Sigh ... Eyes Without a Face

I miss these days ...

Gettysburg ...

I finally got to go check out the memorial. It was an amazing experience.

Here's a short video clip of the Soldiers' Monument and some pictures.

Two views of the Gettysburg Address ... the address itself and criticism of the words and the event ... and we think today's media is bad? 

Above is a picture of the Cyclorama display, an amazing, massive one piece painting that is hung up in a rotunda. The painting depicts one of the battles from the artist's perspective. This photo doesn't do it justice, since it is only one small section of the painting and model display at the bottom, where I was standing. The painting was done in France based on what the artist saw during the battle. Pictures and slides were also taken and used to recreate the scene. The painting was sent to the United States in the 1880s and was restored a number of years ago. The museum has added light accents, sound, and narrative to the presentation to put you into the actual battle. No flash photos - understandable - or video  (bummer dude) were allowed. It's like nothing else you'll ever see. 

The New Hampshire stone at the Soldiers' Monument. A view from the top of Cemetery Hill, one of the skirmishes from the northeast side of town. It was also the scene of the first Confederate win of the three-day battle.

OK, so you think the 2000 election was bad? This is the Electoral College map of the 1860 election with four candidates facing off. Two of the candidates were pro-slavery; one was neutral. Lincoln and the Republicans didn't want slavery expanded to the other territories (the beige area between California and the other states). Lincoln received less than 40 percent of the popular vote but won 59 percent of the Electoral College vote and the election. Had there been no Electoral College and had the pro-slave political side of the aisle not split their vote with two candidates, Lincoln would have lost the election and we probably would not have the nation we have today. While many people believe the Electoral College is undemocratic, the Founders, quite brilliantly, put the mechanism in to keep mob rule from controlling the presidency and keeping the country from becoming a monarchy. It still serves its purpose today, despite what some people may think. 

The view from Little Round Top, a strategic point of the town that was almost lost by the Union forces, quite by accident. One of the generals, disobeying orders, believed he should be posted down on the ground to the right of the picture even though he was told to be up where the rocks are. A Union scout was sent up to the rocks to check on things, saw that there were no troops there while Confederate soldiers were off in the distance on the left of the picture, heading to the top. Troops were quickly assembled to hold the hill a few minutes before Confederates arrived. Historians believe that this was one of the key moments of the three days. Had the Confederates controlled the hill, they would have been able to bombard Union troops on the right and traveled south into town, taking control a small chunk Pennsylvania while winning the psychological war Lee was trying to fight against the Union states.

This picture is a bit blurry because I took it from the bus but the children are reenacting Pickett's Charge, the last and bloodiest battles of the three days. Over to the right, off the picture, is where Little Round Top is located; the center of the picture, just to the right of where all those houses are, is where Lee made his last - and unsuccessful - run at the Union forces. The Union cannons had stopped firing because the entire field was covering in smoke. Lee believed - like every other battle before this one - that the Union forces were retreating. In actuality, Meade and his forces were playing possum, waiting for the Confederates to charge, getting close enough to bombard them with more cannon fire.

Cool chart in USA Today

While I am completely immersed in local, online news, one thing I still think is cool about print is a chart like this.

Heartbreak Beat ... those were the days

Linger on, your pale blue eyes ...

One of my favorite Lou Reed/Velvets songs. A nice version here with Pete Townsend. Lyrics are on the second page: 

Taste the Floor returns ...

So, it's been a while.
In fact, almost 10 years. But I'm back spinning tunes on the radio.
The details can be seen at the Taste the Floor music show website.

Art auction

After nearly 30 years of not using them, I picked up a set of paintbrushes and put together this painting for the Intown Concord auction/general meeting coming up on March 14. If you don't recognize it, it's Penacook Lake, as seen from the peak of Jerry Hill at Marjory Swope Park.
The night I finished it - with other "celebrity" painters - I didn't think it came out that good. However, after looking at it for a bit, I realized that, considering, it's not bad at all.
My high school art teacher - the late Judy Marz - would be pretty proud, I think.

You too can Dead Yourself

If you watch "The Walking Dead," you'll want to check this out ... Yes, you too can become a walker with the click of a button and a bit of shifting around of the mouse.
Well worth it, I think. Me as a zombie. LOL

The 45% tax rate and $205B in giveaways

Sometimes, it takes a WSJ editorial to walk you through something and the indie press nosing around in order to understand how good or bad legislation is.

This morning's editorial states that the highest tax rate on those making $450,000 a year will be in the 45 percent range, higher than most people think. That's because of the ObamaCare surcharge kicking in as well as other things. Also, 80 percent of deductions and exemptions are ending for millionaires, according to the editorial, due to the phaseout of Personal Exemption Phaseout and the Limitation on Itemized Deductions (PEP/PEASE). 

