Review of Daniella Schacter's "The Peacocks" from Purple Butterfly

Artist: Daniela Schächter

Track: The Peacocks

CD: Purple Buttterfly

Musicians: Daniela Schächter ((vocals, piano); Alex Spiagin (trumpet & flugelhorn); Joel Frahm (tenor saxophone); Massimo Biolcati (acoustic bass); Quincy Davis(drums).


Recorded: June 22, 2008 Michael Brorby Studio, New York


Composer : Jimmy Rowles and N. Wintone


Pianist and vocalist Daniela Schächter has a hauntingly beautiful and magnetic voice. It is clear, accurate and can at times be deliberately stylized to a monotone. Her unique interpretation of what notes to use where is disarming and so you are magnetically drawn to listen, pulled by the idea of not knowing where she will take you next. With some fine performances throughout the album by Alex Sipiagin on flugelhorn and Joel Frahm on saxophone, Schächter’s voice is nevertheless most beguiling when accompanied in the trio format. On Jimmy Rowles beautiful “The Peacocks”, skillfully accompanied by Massimo Biolcati on bass and Quincy Davis on drums along with her own piano, her interpretive skills shine. She has great control of her voice and when she ventures up some apparently skeptical, vocally dark alleys that stray from the expected she somehow manages to skillfully emerge to the daylight undaunted. You become a convert; a believer that she was always knew she was heading in the right direction, even if you weren’t so sure. A talented, stylized vocalist that shows us there is always another way to sing a great song.

Ralph A. Miriello

The Death Penalty and the company we keep.

There was an interesting little article in Wednesday's New York Times by Mark McDonald and Michael Wines that reported on Amnesty International's recent annual report on the death penalty for 2008. Now I know this is an emotional subject for many people and that opinions are strongly divided as to the necessity of this practice as a deterrent to the proliferation of violent crime, but sometimes if we step back and see who were are lying in concert with we might be surprised.

I found it telling who the leading practitioners of the death penalty were in order of their body count. At the top of the list was China with its 1.718 reported kills (this number is believed to be suspect since everything in China is done with a veil of secrecy). The runner-up was that "axis of evil' member nation Iran, certainly a bastion of intellectual thought and free of expression. Here the Iranians racked up 346 kills! Not to be outdone, our friends in the more progressive and cosmopolitan sheikdom of Saudi Arabia, were ranked third with 102 kills. Then guess who was next on this ignominious list? You got it friends, we were. The United States, a beacon for free thinking,humanitarianism and an advocate against human rights abuse in other nations had a total of 37 executions! According to the Death Penalty Information Center the state with the most executions last year was Texas with 18! Those progressive folks in Pakistan, where woman are still buried alive for not following the marital wishes of their families, actually killed one less person than we did last year.

I recognize that our prisons are overflowing and that the cost for maintaining a life sentence far exceeds the cost of a lethal injection or the kilowatts used in an electrocution, but really is the price of our humanity so easily bought?

If the old adage "You are judged by the company you keep." applies here we had better look at ourselves and our practices more closely. Thankfully the number of 37 executions this year is the lowest since 1994, so we are making progress, but we need to catch up to the majority of civilized society and eliminate this dated and unseemly practice.

MRSA : When will we Learn?

Recently I have had the unfortunate luck to have experienced a rather nasty infection on my leg. Mysteriously a small pimple-like eruption on my lower leg appeared and thinking it was a just an ingrown hair or some such thing I tried to pop the little sucker with little effect. I made sure to use alcohol to rub the area after the crude procedure. Shortly thereafter, the site of the offense became rather unsightly, bright red, warm to the touch and started to grow alarmingly in diameter. Despite my care to wash it carefully and treat it with Neosporin-my household remedy for anything topical-it was refusing to get better and growing by leaps and bounds. Not being one to deny myself medical attention when needed, I went to my Doctor who looked it over and concluded that I had somehow contracted an infection, probably from my trying to lance it. He carefully swabbed a sample of whatever discharge he could get for a culture from the now open wound and prescribed a topical ointment and an oral antibiotic, Biaxin, that is apparently the first line of defense in normal infections of this type.

