Ederik Schneider Online

Freedom or Totalitarianism

Freedom or Totalitarianism
Liberty or Death

Sunday, April 22, 2018

Retro Pile: 1979 Wrangler Jeans Commercial

Source: Retro Junk- 1979 Wrangler Jeans commercial- 
Source: FRS Real Life Journal

In the late 1970s there was a boom for dark wash designer denim jeans thats been with us ever since.

It's by far my favorite tend with women's fashion, because we go from an era even in the mid and late 1970s where women didn't look like they were out West in the late 1800s or early 1990s wearing very long dresses and having to hold parts of their dresses when they walked, because they were worried about walking on their dresses and even tripping, but an era where women wore very baggy pants and were not expected to show off their legs at least with pants. And were bellbottoms and what were called in 1974-75 and even a little later and earlier flares. They were sort of like jeans, but not tight at all.

Source: Denims and Jeans- 1983 Wrangler Jeans commercial 
And then we end up in an era starting in 1978 or so with all these magazine covers, as well as movies and TV sitcoms and other TV programming where women are not only wearing jeans, but denim jeans, designer denim jeans, skin-tight designer jeans, where the jeans would go down only to the woman's ankle so and would be real tight in the legs and hip area of the woman's body. Where American women are now wearing jeans the way American men were wearing them on TV and in the movies since the 1950s.

Designer jeans that are simply designed to show off a woman's legs and butt, to show off their curves and how beautiful and sexy they were physically. But in a stylish professional way where women could dress down their jeans with t-shirts and boots, or could dress their jeans up with nice jacket, blouse, as well as boots and could wear denim jeans to work or go out to dinner, go shopping and other places, or go to ballgames with their boyfriends or the movies in their designer jeans. And not look like they're being over sexual or pornographic and have to worry about what more culturally conservative people thought about their tight pants and boots.

American women become liberated economically in the mid and late 1960s with the freedom culturally to not just go to college and get a degree, but then using that degree to get themselves a good job and enter the outside workforce and become economically independent from men. To the late 1970s and ever since where now they're culturally liberated when it comes to fashion. Where it's not only acceptable for them to be beautiful physically, have a beautiful body physically, but then have the freedom and courage to show the world that they have a beautiful body and are proud of it. Designer jeans from the late 1970s and early 1980s, to skinny jeans of today both denim and leather, as well as boots, are great ways for women to showcase their bodies and show people how put together physically that they are.

We go from an era in the early and mid 1970s, where American women weren't supposed to show their legs and butts at all, really other than miniskirts and other skirts which is some cases can be more revealing for a woman's lower body than tight denim, to an era where it was acceptable and in some cases expected for American women to not just wear tight jeans ( both leather and denim, ) but were those pants on a regular basis and in some cases everyday depending on what they did for a living and if they were involved let's say in the fashion or entertainment business or just out running their errands and doing their everyday business like going shopping or their kids sporting events.

And it's not just tight but skin-tight jeans especially denim but in some cases leather jeans like in entertainment and the fashion world, because not just popular but mainstream starting in 1978 or so with all sorts of American sitcoms now showing Americans women wearing skin-tight designer jeans on a regular basis and sometimes even every show with multiple women wearing designer jeans on the shows, but this movement in fashion for women just grew and grew. In the 1980s and especially 1990s, America women were seen everywhere in designer jeans and Levi's in every possible environment on TV. Women were even seen at work in tight jeans like on cop shows, private eye shows, other action/drama shows. Like The Dukes of Hazzard, The Fall Guy and other shows. And this is a trend in women's fashion that just keeps growing and will probably never go away.

A trend that started in 1978 that just kept going by the late 1990s-early 2000s, the dark wash skin-tight designer denim jeans that women started wearing and loving in the late 1970s, came back into style. Didn't replace the Levi's and Guess Jeans from the 1990s, but became an addition. Where you started seeing women in 1997-98 and into the early 2000s, wearing designer jeans that looked like they could be from 1979-80. But were perhaps even tighter and were more low-rise. Studded belts became mainstream on America women in the early 2000s and weren't before that when only biker women and rocker women would wear studded belts for the most part. And you would see women wearing their studded belts with their low-rise designer jeans on a regular basis and everywhere.