So while not truly completely "making millionaires and billionaires pay a little more," there is a bit of good news here about making them pay a little more, if that is what your focus is. The fact remains that the deficit and debt are such massive problems, everyone is going to need to pay more while cutting all federal spending drastically. 

The problem though then becomes that, like I wrote before, the cuts haven't materialized, and the giveaways added to the deal are unfathomable and unconscionable 

Matt Stoller over at informationclearinghouse.com has an overview of some of the billions in giveaways that have been extended by the fiscal cliff agreement. These are some of the same things that Democrats have historically wanted to end but would blame the GOP for standing in the way. Corporate welfare, you know. These are some of the tax changes we all have to support in order to truly fix the revenue problems. It's truly "paying your fair share." Why should you or I pay more while Disney and Goldman Sachs get away with paying less? Now, again, both parties are truly to blame, when you look at the fine print. 

The joke that was the fiscal cliff vote

Washington didn't "fix" anything: They made things worse.

The fiscal cliff/sequestration deal that was approved on Jan. 1, added more deficits and debt to the federal budget that anyone could have imagined while raising taxes and allowing other tax breaks to expire. And again, both political parties are to blame for this disaster. 

This entire mess was supposed to be about reducing deficits and eventually, debt, not adding to it. The deal raised taxes on those making more than $450,000, so the president got part of what he wanted and the GOP was able to protect households on the upper level - folks who make more than most of us but in a lot of cases are not millionaires. 

At the same time, the president and Senate Democrats loaded the thing up with more spending including changes to the AMT, business tax breaks for rum producers and Hollywood, unemployment benefits, and other giveaways. The CBO reports that the votes just taken add $3.9 trillion in deficits to the $9+ trillion expected during the next decade, for a grand total of more than $13 trillion in deficits by 2023, approximately. 

Since the debt will soon be at $17 trillion, the federal government will be at $30 trillion in debt in just 10 years, assuming nothing is done to offset those debt levels. This amounts to about $100,000 in federal government debt for everyone man, woman, and child who is a citizen living in the United States right now. These numbers don't include entitlement and pension obligations that are expected to be in the $90 trillion range very soon. 

And let's be clear - none of these actions will create any new jobs because, as I've written before a number of times, the long-term job problems aren't about more federal government spending, more education spending, or anything else. The federal government is spending more than ever before, in actual dollars. The long-term unemployment problem is about globalization, free trade, and to a lesser extent, technological advances that have increased worker productivity. It's not about "making millionaires and billionaires pay a little more" - it's about you needing to make $30K a year to get by while people in China and India will do the same job for $1K a year in corporate costs. 

Well, the Democrats got what they wanted and most of the GOP went along with it. You'll see, it won't work ... and things are going to get worse.  

The future

In two months, all parties are expected to sit down and start ironing out potential spending cuts. And the entire nasty nonsense-go-round will start again, keeping everyone in perpetual campaign mode. 

The Democrats say they have $1 trillion in cuts over 10 years on the table but that is a drop in the bucket when staring at now $13 trillion in deficits and $30 trillion in debt. At the same time, the GOP wants spending cuts but aims a lot of them at the elderly and the poor. The "spending cuts" proposed by Democrats aren't cuts at all; they are reductions in the level of potential increases, meaning it's mostly word play; the GOP won't touch their blessed military spending even though Japan and NATO have no known enemies and we can no longer afford to be the police of the world. 

Yes, the drawdown of the wars is in the savings everyone is projecting and that's real, but it's not enough. Everyone needs a true education about what is going on, especially when staring at the pension and entitlement obligation and the size and scope of the federal government while considering that there are layers of local, regional, and state governments doing much of the same work. 

So here's the big question for the future: What happens when people sit down and realize that taxes have been raised on the rich, the wars have been drawn down, and there's still a massive hole and people are still out of work? That will be interesting to see. 

Solving sequestration is a click away

Don't believe the hype. You can solve the sequestration problem that purports to send our economy over a fiscal cliff in a few weeks. It's easy - really! I did it. It takes minutes. It's called priorities. Make them.

The New York Times put together this very good online budget puzzle that was released a little more than two years ago and asks if you can solve the $418 billion FY15 budget shortfall. What's great about the puzzle is that it totals up all your tax increases and spending cuts and gives you a rough dollar amount. 

This puzzle is incomplete. It doesn't, for example, allow for tariffs, something I would implement if I were president or a Representative to Congress. It doesn't allow for the implementation of a transaction tax on Wall Street, another thing I would consider. It doesn't allow you to cut specific departments. But it's a good start towards balancing the federal budget.

Nader: Implement speculation tax to stave off 'fiscal cliff'

By Ralph Nader
In the debate over the “fiscal cliff,” President Obama and congressional Republicans have returned to the proposals that they were sparring over before the election. They remain at odds over key elements of revenue and spending. Yet both sides are unwilling to consider a minuscule tax on financial transactions that could be a major source of income.
A financial transaction tax would apply to purchases and sales of derivatives, options and stocks. The tax would be small, half a penny or less on each dollar of the transaction value, depending on the product. This idea is often called a “speculation tax,” because it would hit hardest at frothy high-volume trading as opposed to sober long-term investment.