After religiously following the instructions the wound was not responding and getting uglier and larger by the day. Not wanting to act prematurely, for fear of being consider in a state of hypochondria, I watched and waited until I had a coincidental visit to another Doctor that I had planned for an totally unrelated matter. When I showed the condition of my wound to the other Dr. he was alarmed enough to insist that I contact my primary physician again and have it rechecked.
When I called my internist he suggested that he would prefer for me to go right to the emergency room at my local hospital. Needless to say I was starting to get alarmed. When I arrived at the hospital I was admitted and the wound inspected and cleaned. They checked with my physician, to see if he had received any results from the first culture, but the results were as yet unavailable. After a consultation by the admitting doctor with the Center for Disease Controls, they determined that they should give me a powerful antibiotic, Vacomycin, intravenously in case what I had contracted was MRSA (pronounced MERSA an acronym for methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus.). This was the first I had heard of this virulent, antibiotic-resistant strain of the common Staph family of infections that has seemingly crept into our society in a stealth-like fashion and is amazingly responsible for the deaths of over 18,000 Americans annually, surpassing deaths by AIDS!

In my particular case, thankfully the results of the culture revealed no MRSA. Instead I was afflicted with a more commonly found Staff infection that proved to be of the type typically found on our skins everyday and usually not inclined to become problematic as mine did. Nonetheless it took two other visits to the emergency room-one to drain the wound and the other to remove the packing- along with an extended dose of double strength Biaxin before I was deemed clear of this episode.

Unfortunately, shorty thereafter, the same thing recurred on the same leg! After two precautionary visits to both a dermatologist and an infectious disease specialist and numerous cultures later I was given a third antibiotic, this time
Levaquin, for a longer period (fourteen days)to rid my body of any traces of this nasty sucker. Now lets make sure we understand I am scrupulously clean, almost to the point of obsession and shower at least two times daily. I do frequent a high-end fitness center several times a week, I suppose this could be a source, although it appears to be clean, well maintained and I generously use cleaning solution provided before and after each use of any equipment.

Perhaps I will never know how I contracted this particularly tough strain. Mysteriously, upon further investigation, I am told it has become more and more common for people to be inhabited by this or some other staph germ. Perhaps our overuse of antibacterial soaps are helping to create stronger strains? Incidents like mine are becoming alarmingly more regular. Hospitals are particularly vulnerable to these infections and are constantly on the defense against these new, more virulent super bugs. No one seems to know why this is suddenly becoming more common except there are signs we are doing this to ourselves. Doctors may be over prescribing antibiotics for routine matters, thus leaving ourselves open to acquiring some immunity to their effectiveness. But even those who recoil from the overuse of medicines on principal may be victim to another source of over exposure to antibiotics.This exposure is the result of the reckless routine use of therapeutic antibiotics in our food stocks.

Clearly, as my little personal experience has confirmed, this is becoming a problem of greater proportions than most people are aware of and should not be ignored. Interestingly enough Nicholas Kristof, of the NY Times, has recently been doing a series of articles on MRSA and how it is developing in areas of the country where pig farming is the prevalent.

It seems that when a recent test of random pork samples was taken from Washington, D.C. markets one out of 300 samples tested positive for MRSA. In Louisiana the same sampling uncovered five out of 90 positive results!While Kristof makes clear that there is no evidence of anyone getting sick from eating cooked pork -the cooking kills the bacteria-it is the handling of the meat that represents the real danger here.

The apparent reason for this development, according to the peer-reviewed Medical Clinics of North America report is that permitting the non-therapeutic use of antibiotics in livestock feed was a "major component" in the rise in antibiotic resistance in the general human population. Using therapeutic antibiotics on all types of livestock regularly by agri-business concerns allows them to keep animals in inhumane and blighted, unsanitary conditions that become incubators for infections. In a convoluted circle of lunacy agri-business's obvious solution, to the problems that arise from their mass marshaling of animals for slaughter and the creation of these germ breeding grounds for super bugs, is to therapeutically treat the livestock massive amounts with antibiotics. So much so that more antibiotics are fed to livestock in North America than to the entire human population!

