On Sunday my wife and I took a trip to Gettysburg for a tour and lecture about the 1913 veterans reunion.
There were more than 50,000 veterans from the North and South who attended. The tents they stayed in were located on and near Pickett’s Charge, the deciding battle of the conflict — and perhaps of the Civil War. We had a great tour guide. It is amazing how these veterans — some more than 90 years old — attended the event. They did a re-enactment of the charge — 50 years after the battle.
A few interesting facts I took away from the day, from a journalistic perspective.

*Gen. Meade supposedly hated journalists and had one taken out of the vicinity on a pike at one time. Apparently that is why he is not as well known as other generals, Grant, etc. — the reporters started ignoring him. He was in charge of the Union victory of the greatest battle of the war.

*Gen. Sherman was apparently no fan of reporters either. He is quoted as saying (paraphrase): If I had my choice I would kill every reporter, but I am sure there would be news from hell before breakfast.

By Rick Kazmer
rickk@dailyamerican.com
On Twitter: DARickKazmerCE

A few blog posts ago I wrote about how it was ridiculous the people were surprised by cold January temperatures in Somerset County.
Well, now there is reason for surprise. It’s spring. How about some warm weather.
Here are some viewpoints about the groundhog who led us astray. Waiting… waiting… waiting.

In May I debated colleague Bruce J. Siwy about the Titanic II.
The ship is being built by billionaire Clive Palmer, who unveiled his blueprints Tuesday. The replica of the doomed 1912 ship is supposed make its first voyage in late 2016, according to The Associated Press.
The original arguments are available here.
Palmer told The Associated Press that 40,000 people have shown interest in buying tickets for the first trip. They, along with the wealthy Palmer, are nuts.
While an iceberg was the literal reason for the first Titanic’s sinking, there was something surreal about the events of the disaster — that left only 700 of 2,200 travelers alive. The first ship was heralded as unsinkable.
Passengers are expected to dress in period clothing and to eat food from the early 1900s during the trip. They want to closely mimic details from the original ship — aside, of course, from the end.
In the report Palmer said that climate change has left the North Atlantic with fewer icebergs. But cruise ships have been having misfortune lately — like running out of fuel and rolling over. Tempting fate to this degree seems like a foolish idea.
Palmer’s deep pockets could eerily leave him in deep water when this is all said and done.

Immediately after the Super Bowl oddsmakers put together a list of what chance teams have to win the next championship.
Political pundits jump the gun to a greater extent. Lists of likely presidential candidates are now being compiled for the 2016 election.
Familiar names —Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, a Bush —are part of the discussion.
There are a few fresh names as well. This argument makes a case for New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. The outspoken Republican has been in the news since before the 2012 election, when he disappointed a lot of supporters by not running. His response to Hurricane Sandy and his willingness to buck his own party when he believes differently make him a candidate to watch during the next four years.
The Steelers have 14 to 1 odds of winning the next Super Bowl.

By Rick Kazmer
rickk@dailyamerican.com
On Twitter: DARickKazmerCE

A few hundred million people probably watched the Super Bowl Sunday for reasons that have nothing to do with the championship.
The half-time show and commercials are giving the game strong competition for why people care about the biggest matchup of the NFL season.
It is hard to say what that will mean for the game moving forward. The people who run the show are going to gear the presentation to whatever carries the most interest — and makes the most money. More commercials and longer, more over-the-top half-time shows are a likely result. This can only take away from the football game.
The game is in a state of rapid change. Needed safety measures are altering the style of play while league officials make a push for longer seasons.
President Obama in comments before the Super Bowl acknowledged that the game will likely change into something that will trouble many fans — at least the ones who like big hits.
Maybe a statement from the White House has no real power when dealing in the realm of professional sports. And the NFL remains the most popular sport in the country with millions of hard-core fans. But it would be interesting to know how many people took their bathroom breaks when the game was being played on Sunday.
It will be interesting to see what 2020’s Super Bowl will be like.
My prediction: A one-hour long half-time show with lots of faux singing and digital elements; mind-numbingly ridiculous commercials, likely in 3D; and a little bit of football.

Thoughts on Ray Lewis

Ravens linebacker Ray Lewis’ story is a classic tale.
He overcame early mistakes (alleged involvement in a murder case,) found God and is heralded by many as the best leader in NFL history. The end of this story could end like a fairy tale on Sunday. Lewis could retire a Super Bowl champion. But the emotional road he is traveling to the championship — complete with dancing, tears and motivational speeches — is drawing criticism.
Find out why Lewis ‚Äî win or lose ‚Äî deserved to be this year’s featured player. Read the debate in Tuesday’s Daily American or visit the “Opinion” section at dailyamerican.com.

