part of all. But then are also attractive, pretty or better, beautiful would be even better. Gorgeous which to me anyway is a step above beautiful and then hot which beats them all. And of course very cute, but in a sexy way, so she’s definitely a grown up. But looks younger than she is and is sexy and not cute like a little girl.
And throw in a real body, not an obese woman who can’t see her feet and doesn’t know what it’s like to have a full stomach. And doesn’t even know how to exercise, let alone exercises. Or a rail thin woman who doesn’t eat full meals and if anything drinks too much water. Who doesn’t work out to keep herself in shape and essentially starves herself. Women like that aren’t sexy to me either. Real women have curves and real women are sexy. Because they love and take care of themselves.
A beautiful if not gorgeous sexy cute well-built woman, who eats full balanced meals, works out stays in shape and then knows how to showcase her body, not to be a slut or look like a whore, but knows she’s sexy and likes guys and of course they’ll like her, if they aren’t blind and like women, then you’re talking about a very sexy woman, a beautiful, cute, well-built, intelligent, confident woman. Who’s real and not trying to be anyone else. Because she loves her own skin.
TIME: Report: Catherine Meyer: Scotland’s Vote Signals Big Change For the U.K.
Big change coming for Scotland and the broader United Kingdom indeed. And what is big change in Britain looks very mainstream in America. Just part of the political differences between the two country. The center-left in America looks like the center-right in Britain. And the far-left in America looks like the center-left in Britain. Just to give you an example, Britain is a hell of a lot more socialist than America as far as how the country operates and governs and the people in the country.
But what is big change or I would even call it radical change in Britain? Britain looks like it is headed to becoming a Federalist Union. Nothing new to America which is a Federal Republic. But you need to know that right now the United Kingdom has a unitary government centralized in London. Which is the complete opposite of federalism, which would be unitarianism. Yes Britain has what is called in America states. But they call them nations being England, Scotland, Wales and North Ireland. The difference being their states and localities have their little say in how they govern themselves.
Where as in America everything that is not related foreign policy, national security and the currency, is essentially left for the states. Where they at least have the major role in how those issues are handled in their states though their governments. With the Federal Government in America dealing with interstate issues. Like criminals committing crimes in different states and interstate commerce, issues like that. To go along with foreign, policy, national security, terrorism and the currency.
So the big change that is coming to Britain, is that they will be moving from a very socialist big government unitarian centralized form of government in London, England, to a more decentralized spread out form of government. Where domestic power would be passed down to the state capitals and the people there and perhaps more power for the localities as well. A more liberal democratic power to the people form of government coming to Britain. At least how it looks now.
A Federalist Union might be the only way to save the United Kingdom in Britain. Where each of these British states would have autonomy and the freedom to govern their own domestic affairs while the British Federal Government would handle national security, foreign policy, homeland security, interstate commerce and law enforcement. But where Scotland, England, Wales and North Ireland would be left with the domestic affairs of their own states.
With a Federalist Union in Britain, Britain would be saved as a unified country. The socialist state even would still be in place it is just that the British states (for lack of a better term) would be left with the governing when it comes to their socialist systems of their own domestic affairs and be able to manage those programs and systems for their own state. But the British welfare state and the taxes to fund it would still be there, but carried out by the states themselves in their own states.
Scotland, England, Wales and North Ireland are all better off being part of the same national union. But even Socialists in each of these own states would like to see more autonomy and freedom over their own affairs and Scotland is as socialist as anyone in the United Kingdom. Is a perfect example of that and would allow the United Kingdom to stay in place. Because each of these states would be able to govern themselves inside of this Federal Union.
What goes better for sexy biker women with their biker jeans than biker boots. Riding boots, brown and biker leather with the metal decoration, I’m not sure what you call those things on the foot of the boots. Sexy biker women with great legs and a great butt, showing those assets off with their sexy riding boots. No secret why guys love biker women, it is like checking ourselves out. Except that we aren’t checking out guys, but beautiful sexy biker women on their bikes.
Another thing I love about biker women is that they are real. They aren’t stick figures, or large dykish tom boy lesbian looking women. (Pardon my language) But they are real women who eat real food, who are real feminine, who take care of themselves and workout because they have to because of the lifestyles that they live. The women in this video is the perfect example of that and what a real biker women looks like. Very feminine and sexy who can also probably handle a bike as well as many guys.
I agree with George Will that the assassination of President John F. Kennedy changed America and changed the Left in America. But we disagree with how it changed Liberals and American liberalism, that really the Left changed. Now what is the Left, it is a group of leftist political factions including Liberals and Progressives on the Center-Left in America. But goes over to Democratic Socialists and Social-Democrats, people who came alive in American politics in a huge way in the late 1960s. In response to the Vietnam War and wanting to take on American capitalism, corporate America and deal with poverty in America in a huge way.
The New Left wanted to make America more like Europe and everything else, but as I said before it wasn’t Liberals that changed in America. But the broader Left which is what changed with Democratic Socialists and Social Democrats having a much bigger voice and influence in American politics. The death of President Kennedy was tragic in many ways and I believe most of them obvious. The fact that the President of the United States could be assassinated in a country that is as strong as America.
But more importantly the tragedy it was for the Kennedy Family especially Jack Kennedy’s wife Jackie and their kids. But parents and siblings as well the entire Kennedy Family. But what is less obvious if you just look at it from a hard-core political point of view and the politics of it, is that it changed the Democratic Party and changed the Democratic Left in America.
Because Jack Kennedy represented the transition from the FDR New Deal movement in the Democratic Party, to more of a movement about individual freedom and liberty. And what can government do for the people who need it so they can take care of themselves. Rather than creating new programs to take care of people instead. We’ll never know this of course, but had President Kennedy not had been assassinated in 1963 or ever, most likely he gets reelected in 1964 and finishes his two terms leaving in the solid Liberal Democratic leadership.
And America does not get involved in the Vietnam War as far as trying to take it over and win the war for the South Vietnam. And there is no need for an anti-war-movement in the Democratic Party and the party is not divided in 1968 and yes there is a strong contest to see who replaces President Kennedy. Between Vice President Lyndon Johnson, Senator Hubert Humphrey and perhaps even Robert Kennedy. But not to the point that is would’ve risked Democrats losing to Republicans in 1968. The party would’ve been in much better position without the Vietnam War and the New-Left radicals on the march and so-forth.
The assassination of President Kennedy left a real leadership void not only in the Democratic Party, but on the Democratic Left. And instead of the country just moving forward and just addressing domestic problems like healthcare, civil rights and others, we get into Vietnam, we have race-riots because of the racism going on in the South and other places. Dealing with other issues like poverty and the New Left that came of age in the late 1960s comes alive to take the Democratic Party away from the liberal and progressive establishments that ran the party before.
Football Stadium Digest covers major stories and events in the planning, construction and operations of NCAA and professional NFL football stadiums across the United States and Canada.
Source:
Source:
Derik Schneider
Ederik Schneider
Erik Schneider
FredSchneiderUS
kireschneider
The Daily Review
Rik Schneider
TheActionBlogUSA
The New Democrat
The New Democrat 
You must be logged in to post a comment.