The solution is legislation banning the reckless use of these antibiotics in animal livestock. The solution is more sanitary and humane treatment of animals that are to be processed for human consumption. We must follow the trend to a more sustainable, more organic way to raise and slaughter our livestock. We must allow the normal growth period for these animals to occur without accelerating it unnaturally by the use of growth hormones, antibiotics and feed stocks that artificially produce a greater yield at the expense of a more satisfying and healthful product. Perhaps this will raise the cost of our meat and poultry but why are willing to eat ourselves into an epidemic? We must encourage our legislators to act! We must actively petition against special interests in the agri-business sector that see profit as their only mandate. We must protect ourselves against infection over economic considerations championed at the expense of the health of the nation.
We must support those conscientious growers and raisers that employ methods that eschew the use or growth hormones, antibiotics and inhumane force feeding of animal
at the expense of a healthful product. Only a rejection of these agri-business products through our purchase choices can send a clear and defining message that we are not willing to accept this anymore.

A note encouraging legislation prohibiting the use of therapeutic antibiotics in our livestock to Mr. Obama and to his newly appointed Secretary of Agriculture Mr. Vilsack as well as your state representatives is clearly worth the effort.

PS: Vilsack's email at Agriculture is: AgSec@usda.gov

Mr,. Obama's e mail :http://www.whitehouse.gov/CONTACT/

The Right Way to Deal with the Mortgage Crisis

After today's announcement from President Obama, introducing a plan to save those homeowner's who are facing foreclosure, it has become apparent that despite all the good intentions of this administration they just don't get it! The current proposal would apparently look to help distressed, non-performing homeowner's with a government incentive that would allow banks to restructure the debt of these delinquents, tailoring the debt payment to a nominal 31% of their income.

What is wrong with this picture? We are validating behavior that was basically imprudent at best and fraudulent at worst! Many of these homeowner's (more rightly they should be called debtors in possession) were unscrupulously lured into their present condition by easy money made possible by Greenspan and company's loose credit. Greedy and unregulated groups of mortgage originators, banks, packagers and rating agencies "gone wild" also contributed to this excessive liberal credit binge.
But ultimately aren't we all responsible for our own choices? No one held a gun to a borrower's head and made him sign the papers.

I am often amazed that the normally fiscally conservative groups that look to free market capitalism when things are good are so quick to give up on Mr. Market when things go too far off course. How do unspecified tax cuts help us out of this credit crisis? But we must jump start the economy and tax cuts are the way to go we are told. I don't see the connect if after all the recent tax cuts we have had we still got into the present situation.

If big auto is too big to fail, big banks like Citi and B of A are too large not to be saved and insurance giants like AIG that basically insured beyond their ability are too intertwined into all aspects of the economy to be allowed to be broken up and dissolved in an orderly fashion are not these free market advocates taking the next step into socialism?

Don't get me wrong I believe we need government intervention in these troubled times to set the boat right and start to steer away from the shoals of the economic abyss we let Wall Street and others steer us into, but intelligent, fair and measured government intervention laser focused on what started this whole crisis the housing bubble. Houses have escalated too far too fast and now they need to be adjusted to more realistic values. This will take time for people to adjust to and it will not happen overnight. Nor can we afford for it happen as it has in some of the most high flying markets where values have plummeted precipitously some 30 -40%.

Every time we reward corrupt and failed business policies or personal financial impudence to be bailed out by our tax dollars we do nothing but encourage the repeat of this abysmally aberrant behavior. What reinforces unacceptable behavior more than the tolerance and encouragement of such behavior. When we now turn to government to save those of us who made imprudent decisions we are in essence validating this reckless behavior. How is it fair that for those of us who have consistently driven in between the lines, lived our lives in moderation, paid our debts, sacrificed vacations and luxuries, worked multiple jobs or overtime if necessary to make ends meet, now be called upon to take responsibility for those who ran in the fast lane, skimmed all the cream of life, lived beyond their means and left the bones of the economic abyss for the rest of us to manage to get by on?

This is patently unfair and potentially divisive and incendiary. We are told we can't afford to let this get out of hand or it will take us all down with it! We must act now with premature thought, and willy-nilly policy and cast all are available resources at this problem swiftly and with little regard to the future consequences because to do nothing is too flirt with catastrophe.