Don't forget to vote!

Whatever you do today, don't forget to vote.
Even if you hate all the candidates. Show up and blank the ballot.
Just vote. It's important. That's all.

More inaccuracies at 'This American Life'

For those of you who listen to "This American Life" and have heard about the inaccuracies at the program which is heard locally on NHPR, don't be surprised if you hear more - or not really telling the entire story.
The latest problems with the program come from the "Nothing in Moderation" segment that aired this weekend, put together by the former reporter for the Concord Monitor, Sarah Koenig.
This episode, which covers some of the problems at the Statehouse, including the banning of Annmarie Timmins from a press conference at Speaker William O'Brien's office, something I covered extensively, is a pretty good one. But it's those nagging problems that just drive me nuts.
First, there is the line that the first thing the Republicans did when they took over the New Hampshire House in 2010 was to vote to allow handguns at the Statehouse.
Well, technically, no. This act was a repeal of a previous law approved by Democrats when they controlled the Legislature for four years. "This American Life" makes it sound as if handguns were never allowed in the NH House until the Republicans took over and voted, first thing, to allow them to be brought into the chamber. Nope, sorry, incorrect and bad use of language. For centuries, guns have always been allowed in the Statehouse until the Democrats took over and banned them. The act was a rescinding of a bill.
Then there is the line that Republicans cut the University of New Hampshire budget by 50 percent. Democrats have used this line too. Not only is it not accurate but it is a manipulation of the numbers and bad use of language.
State appropriations for higher education were not cut in half. The budget was cut by 6.1 percent. The system has a budget of $535.3 million; the state put in $35.7 million instead of $68.2 million. While is it less than half the amount that was put in the previous year, it's only a 6.1 percent cut of the university budget.
When the Democrats and "This American Life" continue to state that the Republicans in the Legislature cut the university budget in half, they are making it seem as if it is a much larger cut than it is.
New Hampshire, however, isn't alone when it comes to higher education cuts. All but four states cut their contributions to college budgets in FY12, some as high as 25 percent.
Instead of raising tuition and fees, maybe the university system should have considered cutting some of the pay scales of its employees, something that happens in the private sector all the time to keep a business afloat. More than $320 million goes to personnel costs. And 10 percent cut in personnel costs - not unheard of in the business world when times are really bad - would add back in almost all the money cut by state government. Why is it always the students who are made to suffer?
Personally, I don't believe in cutting higher education. It's important. It can bring people out of poverty. But let's not make things up. It's bad enough without having to make things up.
I'm told they spent weeks working on this segment. So there isn't any excuse for manipulating the language and being inaccurate with that kind of time to work on one segment. A five minute Google search revealed the inaccuracies.

Nope, not gonna do it ...

Alas, we're six days from the election and I should have thrown something together yesterday at the one week point. Umm, yeah, but I was still dealing with hurricane messes, OK?

Here's where we're at via the Real Clear Politics Electoral College map. They have a ton of toss up states - in other words, it's still anyone's game and anyone's guess.

Personally, I don't really care who wins at this point. My life probably isn't going to change, either way, for the better. In fact, it will probably get worse regardless of who wins.

President Barack Obama is taking the country in the wrong direction and Republican Mitt Romney isn't going to do any better.
They both are small S socialists - one is a semi-corporate socialist and the other is a definitive corporate socialist.
Neither has a real plan to fix the deficit and the debt, neither will tackle the problem of the Federal Reserve manipulating the currency, neither addresses the globalization problem and the fact that globalization is the real economy problem here, neither offers any real cuts to our defense department - or really, the offense department, etc.
Having said all that, I do like to guess sometimes and I really should take a big guess. Here are some thoughts on the outcome.
First, I don't believe the notion that Romney is going to win by a landslide no matter what FoxNews says and I don't believe that the president is going to win by a landslide. The race is going to go down to the wire. We might not even know who the winner is for days after Nov. 6. That's a safe bet, believe me.
The country is so divided at this point.

And that's what makes speculation so difficult.
However, can I get closer than the first chart? Sure. Maybe. Here it is:
Even though both candidates are obsessed with our fine state, it is insignificant. The four votes don't mean anything unless Obama really doesn't have New Mexico and Iowa and if he doesn't have those states, it will be a blowout for Romney.
It is basically down to Ohio and Wisconsin - Romney needs one, Obama needs both. Obama doesn't have anywhere else to get the votes. At the same time, I don't know if Romney can win either Wisconsin and Ohio. I'm just not sure at this point. It's either going to be Obama by 1 or more, or Romney by 3 or more. It's that close.
Let me close by saying that the most important thing isn't the guessing - the most important thing is getting out there and voting, no matter what or who for.