We're now in a skinny jeans era ( if you can call 8 years and era ) that started in 2005 where women not only wear skin-tight low-rise designer denim jeans, but can wear them in a way that shows off their butt and legs perfectly ( if they have nice legs and a nice butt ) but can do that in a way that doesn't give away too much. The low-rider ass crack jeans ( as I call them ) that were popular in 2001-02 were replaced by skinny jeans that are still low-rise and skin-tight, but where women can sit down and stand up without showing off skin around their backside. And this is an era for denim jeans for women that will be around forever I believe, as long as sexy women are comfortable in them, like them, and enjoy showing off their legs and butts.
Retro Junk: 1979 Wrangler Jeans Commercial

Wednesday, April 18, 2018

Jacinto Ruffew: Shelley Winters- Full Disclosure A&E Biography

Source: Jacinto Ruffew- Actor Charles Laughton & Hollywood Goddess Shelley Winters-
Source: The New Democrat

This might sound cold, but when I think of Shelley Winters I think of Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield, but with substance as well as style. The Blonde Bombshell with a brain, The Blonde Bimbo who wasn't a bimbo. She had the looks, she had the body, the personality, but she was so smart, quick, honest and one of the best senses of humors Hollywood has ever seen at least. In many ways she reminds me of Joan Rivers. Someone who always had a wisecrack or monologue on the top of her head, with half of that humor aimed at herself.

One of the smartest, sharpest, self-deprecating senses of humors that we've ever seen. Which is why her interviews were so great and why when she would go on The Tonight Show with Johnny Carson, it would seem like she was the stand up comedian on the show and not Johnny. Because she was so quick and funny and could crack up great comedians like Johnny Carson. And why she became a great writer later in her life. Shelley's brain was so big that she was always thinking to the point that she had an opinion on everything. She took notes about everything that she did which is how she was able to become the writer that she became and wrote several autobiographies that were deep in how personal they were talking about all the conquests that she had with men and her relationships.

I believe some of her best movies are Executive Suite from 1954, where William Holden I believe is the best star in the movie. But where Shelley plays and important role in the movie as a secretary in that company and wife of one of the executives of that company in that movie.

The Big Knife from 1955, where she basically plays herself in that movie. The Blonde Bombshell actress, who is tired of playing blonde bimbos as an actress and is ready for bigger roles. Who has a big mouth, personality, and brain as well and knows the dirt on key people in Hollywood and is ready to spill that dirt. Who is later killed in that movie because she knows too much.

The Chapman Report from 1962, which also featured Jane Fonda and Glynis Johns, where she plays a middle age wife who is having an affair with a younger man. And feels the need to talk about her affair with a therapist because she feels guilty about it. Again playing a role that is close to home for her.

Harper from 1966, which also featured Paul Newman and Lauren Bacall, where she plays an aging alcoholic blonde bombshell who becomes fat. And once again playing an actress with a big brain, big mouth., who knows and talks too much.

Shelley Winters is one of the cutest, prettiest, sexiest, smartest, honest, funniest, people who has ever worked in Hollywood. Perhaps who has ever worked anywhere. She was so adorable and funny and could combine those attributes so well together. Able to make fun of other people and situations or herself and do it in a way where she didn't come off as bitchy but someone having a good time. Pointing out negative aspects about someone or something in a critical but not insulting way. She really would've made a great character on the sitcom Seinfeld and gone one on one with any of the cast members on that show. And I just wish there were more smart, funny, adorable people in America, because people like that are so much fun and so refreshing.
Jacinto Ruffew: Shelley Winters- Full Disclosure

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

Liberty Pen: Jordan Peterson- Inside The Marxist Worldview

Source: Liberty Pen
Source: The New Democrat

I agree with Jordan Peterson that Karl Max and his supporters seem to have this all or nothing attitude when it comes to economics. That if you allow wealth and success in the economy, those things only happen because people who aren't wealthy and successful are left in poverty. That wealth and success can only happen at the cost of others with the cost being that people are left in poverty struggling just to survive. That they don't believe that you can have a system where everyone or at least most people are able to do well in life because wealth and success are incentivized. With a strong education system and a tax and regulatory structure that incentivizes success over poverty.