I believe a fair and measured approach that focuses on housing makes more sense and has the potential to do more immediate good. I propose that instead of bailing out failed or failing homeowners, which does little to actually stimulate the economy, the government, in cooperation with the banks that they virtually now control, force the banks to restructure all existing mortgages of owner occupied single family dwellings. Both performing or non-performing. They could basically subsidize the lowering of interest rates to say 3% or 4% for these instruments across the board with a simple application. This would serve several purposes.
1) It would be fair and not simply reward those who were delinquent and in trouble.
2) It would allow those existing mortgage holders to reduce their monthly payments and would stave off further delinquencies. It would ameliorate some of the foreclosure problems that now exist and will likely prevent some foreclosures that may be imminent.
3) The additional disposable income for those who do not need the reduction could be used to stimulate the economy through increased spending and or redirecting these monies to other needs like the purchase/lease of a new auto, financing of educational needs or simple retail purchases. In the event that a large portion of people save this money it could be used as additional capital infusion into banks and could help loosen lending criteria for new business.
4) Any and all performing loans would not require any credit or income verification, would be made only up to the existing outstanding principal loan amount and would simply be re-caste with the new rate with no further requirements, no reappraisal, and moderate fixed closing costs.This would likely make it more universally accepted and at a minimal cost to the homeowner.
5) These re-financing's would create immediate work in that sector which is presently in distress.
6)It would reinforce the notion that while we need to correct this imbalance caused by excess we do not just reward excess at the expense of commitment and industry that are the backbone of a stable economy.
6) It would create good will and foster a positive outlook which will restore confidence in the system and our leaders.

While I am sure there are obstacles to such a plan I believe this kind of approach has a better chance of working to stimulate our economy and hold back the current of the present economic slide. It should also be welcome by a majority since it favors no one and shows unbiased fairness.

The Sad Truth about Current Autos

I was browsing through the Sunday Times and came across what used to be one of my favorite sections, the Automobiles section. This was the part of the paper that would usually bring joy to my heart by presenting the various offerings of the auto industry in all its glory and splendor. Growing up in an era when bigger, faster, sleeker or fancier was part of the thrill of checking out the new autos, the auto manufacturers usually didn’t disappoint my adolescent expectations. But with gasoline prices approaching the unheard of mark of five dollars a gallon and with diesel fuel, a once cheaper alternative, already over that benchmark, I for one am looking at the automobile section with completely new expectations.

Cheap gasoline has gone the way of the Edsel and its demise should have long ago rung the bell for smarter more fuel efficient alternatives for the motoring public. Truly we have ourselves to blame since we seem intent on traveling with all the amenities of our living rooms only on wheels, as is the case with so many oversized vehicles (names will be withheld to protect the guilty) that seem to have been the sales leaders over the past few years. Our suburban penchant for four wheel drive and its inherent fuel inefficiencies has become almost an imperative and for what? Few of us use the off road features so common on most SUV’s. Ninety-five percent of our driving time is snow free yet we pay for the extra cost in fuel one hundred percent of the time in the event we need transportation in an crippling snow storm (when we are most likely not to be on the road anyway) how does this make any sense? In all fairness we have been lulled by the automakers into believing we need all this extra fuel burning weight because, as most people know, it’s the extras that make money for both the automakers and the dealers.

Well people we certainly fell for it all hook line and sinker and that is shame on us, but now I like most people are looking for a vehicle that will be both utilitarian and fuel efficient. If Thomas Friedman is correct in his recent editorial about the effect all this excessive use of fuel is having on growing the wealth of our most dangerous enemies, enough wealth to buy General Motors in three days worth of oil revenues, then as patriotic Americans we can longer turn a blind eye to our shamefully negligent use of fuel in our pitifully inefficient vehicles.