Let’s not get carried away here.
Yes, it’s cold outside — but the weather is not as diabolical as many news reports would have you thinking.
It is January in Somerset County. It is supposed to be less than zero degrees. Most people probably have parents who talk about walking uphill both ways in colder temperatures.
The point: Wear a hat, gloves — and if you are really scared — a scarf. You will be fine. There are people at the nearby resorts skiing in this stuff.
This isn’t intended to downplay the financial task of heating a home, which can be challenging. This article has some information on how to receive help with that.
But when it is all said and done — January in the Laurel Highlands is going to be cold.

-Rick Kazmer
City Editor

$1 million donations wanted for Obama inauguration

WASHINGTON (AP) ‚Äî Planners of President Barack Obama’s second inauguration are making an unprecedented solicitation for high-dollar contributions up to $1 million to help pay for the celebration in exchange for special access.

The changes are part of a continuing erosion of Obama’s pledge to keep donors and special interests at arm’s length of his presidency. He has abandoned the policy from his first inauguration to accept donations up to only $50,000 from individuals, announcing last month that he would take unlimited contributions from individuals and corporations.

A fundraising appeal obtained by The Associated Press shows the Presidential Inaugural Committee is going far beyond his previous self-imposed limits ‚Äî or apparently any fundraising in the modern history of American presidential inaugurations ‚Äî by offering donors four VIP packages named after the country’s founding fathers.

Event organizers are hoping the packages will pay for expensive events surrounding Obama’s inaugural on Jan. 21. Obama raised $53 million in private money for his first inauguration, when a record 1.8 million people packed the National Mall to see the nation’s first black president take the oath of office. The celebration has been scaled down this year, with less than half the crowd expected and a cut from 10 inauguration-night balls to two.

But the pressure is high to pay for the festivities after donors already contributed to the most expensive political race in U.S. history, a campaign that exceeded $2 billion. So far, health care executives and major Democratic Party donors ‚Äî including those who’ve taken private meetings with Obama or his senior staff ‚Äî are among those paying for the party.

The shifts underscore Obama’s evolving stance on changing how business is conducted in Washington. He criticized pay-for-access privileges during his first campaign, and after coming into office he pledged to have the most transparent administration in history. The president once shunned lobbyists but later gave some waivers to work for his administration. Once a vocal opponent of super political action committees ‚Äî which can spend as much money as they can raise to help candidates ‚Äî Obama later embraced them when faced with the mountain of cash spent by allies of his Republican campaign challengers.

The inaugural donation pitch for top contributors promotes a standard inaugural fundraising practice of offering packages that include tickets to balls and other events, albeit at much higher prices this time.

Donors at the “Washington” level are offered “premium partner access” for a minimum donation of $250,000 from individuals and $1 million from corporations. The package includes four tickets to the inaugural ball, an in-demand perk with just two being held this year on inauguration night. Inaugural planners also offered $60 tickets for members of the general public, but they sold out quickly Sunday night. Tickets to the Commander In Chiefs Ball are free for invited members of the military and other guests.

Other perks of the Washington package include two bleacher seats to the parade, a VIP reception at a Candle Light Celebration on inauguration eve, tickets to a children’s concert, co-chairs reception and a “Road Ahead” meeting featuring members of the president’s finance team Saturday, and tickets to a benefactors reception to kick off the weekend.

The “Adams” package also promises premium partner access for $150,000 from individuals and $500,000 from corporations. It offers two tickets to the ball but not the parade bleacher seats and some other reception access.

Donors are offered “special partner access” that still includes ball tickets and the Candle Light Celebration at the National Building Museum for donations of $75,000 for individuals and $250,000 for corporations at the “Jefferson” level and $10,000 and $100,000 at the “Madison” level.

Presidential Inaugural Committee officials point out that many civic organizations also accept corporate donations and that they do not allow sponsorship deals. The committee also says it vets donations and rejects those from companies that haven’t paid back loans from the 2008 federal bailout of Wall Street. And it does not accept donations from any foreign entity in compliance with federal law.

“Our guidelines aren’t just consistent with the law ‚Äî they are consistent with the president’s commitment to transparency and to reducing the influence of PACs and lobbyists in Washington,” the committee said in a statement. “In fact, President Obama is the only president who has refused to accept donations from PACs and lobbyists for his inaugural committee and put in place the most robust disclosures for his inaugural committees, which include regularly posting donors to a website.”

More than 400 individuals and a handful of corporations have so far contributed $200 or more to the committee, according to the online list. The rolling disclosure goes beyond the law that requires that donations be disclosed within 90 days of the inauguration.

But the list of donors being posted online is limited. It contains only names of people and companies who contributed, and offers no information on how much each donor gave. There is also no hint at the donors’ occupations or where they’re from.