I'm not sure that is my main problem with Marxists and Marxism, but it's towards the top of the list. That economic freedom and private enterprise only produces two types of people in the economy. The haves which are the people who are doing well in the economy. And the have nots the people who aren't doing well in the economy. And that they only assume that the people who are doing well are successful because they stole from everyone else, were born to wealth, or because they were rewarded based on their race and ethnicity. And that the people who aren't doing well is because the wealthy stole from them or they were held down because of their race or ethnicity.

So Marxists and Socialists in general including Democratic Socialists today, have a bad analysis for why some people tend to do well while others don't do well in the economy and they tend to follow up with that bad analysis with bad solutions. Sort of like the doctor who doesn't know what's wrong with you physically, but believes they do and prescribes the wrong prescription to what you don't have. Which just makes whatever condition that you're suffering from even worst while your doctor still doesn't know what's wrong with you.

The socialist solution whether you're talking about democratic or Marxists, tends to be the wrong solution to the wrong problem. They believe the problem with the American economy and private economies in general outside of Britain and Scandinavia and perhaps France, is that wealth and success are not just allowed but encouraged. And what they would do instead of to essentially outlaw wealth and replace it with what they would call total equality on everyone. Forcing everyone to be able to survive with the same amount of money and resources in life. Even if some people are more successful and productive than others.

So Karl Marx and his followers even the Democratic Socialists of the world who wouldn't go as far as nationalizing the entire economy and just stop short with higher taxes on private property and income, as well as putting the central government in charge of providing most of the base human insurances that people get in life to live well like health care and health insurance Bernie Sanders and others, not just have a bad analysis to what they see as the problems with the economy whether you're talking about America or some other first world developed economy like Canada or in Europe, but they also have bad solutions to what they see as problems with the economy. Whether you're talking about Bernie Sanders in America or U.K. Labour Party Leader Jeremy Corbyn in Britain.
Liberty Pen: Jordan Peterson- Inside The Marxist Worldview

Wednesday, March 28, 2018

The Humble Libertarian: Wes Messamore- 'The Far-Left's Ideal Man Has No Penis'

Source: The Humble Libertarian
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

Warning: for all you so-called social justice and political correctness warriors, this piece could come off as very offensive to you all tight asses who’ve escaped society and haven’t heard let alone got a joke in years and have been isolated from the rest of society that can tell the difference between humor and critique, from bigotry.
Source: The Humble Libertarian

I agree with Wes Messamore that the Far-Left’s ( not the entire Left ) ideal man wouldn’t have a penis. Or at least wouldn’t be straight and masculine. The Far-Left’s radical feminists and Communists, ideal man is basically a queen. A gay man with a very feminine perspective on life who has no interest in manly activities. Who walks around like a female runway model, proud to wear pink. Hates manly sports at least and sees football as promotion of violence in America. Speaks with a voice that makes him sound like a horse kicked him in a balls at least a hundred times, it’s so high.
Source: Font Craft

The Far-Left’s ideal woman are three different types of women. One is an upscale Northeast or West Coast yuppie, who works and lives in a loft, runs or manages her own whit-collar business. Looks cool with glasses on and never is seen either not staring at her smartphone or holding a cup off coffee from her favorite coffee house.

Another type of woman that the Far-Left loves is an antiestablishment Socialist radical who sees her job as to eliminate all forms of individualism in America. Destroy what she sees as the racist, sexist, selfish, materialistic, American capitalist system. And replace it with a feminist socialist system centralized economic system and government. Where central planners controlled by feminists Socialists, would be in charge for everyone else to decide what everyone needs to live well in life. If you’re familiar with the New-Left of the late 1960s and early 1970s with groups like The Weather Underground, Students For a Democratic Society and ANTIFA today, you know exactly who I’m talking about.

The third deal woman of the Far-:Left is a dyke. Radical feminists don’t hate masculinity completely, just when it comes from Caucasian men especially Anglo-Saxon men. But they like masculinity when it comes from women and non-Caucasian men. They love African-American entertainers and athletes and other African-American men, who are just as masculine as European-American men and in some cases at least more masculine, just as long as they’re also part of the Far-Left not on the right like people like Economics Professor’s Walter Williams and Thomas Sowell. So if radical feminist Socialists ever became in charge in America and perhaps only through violent force or everyone else decided to leave the country or simply forgot to vote that day, maybe that would allow some men to keep their dick’s. Just as long as they’re far-left as them.