What is a conscientious person to do? Browsing through the automobile section, I am struck by what I find. It seems as if I am in time warp where a gallon of gasoline was still under a buck and where choices were limited to Hemi or not to Hemi. On the front page of the automobile section is an article about a NY Times writer, Fred Heiler, and the project he built with his son as an incentive to achieve good grades. What was this project? Building a replica of Carroll Shelby’s famous 427 Cobra. This is a car that was built for speed with no concern for fuel efficiency and a similar disregard for speed limits. Way to keep it real Fred. The other column features a story on the 3 series BMW not really a car known for pushing the fuel efficiency envelope (17 city 25 hwy as listed). In fact if you went through the entire section you would be hard pressed to see any advertisements that lured the customer in with claims of high fuel efficiency. Doesn’t it seem a bit strange that marketing along these lines would be more prevalent? It was almost as if fuel efficiency was a hidden topic not to be discussed on these pages. It seems we have caught the automotive industry by surprise. Our requirements have been sorely neglected in favor of what used to be and now we have a plethora of vehicles that no longer cut it! If truth be told we should create disincentives for these vehicles for the hidden toll they take on all of us. On brilliant marketing idea to unload this junk is to subsidize gasoline for a period of time at below market prices. That may help the purchaser’s individual pocketbook but it does nothing to quell the filling of the coffers of our sworn enemies. My favorite section of the paper is now relegated to lining for the birdcages for all its worth now. If you have tried to go shopping lately for a practical vehicle that meets your needs and gets good fuel efficiency you will be amazed at how few choices you actually have and that is the sad shame of it all.

DEMOCRATS UNITE! Team of Rivals approach is the answer!

There are moments in history when drastic times demand drastic measures. It appears we have now entered into just such a time. With the last eight years of the Bush administration, we the American electorate, have capitulated our interests and our rights. We have allowed the dynastic rule of the Bush family and their sycophantic cronies to manipulate our policies to enrich their patrons at the expense of both our national interest and our stature in the international community of nations. Despite a litany of failed or poorly executed policies, that were the result of installing too much power in any one political party, we failed to depose the emperor with no clothes, G.W., when we had the chance in 2004. Instead we showed our displeasure by swinging the legislature to the Democrats, retching the legislative majority from the Republicans in a desperate attempt to see-saw the balance of power with the hope of righting the nation’s ship, that seemed destined to be scuttled by the ineptitude of its skipper’s prowess. History reveals that a government with a balance of power between the two political parties serves it’s constituency far better than one that is predominantly ruled by one party or the other. It seems that one party dominance gives license to unchecked pork barreling, and rampant ideological excesses and can be ruinous to the interest of the country. Despite the shift in power to the Democratic leadership in the legislature and with the realization of a lame duck Bush presidency, we remain quagmired into paralysis by a lack of real leadership. With such an important election ahead of us, we must use extraordinary means to assure that real leadership is allowed to rise to the surface, as it inevitably does in times of need, and forgo political business as usual.

We need a change of direction in this country and a change of vision to lead us into the next century. Leadership requires sacrifice even at the expense of ego and personal gain. In the history of this country perhaps no individual represented a more subdued ego and artful ability to bring together disparate rivaling factions at a time of major crisis than did Abraham Lincoln. In 1860 the Republican party was hardly yet the party of Lincoln. As historian, Doris Kearns Goodwin so masterfully recreates in her wonderfully relevant “Team of Rivals : The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln” the party had a formidable group of experienced, esteemed and politically powerful candidates for their nomination that year. The team included the esteemed William Henry Seward, thought by most to be the likely nominee; Edwin Bates, a strong regional character and Salmon P.Chase the powerful and ambitious former governor and senator of Ohio. The rise to the top of the unlikely rail-splitter from Illinois, Lincoln, was ultimately achieved by his shrewd and astute understanding of politics as much as it was by his being able to be perceived as a singularly uniting candidate that could stand for a compromise to the many varied constituents. When he was ultimately nominated to almost everyone’s surprise, he immediately went to work on healing the wounds that derisive political elections can produce. Ultimately, when he became the President elect, he used his great skills as a leader and conciliator to engage his former adversaries into serving their country with their distinctive talents within the confines of his cabinet.

Today, the Democrats have a similar dilemma. We as a country are faced with a myriad of issues that require real leadership and vision. We desperately need someone who can rally a “team of rivals”, as did Lincoln, to succeed with the tasks that lie ahead. We have seen the results of a Clinton presidency for the eight years prior to George W. Bush. While it was certainly a less acrimonious reign then the present administration, it had a chance to set policies that could have been visionary in health care, the environment, social security, international diplomacy, national security and education but generally provided less than stellar results on these issues. Why? Because despite William Jefferson Clinton’s considerable personal charm, his ability at being a conciliatory leader who could get past personal slights or disagreements for the sake of progressive reform was sorely lacking. Instead his policies became opinion poll driven and lacked any sense of personal commitment or vision..Like a rudderless ship his administration’s direction was subject to the winds of approval ratings and lacked the determination or will to really accomplish major policy goals and fundamental change.