An AP review of those names, combined with government records and White House visitor logs, found more than 30 inauguration benefactors who apparently have had private meetings with Obama’s advisers, dined at state dinners or attended holiday parties with the president in attendance.

Donors to the 2013 inaugural party include Bertram Scott and Challis Lowe, two health care executives who’ve been to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., records show. Scott, a former president with Cigna, and Lowe, Ascension Health’s senior vice president for organizational development and human resources, attended White House receptions.

Beyond health care circles, inaugural supporters include David DesJardins, a former Google top staffer and political activist who met with deputy national security adviser Denis McDonough in March 2010. DesJardins contributed more than $100,000 in the recent election campaign to American Bridge 21st Century, a super PAC supporting Obama’s a second term.

Irwin Jacobs, co-founder of tech giant Qualcomm and one of the biggest donors to Obama’s re-election effort, also is among the inauguration donors. The La Jolla, Calif., billionaire has given more than $2 million to pro-Obama super PACs and thousands more directly to Obama’s campaign and the Democrats.

None of the donors responded to the AP seeking requests for comment Tuesday.

The $1 million donations sought by Obama’s inaugural committee far surpass the record $250,000-range in contributions made by corporations and affluent financiers during the inaugurations of George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, and appear to the be the highest in the history of American presidential inaugurations, say several inauguration analysts.

The Federal Election Commission allows limitless contributions to presidential inaugurations, but recent presidents set self-imposed bars. Bush set a limit of $250,000 on inaugural contributions for his 2005 event and $100,000 for his 2001 event. Those caps did little to dampen the flow from corporate contributors, as Bush reaped $42.5 million in inaugural donations in 2005 and $30 million in 2001. Despite the limits, several firms gave as much as $750,000 apiece by donating from corporate subsidiaries.

Clinton’s inaugural committee raised $23 million for his 1997 event, adding to a $9 million surplus left over from nearly $30 million in fundraising for his 1993 inauguration. Clinton accepted donations as high as $250,000 for his first inaugural, but set a much tighter cap for his second, limiting contributions to $100 and selling ball tickets for a maximum of $3,000 each. That clampdown followed 2001 inaugural fundraising abuses in which two Indonesia bank executives donated $100,000 each ‚Äî controversies later highlighted by Congressional investigations.

In George Orwell’s “1984” the government often tells citizens it is doing one thing — and then completely does another.
Their government would rewrite history to serve its own end.
For months lawmakers have been ranting about how preventing tax hikes and spending cuts as part of the dreaded fiscal cliff would save the nation from certain recession. The deal they forged a few days ago was said to prevent tax increases.
The first paycheck of the year for practically everyone will be less — because taxes were raised after the deal. No spending cuts were implemented.
Orwell would say that the citizens of Oceana have been fooled again.
Taxes are higher because President Obama’s 2-percent Social Security tax holiday, enacted in 2010, was allowed to expire. Some say this isn’t a true tax hike because the break was never intended to be permanent. But lawmakers never mentioned this little gem when touting the New Year’s deal they made that was said to have saved the economy from certain doom.
It is true that the 2-percent hike is little compared to what tax rates would have been should the Bush-era tax cuts have been allowed to expire. But the American public deserves more honesty from politicians.
After both parties bantered for months about how they have to better control government spending and protect the middle class from tax increases — their deal accomplished little other than to let taxes increase for most Americans.
That simply wasn’t part of the billing.

Here’s an idea.
What if politicians were paid based on results? That is to say, their pay is determined by how well their constituency is doing.
We often here political challengers talk about how they don’t want to be career politicians who pander to lobbyists or milk the system. But lawmakers often make much more than most of the taxpayers they represent. Great pay, benefits and a pension. It’s a good deal. Likely a better salary and benefit package than most taxpayers earn. Where’s the motivation?
Yes, we can vote out poor performers. But politicians are skilled at producing jargon that masks their inability. They have people on staff (paid for by taxpayers) who sit around and write press releases.
I am sure some intelligent economist somewhere could come up with a formula that gauges the overall health and vibrancy of a particular political region. Lawmakers there, both state and federal, should have their pay based on that figure. The formula would certainly include unemployment and average household income. The better the region’s health — a sign of good lawmaking in that area —the better the pay.
It would be the greatest motivator for a job well done.
Of course detractors will say that some areas are naturally at a disadvantage — for geographic or political reasons. But don’t people elect legislators to change the circumstances of their region for the better?
Somerset County residents don’t want to hear that jobs are disappearing because there is no high-speed Internet, Route 219 is unfinished or the state taxes are too high. They elect people who say they are going to fix those problems. Under a performance-based pay scale the person who does will be rewarded financially. The person who doesn’t should be voted out, but if they are not, at least they won’t be raking it in.