It’s not so much men that radical feminists hate, except for man-hating lesbian dykes, who in many cases are more masculine than your average straight man. Who get hired by 275 pound NFL lineman to be their bodyguards, because they feel safer having a dyke as their bodyguard. And claim that their dyke bodyguard has more masculinity than his entire football team combined. It Caucasian male masculinity that radical feminists socialists ( or RFS’s ) hate. Because they hold these guys personally responsible for what they see as our racist, sexist, selfish, militarist, economic system and form of government. And if they were to ever become in charge in America, you would see about hundred-million straight men least headed to Canada for fear of having their dick’s chopped off. Because these RFS’s hate straight men, at least straight Caucasian men.
Source: Anna Akana: If Women Ruled The World

Wednesday, March 21, 2018

The Atlantic: David Frum- 'When Gun Owners Become Hypocritical Hippies'

Source: The Atlantic
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat 

I never thought I word hear gun owners and hippies, in the the same sentence. Hard to imagine a peace-loving hippie who perhaps the only goal that they have in life is to escape civilization ( especially their parents ) who just wants to make love and dance, smoke pot, ever owning a gun. And when I think of hardcore gun owners at least, I think of people who believe there under constant threat from law enforcement and moved as far away from civilization that they possibly can believing the cops are not just out to get them, but worst from their point of view that they're trying to confiscate their guns.

There obviously gun owners who are more moderate, reasonable, and even sane than that, but if you're playing on the stereotypes from hippies and gun owners that's what it looks like. And with the crazy rhetoric that comes from the National Rifle Association ( or NRA ) every time there is a new mass shooting in America ( which seems like every week now ) they use that type of rabid anti-gun control rhetoric. "The Socialists and Communists, are coming for your guns. Load up and fend them off!" With their rabid members literally taking that rhetoric as seriously as hearing a weather report in Seattle that it's going to rain tomorrow. But I get David Frum's point here.

I've been reluctant to weigh in the gun control debate for more than a month now other than a few postings on social media, because I get this what's the point feeling every time the latest crisis breaks out and now we're at the point that we're literally losing our future to gun violence, mass shooting, mentally incompetent and irresponsible people taking their frustrations out on our future and we're now losing teenagers in high school who would've been in college next year in some cases. Or a few years from now, but are now buried underground because we as a society have chosen not to protect our most vulnerable from people who probably shouldn't even be allowed to get on airplanes, or drive cars, date out daughters, let alone own guns in America or anywhere else in the world.

I love our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights. I've built most if not all of my liberal political philosophy around it, but as David Frum said in his video what separates adults from children are rights and responsibilities. Kid's tend to just want the rights, adults understand that with those rights come responsibilities and when you abuse your rights like staying out too late to use as an example, there consequences that come from breaking the rules. Like maybe you don't go out at all the next day and are confined inside doing your homework and doing house chores or something.

There are no such thing as absolute rights in America. You can't murder someone in the privacy of your home. You  can't accuse someone of murder without absolutely no evidence. You can't force someone to have sex or have an abortion. And you can't freely shoot a firearm in public with people everywhere just for the pure pleasure of shooting your gun and for the hell of it. All of our beautiful individual rights in America come with responsibilities and those rights can be taken away from people when they abuse them and they can also be regulated.

Our individual rights, individualism, liberal democracy, are things along with our diversity across the board and not just racially and ethnically, is what makes America exceptional as well as great. The fact that Americans can come from nothing and end up being some of the richest most successful people in the world. That can not just come from nothing but immigrate from a third world country not even speaking English when you get here and make it in America on your own and become one of our greatest citizens. But with each individual right that we have in America comes responsibility. And each individual right that we have in America is subjected to responsible commonsense regulations. Including the 2nd Amendment. Background checks doesn't take guns away from responsible, sane, competent people. Just the people who aren't responsible, sane, and competent, who would murder people with their guns and other weapons.
The Atlantic: David Frum- 'When Gun Owners Become Hypocritical Hippies'

Wednesday, March 14, 2018

The Atlantic: Helen Keller- 'The Modern Woman Puts Her Husband in The Kitchen- 1932

Source: The Atlantic
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

It you were born let's say yesterday or at the very least have a personality and even intelligence level that makes you seem so young, naive, inexperienced, and innocent that you come off as someone who was born yesterday and perhaps don't even remember the 1990s, unlike some of us who were actually adults during a lot of that decade, 1932 and the 1930s could seem like a century ago. Like explaining the civil war to a 11th grade high school American history class in 1985 or something.

