The Last Of The Millenniums

Just because it always has been, doesn't mean it always will be

Archive for the day “March 15, 2013”

Caught My Eye…

Still laughing……..
I’ve never seen it on any polling but I imagine this is why FOX has as many viewers as it does.
Love it.
Thanks for finding this clip!

The Western Word

Congratulations on making it to Friday!  By the way, it’s perfectly fine to take a break from work to read Caught My Eye.

If this is your first time visiting The Western Word, the “Caught My Eye” column is where I take a quick look at some of the stories I did not have time to write about during the week – and I often throw in some sarcasm just to make you smile. So get ready to head into your weekend armed with knowledge and a smile.

Today I write about Dark Money, apprentice hunter certificate, One America News Network, MSNBC, Olbermann, The Girls on Fox News, CPAC 2013, Feinstein v. Cruz, Menendez Grand Jury,, St. Patrick’s Day, and much more!

View original post 717 more words

One Man’s Trash…… – ‘Chris Hayes Moves Into Primetime At MSNBC, Bringing A Diverse Guest Roster With Him’

one man's trash1

This is a rave.

I love Ed Schultz. And I like Chris Hayes.

ed schultz

‘As the New York Times reported today, Chris Hayes, the Nation editor-turned-MSNBC-weekend-host, will be moving from his Saturday and Sunday morning show to take over the 8 PM primetime slot on the network, replacing Ed Schultz, who will shift to the weekends’.
@ :

Chris Hayes was perfect on the weekend mornings. My and most people’s ‘brains’, our thinking process, functions differently on the weekends.

On week days, we function on a ‘work week’ level. We take information in, speed up the process, make decisions and move on to the next item.

That’s the week day thinking process.

On the weekends we slow down. I can take an hour, 2 or more to actually ‘debate’ in my mind over more complex issues.

That’s why Chris Hayes was perfect. He’d spend an hour usually with 4 diverse guests and they’d hash over an issue and most of the implications or that issue.


I don’t see Chris Hayes as a good fit on week nights.

People want/expect to procrss a lot of info. Not 1 piece for an hour but 5,6 7 pieces in an hour.

And on week nights, you want an ‘edge’ to what you’re wathcing.

Anger. Excitement.

And that’s politics. Abstract debates with 4 relatively unknow but very well qualified people usually aren’t subject to anger or excitement.

So anyway.

I’ll miss the thought provoking debates but look forward to the anger and excitement form Ed.


Blog Running – ‘Congressional Progressive Caucus Shows You What a Liberal Budget Looks Like’

back to work

Yes it’s a long read.

Yes it’s mostly boring.

Yes it’s about a sustainable future.

So yes, it’s a budget you haven’t heard about and like the other two, won’t be enacted.

After all. We’re America.

We don’t have to make hard choices.

Back To Work
@ :

– – – – – – –

‘Obviously this isn’t going to be enacted and it’s in that sense not a “serious” budget’.

‘But people should take it seriously’.

‘The CPC envisions America becoming a country that has higher taxes, commits a much smaller share of national output to its military, and compensates its health care providers less generously’.

‘That’s not everyone’s cup of tea, but it’s not a wild and crazy dream’.

‘It means America would look more like the United Kingdom’.

‘Most of all it shows that the passion for reducing elgibility for Social Security and Medicare isn’t driven by the laws of mathematics’.

‘It’s driven by a desire to protect the military budget, keep taxes low, and keep provider payment rates high’.

‘Those are all reasonable things to want to do and you can see why people would want to do them, but you can also see why people don’t want to be forced into a zero sum choice between welfare state programs for the elderly and education and infrastructure programs for the future’.

‘So if you want a taste of what a liberal alternative to conservative budgeting really looks like, I’d skip past the Senate Budget Committee Democrats’ plan and take a gander at the “Back to Work” (PDF) budget from the progressive caucus in the House’.

‘This one really takes a hammer to the budget deficit’.

‘It restores Clinton-era marginal income tax rates starting at the $250,000 threshold’.

‘It establishes new income tax brackets—45 percent at $1 million, 46 percent at $10 million, 47 percent at $20 million, 48 percent at $100 million, and 49 percent at $1 billion’.

