Independence Hall - LOUDLY!

Last weekend I was in Philadelphia visiting a buddy of mine.

One of the things we did was visit Independence Hall, the building where so many of the important decisions about the formation of the United States of America happened. And that was impressive.

But, more impressive was the guide who took us through the building. Or, should I say mind blowing. Or more accurately ear drum blowing. This man was loud. LOUD!

Check out this very short clip I recorded.

I mean, you know, you go into a place like Independence Hall and you expect the ranger to give you info and such, but this guy stood ramrod straight, sported a long pony tail, glasses and a steely-eyed glare...and just blasted his monologue out at high volume and with precise diction. Add to the fact that he began addressing the group gathered in a small room. I was like being clubbed over the head! You had no choice but to pay attention and learn.

Magnificent. Oh, and don't get me wrong. He knew his stuff, he was informative and clearly he loved what he was doing.

My comment to my buddy was..."someone needs to get him on Letterman."

My GIGS Book

Here is a book I created recently using photos I took at local shows and text from posts from this blog.

I think the title and sub-head of the book says it all - GIGS: Live Music, Small Camera, Low Light...Rock & Roll.

Check it out!

Click here to view this photo book larger

Create your own personalized photo books at Shutterfly.com.

Santorum Is Out...So What Does That Mean?

Rick's out. It's official as of today.

Not that he was going to win the nomination at this late date, but we are now spared his super right wing, religiously based platform as a threat to run the country. Good.

But, what does Santorum more realistically mean?

Well, for one thing, it shows that the Republican Party - for all of it's seeming dislike of Mr. Mitt "I have an elevator for my cars at my house" Romney - prefers the upper crusty, major rich wheeler dealer insider than it does the righteous (or self-righteous) "social issues" candidate. For all the social issue fervor of the primary candidates, the Rs are in the end casting their lot with the aloof flip-flopper who is connected at the hip to Wall Street and has "paid his dues" in the party.

This is actually probably the best for that party's chances in the fall. I'm not saying Mitt "corporations are people, my friend" Romney will win the presidency, but I think he'll have a better shot that would have Rick, Newt or Ron. After all, most Americans are not going to vote for the overt ultra conservative agenda that those other candidates would have made their primary issues.

Indeed, the Rs essentially stepped away from the fire and brimstone frenzy happening in their living room, slowly backed away, closed the door behind them and turned around to shake hands with their mega-rich uncle in the hallway.

Santorum bowing out also means that the Republicans are still fielding a candidate fully in favor of the exact policies that got us into the economic mess of the last decade. Yep, for all their differences on social issues, the leading Republican candidates for president all pretty much agreed on an economic policy that would:

• Reduce taxes on the wealth and corporations while adding to the tax burden of the middle class
• Major degregulation for the energy, housing, financial and environmental sectors of the economy
• Increase defense spending

Sound familiar? It should. That's the toxic recipe that led to where we are today.

And finally, no more Santorum in the race means Obama and Romney will now go directly after each other starting now and through November. You think you've had it with all the political talk and advertising since January? You ain't seen nothing yet! The 2012 election will be a record setter. Why?

For those of you unfamiliar, the Supreme Court decided in 2010 that corporations and unions are due the same free speech rights as human citizens and, therefore, the government cannot restrict how much they can spend on political expenditures. Yep. Your Supreme Court in action.

This will mean massive seas of money sloshing and rolling into both the Obama and Romney coffers. They will be able to fire away consistently and - no doubt - harshly at each other for more than six full months. By the time of the conventions, there will have been an unprecedented amount media coverage, advertising and general talk about the two candidates.

Prediction: Supreme Court Will Overturn Healthcare Law

Here is my prediction on the Supreme Court review of the national health care reform law...

They will overturn it. Or, more specifically, they will overturn portions of it...like the mandate that every individual has to buy insurance...such that the law is effectively negated. And thus will end, before it actually even was enacted (virtually none of the law's provisions have been enacted yet), the nation's most significant attempt at modernizing its health care system and making it more equitable and beneficial for more people. The infant law will be snuffed out in its cradle.

And if that happens? Well, we're back to where we were before the law was passed - a system predicated on earning maximum profit rather than one attempting to use the free market system to provide quality care for the maximum number of people.

Regardless of the outcome, I'll leave the bickering, taughting, celebrating and commiserating to others.

However, I will also point out something very ironic that I read today in an article about the healthcare law debate...

If the Supreme Court rules that the individual legal mandate in the health care law is not consitutional because Congress cannot compel an individual to buy private health insurance products (the law mandates you buy private insurance, not government run insurance), it will be simultaneously negating one of the primary pillars of conservative reform proposals for Social Security - namely, mandating that everyone buy commercial (private) pension funds.