But there was a time even well before I was born where even though there was never any law saying that women weren't allowed to work and become professionals in America or simply low-skilled low-income employees or blue-collar middle class employees where you only needed a high school diploma to get a good job in America, women weren't expected to work at all outside of the house in America. They weren't seen as slaves to their men which is what Africans were pre-civil war in America in the South, but perhaps just a step up. And at the very least were seen as servants to their men and children.

Joe Wilson would go out and work during the day earning a good living for himself, his wife, and kids. His wife Mary Wilson would stay home and raise their kids and take care of the house. The cooking, cleaning, getting the kids to and from school, etc. The whole family would meet in the dining room at around 7PM for dinner or perhaps Joe would take his wife and kids out for dinner to celebrate his new raise or promotion or whatever it might be.

That is what life was like in America before 1965 ( I still wasn't born yet ) or so. Joe worked and Mary stayed home at least once they were married and took care of the family and household. And there was never any government law requiring that women stayed home while men would work outside of the home. It was just a cultural norm, or a Phyllis Schlafly marijuana high or fantasy come true.

Not saying that all Christians are fundamentalists, Evangelical, or even Protestant, but there is a wing in that religion that view this period the 1930s through the 1950s as their Utopia. Their Christian Utopia where America was moral and before what they view as moral crisis that has been plaguing America as they would see it since the 1960s. Not sure a crisis can last 50 years or more, at some point the crisis has to stop and a new way of doing things and new norm emerges instead. But fundamentalist Christians or Christian-Nationalists, point to these 30 years from 1930 to 1960 or so as America's golden age where everything was utopian for them.
The Atlantic: Helen Keller- 'Modern Woman Puts Her Husband in The Kitchen' - 1932

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

The Atlantic: Olga Khazan- A Better Way To Argue About Politics

Source: The Atlantic
Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Before I get into what I believe is a better way to argue politics, I want to explain my issues with Olga Khazan's piece here, because she unintentionally lays out a big problem with American politics which is stereotypes.

According to Olga and she used Socialist Senator Bernie Sanders as her example of a Liberal, which would be like using Representative Ron Paul as an example of a Conservative, even though Senator Sanders is not a fan of either liberal democracy or individual rights, and instead believes in democratic collectivism ( social democracy, if you prefer ) which is very different. And Representative Paul disagrees with so-called Conservatives on a lot of issues especially having to do with national security, foreign policy, but policies that the Christian-Right pushes.

Which gets to my larger point being abut the ignorance about American politics and how the mainstream media including Olga Khazan, reinforces those those false stereotypes about not just what it means to be a Liberal or Conservative, but that Americans are either a Liberal or Conservative . As if you only have two choices in American politics, that there only two choices on the American political menu as far as how you define your own politics and political philosophy. Liberal or Conservative, like being on an airplane and only having a choice between the chicken or salad. As if there is nothing else that someone could possibly eat or order.

But in a political sense there is another other possible way to think when it comes to politics. You're either Liberal or Conservative according to the American mainstream media dictionary when it comes to American politics. Liberal or Conservative, Left or Right, as if nothing else exists. And like most things in life American politics especially in a country as large and diverse including politically diverse as we are, life is just not that simple. And to just put people in two political camps in America is at best lazy journalism and at worst just very ignorant as far as how Americans tend to look at politics.

If you go by the stereotypes about what it means to be a Liberal or Conservative, perhaps 3-5 voters are Conservatives. 1-5 voters are Liberals. If you go buy the classic definition of what it means to be a Liberal, that number jumps up to maybe 3-10 4-10, because Americans don't want big government to try to manage their lives for them and tell them what they can eat, or even say and spend ,most of our money for us. But we tend to believe in the real liberal values like free speech, personal freedom, property rights, right to privacy, equal rights, quality opportunity for all, a safety net for people who truly need it, a strong national defense to protect the country, effective and responsible law enforcement. Things that stereotypical Liberals don't believe in.