The current front-runner of the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton, has campaigned using precisely the same tactics that served her husband’s popularity so well. She has become the artful dodger of the political process. Her answers during the debates are designed to carefully avoid taking any stand at all, so as to be sure not to alienate anyone. She has managed to skillfully avoid having to be daring, bold, progressive or committed to anything of real substance. He stand on the war is ambivalent at best. Her commitment to health care reform, while once a mantra that she carried the torch for within her husband’s administration, has now fallen victim to the industries lobbying efforts. Her waffling approach to major issues confounds any clear window into her true intentions or understanding of what she actually does stand for. In almost all opinion polls to date she is an alienating candidate that when pitted against the very uni-dimensional and polarizing Rudolph Guilliani loses to him in the general election! Can we afford to have her become the standard bearer for the Democratic party at such a critical time?

It seems that the remaining Democratic field has a distinguished group of candidates, many of whom might not be able to garner enough votes to be President on their own, but who each offer a distinct choice and vision as well as a chance for true change. Most of the candidates do not have enough support individually to fight the formidable Clinton. Dynastic politics in this country are making it difficult for new comers to challenge the well oiled machinery that is developed from previous tours of duty within American politics. This was true of the Bush family dynasty and is also true of the attempted Clinton family dynasty. Perhaps now is the time for Lincoln’s “team of rivals” approach to securing the nomination?

The unfortunate truth is that if the remaining Democratic candidates, Obama, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, Dodd and Kucinich do not band together before the primaries have proceeded to the point where Clinton’s nomination is assured, than the Democratic party runs the risk of losing four more years to the ideologues that predominate the Republican party nominees. Can we really afford to let that happen?

The Democrats need to show some leadership, some self-sacrifice and some creative thinking. They should unify the party behind a set of stated policy goals that all of the candidates can publicly support. After these goals have been hammered out from the differences between candidates, they must then unanimously pledge their individual support to the newly unified platform of principals and affirm their support for whoever is fairly chosen to run for the Democratic nomination as President on those principals. Once the party is united behind a thoughtful and compromised approach to the problems at hand, the remaining candidates should offer their services in a unified pre-election cabinet that would allow the American people to see that the formidable skills of this team approach will not be squandered by petty politics or ego driven one-upsmanship.

It is the history of the Clinton’s to punish those who get in the way of their ambition and reward those who support their ambitions despite otherwise unsavory conduct. Even with Ms. Clinton’s recent success in crossing party lines to accomplish tasks during her term as US Senator, one gets the feeling that this was all done to set the stage for her ascendancy to the Presidency and not a true heartfelt change in the politics of retribution. This approach is not conciliatory and so the chances of this “team of rivals’ approach to be realized under a Hillary Clinton nomination is highly unlikely. As the Clinton’s owe much to those advocates who have stayed true to their ambitions, we can expect more of the same under a second Clinton presidency. Why repeat the past? That is why the remaining candidates must subdue their own egos and find common ground to unite under a platform of forged principals and approach this nomination with a “team of rivals” approach before the nomination is lost to Ms. Clinton.

This approach is a return to sanity. It allows for differences in opinion but galvanizes the party from the fractured assembly it has become into a force that can effectively compete with the more unified approach of the present Republican party. This may be the only way for the Democratic party to assure victory in November. Democrats unite!!!

Richardson Gaining as Hillary Slips in New Hampshire

Here is a link to an article from New Hampshire polling results that shows the momentum that is finally gaining traction for Bill Richardson! At the same time New Hampshire voters are starting to see through the Hillary Hype and her support is dwindling. There may still be hope for a change in this coming election.

Check out the story for yourselves and have a Happy and Healthy Thanksgiving.

http://www.wmur.com/politics/14651842/detail.html

Letter to Bill Richardson

Dear Bill:

I was watching you closely last night along with the other candidates. I personally thought your performance was the best yet! You had thoughtful and courageous answers to serious questions and I thought you deserved to be singled out as a candidate that showed rising promise against the bickering and infighting and back biting of the other so called leading candidates.