Ooops.

As the article also points out, this does not mean it's likely that the conservative majority on the Supreme Court will suddenly support the health care reform act now because they want to preserve the chances for Social Security privatization in the future. No, it likely just means that those conservative judges will find a way to both call the health care mandate unconstitutional and any future Social Security privatization mandate OK. With a heavy sigh, I have to agree with that assessment.

Oh, and one more irony pointed out...if if Obama and the Democratically led House and Senate had simply enacted a single payer program back in 2009-2010, it would have been beyond constitutional challenge -- because government has an unambiguous power to tax and to use the revenues for public purposes.

Oregon Rose Bowl Helmet Sprouts Wheels

The Oregon football helmet used during the 2012 Rose Bowl appears to have sprouted wheels and reconfigured into a slick sports car.

Don't believe me?

Here's the helmet...

And now check out this car...















Ever see the Oregon 2012 Rose Bowl helmet and this car in the same place at the same time?

I thought not.

Glasvegas Posts New Song (Demo)

Glasvegas has posted a news song called If?

You can hear the song by going HERE. They are billing it as a "demo" of a song that will appear on their next album. Sounds pretty polished to me already.













The sentiment of this song is essentially IF it weren't for painful or negative things in life, how would we ever know and enjoy the good. The run of the song lists out all kinds of these comparisons, and does so in typically compelling Glasvegas fashion with the crescendo of emotion crashing in with the line..."If our love was ever to part ways, then the world as I know it would never ever spin again."

If - get it? - if this is an indication of what their next album will be like, count me in.

Give it a listen.

GOP Welches on Budget Deal, But Why?

The GOP has decided to renege on one of the tenets of the budget agreement they made with the President.

Remember that whole debt ceiling fiasco last year? Right, the one in which a deal was struck that said that a small number of selected Rs and Ds (a "Super Committee") would work together to find $1.2 trillion in debt reduction by a certain deadline, and if they could not then automatic cuts would go into affect. Those automatic cuts would be big across many of the sectors of government spending - including the Department of Defense. This was the agreement. Predictably, the Super Committee failed to come to an agreement - primarily because the Rs refused to consider even one penny of tax increases to help balance the budget. Therefore, the consequential automatic cuts are now scheduled for January of next year.

But wait. This week, Republicans in the House decided that, you know, well...we're not going to go along with the defense part. In fact, we're going to introduce legislation to exempt defense spending from any cuts.
People, the defense budget is one of the biggest (and some estimate the single largest area) of spending the Federal government does. Any serious debt reduction would have to include some reductions to defense expenditures. It's that simple.

So, why would supposedly budget and debt conscious fiscal conservatives now want to now go back on their pledge and exempt one of the largest area of spending form any debt reduction?

I'll offer some ideas:

1. By exempting defense, that means cutting even more on domestic programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and others - programs that Republicans have quite literally been trying to reduce or get rid of since the 1940s. A little "bait and switch" is no big deal to conservatives when they feel they have a substantial shot at realizing a generational goal. To me...this is the reason.
2. No politician, in particular conservatives, want to be on record as sanctioning defense cuts in an election year. Sure, the actual cuts wouldn't take place until Jan. 1, 2013, but they are being discussed now...during an election cycle.
3. Similarly, the GOP may want to try and paint Obama as "soft on defense," by being "in favor of defense cuts" during an election year - even though those cuts were part of the deal between Obama and the Rs.
4. While many Democrats are "in bed" with defense contractors (jobs in their districts, big campaign donations), Republicans tend to do better by the "military-industrial complex" and they may not want to be seen to be favoring cuts to the very companies that fund their campaigns.

Finally, I'll offer this as a criticism for the President:

In case you hadn't noticed over the last three years and three months you have been in office, the Republicans play HARD BALL. That means they will do anything to get what they want, including going back directly on something they said they would do. And they'll do it with a smile on their face and try to make it look like it's your fault. Hard ball. This is who you are dealing with. They are not a party of compromise or "working together" to do right by the American people. No, they are not. They want what they want and they will do what it takes to get it. The end.

And for all that, you sir, have by my estimation been extremely naive in your time in office. While you've been trying to forge coalitions, the GOP has been trying to find ways to proverbially "crack your skull" politically, damage you and make you unelectable in 2012. And they've been doing it since November 2008.

I'll put it one last way...you think LBJ or FDR would take the crap Boehner, McConnell and their buddies are doling out? Hell no they wouldn't and neither should you. That's why if you get a second term, you should definitely wake up to this so you can face reality and get some things done.