And if you polled what it truly means to be a Conservative someone who believes in conserving the U.S. Constitution and our individual rights, fiscal conservatism, strong national defense, personal responsibility, there might me 3 or 4-10 American voters who share those values. But if you polled Americans based on what's called religious conservatism and Christian Nationalism in America and this belief that all Americans should live under the same moral values and there is only one way for Americans to be American and for people who don't share those values are Un-American, that number shrinks to what's known as the Donald Trump base. Which is about 20-25% of the electorate and maybe 30-35% of the Republican Party.

One of the great things about American politics and the American political spectrum and why it's great to debate politics in America is our political diversity. Just like America represents the whole world racially and ethnically, we represent the whole world ideologically as well. From Christian-Theocrats and Nazis on the Far-Right, to Communists on the Far-Left. To Conservatives and Liberals in the middle of those two fringes with Conservatives and Conservative-Libertarians representing the Center-Right and Liberals and Progressives the Center-Left.

Newsflash: not everyone in America is a Conservative or a Liberal. They are our two largest political factions if you go by the true meaning of Conservative as far as what Conservatives believe in a political sense and what the true meaning of Liberal is and what Liberals believe in a political sense. With Socialists both democratic and communist, representing the Far-Left in America and Nationalists representing the Far-Right.

On a more lighter note as far as a better way to argue American politics I would suggest a few things.

One- don't view your favorite partisan publications and media outlets word as gold. Leave open the possibility that those media outlets might have a political agenda and are simply positing negative stories to hurt the other side or post positive stories to help their side. And of course I'm thinking of MSNBC and Fox News. NBC News ( the parent of MSNBC ) is a real news operation and more factually base., but MSNBC is a partisan news operation representing the Far-Left in American politics. And Fox News is just Fox News FNC or network, a partisan political tabloid that basically serves as the communication operation for the Republican National Committee.

Two- stay away from partisan media outlets, or at the very least expand your media diet and look to intelligent commentators from the other side, as well as independent reporters who don't have any political agenda. Once American voters actually start receiving real information and facts when it cones to politics and government, they'll become intelligent voters because now they'll be thinking with these little annoying but very help things called facts. Instead of going off on political spin. Like the insomniac who thinks they can survive without sleep by just pouring coffee and Dr. Pepper down their throats and running a treadmill, two many Americans simply go off what they're favorite partisans tell them which leaves them without real facts and information.

Three- view people especially political junkies as just people who have strong political viewpoints. If you're debating someone on the Right, don't automatically assume that they're some racist xenophobic, sexist, corrupt,  materialistic, selfish, pig, who hates minorities, women, and gays. Especially if they're on the Center-Right and have a brain. And if you're debating someone on the Left, don't automatically view that person as some Che Guevara/Fidel Castro or even Bernie Sanders loving big government statist. Who hates America and views all Caucasians especially Anglo-Saxons and men and views all those people as racists, who want to eliminate all individual freedom and individualism in all forms. Again, especially if they're on the Center-Left and have a brain.

Four- debating an talking is great for the brain and a great verbal exercise, but if you watch sports on TV and even go to games you know that all of those events have timeouts, ( except for maybe soccer ) how about you save some of your breath and use your brain for something other than speaking and debating and use it as a a computer and take in information. You'll learn a few things not just about the person that you're debating, but you might also learn some things about the issues that you're debating. I'm not here to plug any network in particular but if you listen to some of the discussions and debates on CNN from their so-called experts, they actually listen to each other and let the other side speak.

American politics and debate will only get better and American politicians will only become more popular than your average junk dealer or used car salesman ( which is another way of saying junk dealer ) when the people that these politicians represent become better and smarter. When the voters become intelligent and informed and not just operating on 30 or 40% of the story and become informed and engaged voters who don't see their job as to eliminate the other party, even if that means supporting legislation that if there was no partisan angle to doing it they would've never supported before. American politicians only represent the people that voted for them and good politicians can only at best represent the entire community that they officially represent. The entire city, state, district, country, whatever it might be. A big problem in American politics and hyper-partisanship are American voters themselves.
The Atlantic: Olga Khazan- A Better Way To Argue About Politics