‘Capital gains and dividends will be taxed as ordinary income’.

‘The deductibility of all itemized deductions will be capped at the 28 percent rate’.

‘The estate tax will have a $2.5 million exemption and then a series of progressive marginal rates from 55 to 65 percent’.

‘The mortgage interest tax deduction for second homes is eliminated’.

‘There’s a financial transactions tax’.

‘A couple of corporate income tax deductions are eliminated’.

‘There’s a kind of too-big-too-fail tax on banks with over $50 billion in assets’.

‘There’s a $25 per ton carbon tax’.

‘There are also a lot of spending-side measures here’.

‘Medicare will reduce its payment rates to pharmaceutical companies down to the Medicaid level’.

‘A strong public option will bring down spending on Affordable Care Act exchange subsidies’.

‘The use of bundled payment procedures is going to be accelerated as will the Affordable Care Act state waiver process’.

‘Base Pentagon spending is reduced to 2006 levels, and farm subsidies for commodity crops are reduced’.

‘This is all counterbalanced by some new fiscal stimulus spending in the short-term, and by a medium-term vision that entails a level of non-military discretionary spending that’s close to the historical level rather than far below it as envisioned by current policies’.

‘The upshot is that by 2023 spending will be about 23 percent of GDP with revenue coming in at 21.4 percent of GDP, leaving for a small and prudent budget deficit of 1.2 percent of GDP’.

‘In terms of timing, the fiscal consolidation happens pretty rapidly here’.

‘You run large deficits for the next few years, but by 2015 you’re already in arguably sustainable territory with a 3.3 percent of GDP deficit, and by 2016 it’s all the way down to 1.7 percent’.
From :

An Actual Gun Debate – ‘Senators Destroy Ted Cruz’s Argument Against The Assault Weapons Ban’

gun control7

We’ve all seen the exchange between Sen. Cruz and Sen. Feinstein.

But there was much, much more.
‘Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)’ :

“I pose to the senator from California [Sen. Diane Feinstein], would she deem it consistent with the Bill of Rights for Congress to engage in the same endeavor that we are contemplating doing with the Second Amendment in the context of the First or Fourth Amendment, namely, would she consider it constitutional for congress to specify that the first amendment shall apply only to the following books and shall not apply to the books that congress has deemed outside the protection of the Bill of Rights”?

‘Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY)’ :

“In reference to the question my colleague from Texas asked, would you limit books? Would you name specific books? Yeah. It’s constitutional within the ambit of the First Amendment to eliminate child pornography. And we have lots of laws that are very explicit about that. Very explicit. That are constitutional, that have been upheld as constitutional. Similarly, you can’t falsely scream fire in a crowded theater. Similarly, we have libel laws. Every one of these is an impingement on the sacred First Amendment, upheld as constitutional. There are reasonable limits on each amendment, and I think it is anomalous, to put it kindly, for either side to interpret one amendment so expansively and another amendment so narrowly that it just doesn’t add up because your interpretation of the Constitution should be consistent”.

‘Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)’ :

“It is hard to imagine that it would be a violation of the First Amendment for somebody to yell fire in a crowded theater but it’s not a violation of the Second Amendment to prevent somebody from bringing a hundred-round magazine into a crowded theater in a Aurora, Colorado”.

‘Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) made a different constitutional argument, noting “we’ve heard testimony there are some 4 million weapons” banned by the bill. He cited the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2008 opinion in D.C. v. Heller to assert that that 4 million weapons necessarily “qualifies as common use” as defined by the decision and “cannot be banned.”

‘While Justice Antonin Scalia’s majority opinion did strike down a ban on weapons in “common use,” he specifically stated that the Constitution allows bans on “dangerous and unusual” weapons. Lee failed to explain how the fact that manufacturers of “dangerous and unusual” weapons have manufactured so many has any bearing on whether are not they meet the definition of “in common use.”

‘Whitehouse lamented the “clear” intractable Republican opposition to the assault weapons ban and suggested that a separate vote on the high-capacity magazines element of the bill would have more success in passing the Senate. The Senate judiciary Committee has already approved measures to expand background checks and reduce gun trafficking, but they all face significant obstacles in both the full Senate and the House’.
From :


Post Navigation