I was especially alarmed that Hillary Clinton couldn't even give a simple definitive answer to the softball question of whether she preferred pearls or diamonds! In typical Hilliaryspeak she simply answered with no answer "I want them both????" Surely geared to not choosing what she truly wants so as not to alienate the alternate constituent. Is that what we want in a President? I think not.

Your courageous answer about putting human rights before national security was deemed by the talking heads as being a Faux pas. I disagree. If we maintain a firm, unwavering policy of putting human rights first and living by what we preach, it will serve to strengthen our national security not weaken it!. People will no longer react to our two faced policy of preaching one way but doing what is expedient when it seems to serve our purposes. I am not for a weak national security policy, but I do not believe maintaining human rights is mutually exclusive to maintaining a secure and safe nation. When you lie with dogs you inevitably get fleas, so if we expect others to live by our values we surely must demonstrate that our values are not for sale or not compromised by fringe elements who see totalitarianism as the only way to secure some one's warped idea of safety. That logic brought the Germans to their knees in World War II!

You have sound ideas and I believe you are a fresh, untainted alternate to the other candidates. I am perplexed by the media's lack of picking up on anyone but the supposed front runners in after debate commentary. I was sure your performance would have been singled out, if only to comment on how much improved your delivery seemed. To the contrary, after debate commentary is so slanted to the front runners as to almost obscure the possibility of you or any of the non-front runners from having a chance. It is pitiful that we are served so poorly by a media that has no interest in fairness, equal time or equal exposure.

I am sorry for going on but this really disturbs me to think that we as a voting public are not given adequate coverage or thoughtful debate with the fairness that would allow for intelligent choice at the polls.

I am sending you another contribution and I hope your message is given more coverage, because it deserves to be heard.

Thank you for trying,

Ralph Miriello

ALASKAN'S SELL THEIR SOUL FOR $1654/year

The attached article from the Washington Post tells a woeful story about politics and corruption as usual even in the once untouched terrain of our most remote state, Alaska. Seems that it doesn't matter how far away you are from the mainland. You are still within the exaggerated reach of oil company revenues and the long arm of corruption. Despite being perceived as a land of pioneers who prefer to be left alone and not bothered by the follies that the rest of the lower 48 put up with; Alaskan's are waking up to the realization that business as usual for Alaskan politicians comes with a price that far exceeds the $1654 stipend each individual citizen of the state receives yearly as a result of oil revenues. The scandal seems to touch some who seemingly were previously thought untouchable like Senator Ted Steven a multi-decade senator! Only goes to show you that the smart money always follows the money. Unfortunately the real crime is that Alaskan's can be kept pacified so cheaply and for so long!!!!

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article
/2007/11/11/AR2007111101585.html?referrer=emailarticle

HILLARY USES PLANTED QUESTIONS AT GRINELL

Hello friends, those of you who are still here. I know I have been totally ignoring the blog and I do apologize. Life can sometimes be very hectic and some things have to take precedence over others. PRIORITIZE!!! That is the key.


I have been watching the election campaigning very closely and though I haven't commented much as of late this article in the Des Moine Register seems to me to be a harbinger of things we could expect to be "business as usual" if Hillary Clinton were elected as the democratic nominee.
The Clinton machine seems to deny everything at first only to fess up in incremental pieces and grudgingly, until he whole truth becomes apparent. Do we really want more of the same for the next four years?

I am still backing Governor Richardson as the most reasonable, honest, intelligent and untainted of the candidates. Whether he has a snowballs chance in Hell. is unfortunately the present reality. But, methinks, that if there was a groundswell of support that showed his viability in Iowa, then perhaps he would gain some traction as an alternative to the Clinton machine. Don't get me wrong, I believe strategically that an Edwards Obama link up is the natural progression to any true challenge to the Clinton juggernaut, a two for one team approach that may galvanize the disparate branches of the party. But as a single candidate, Richardson could easily become a dark horse favorite, a conciliator and bridge candidate that unifies if he is seen as having a chance early in Iowa and New Hampshire. That is why I personally donated to his campaign fund. No illusions here, just tired of accepting the dynastic predilections that we seem to be having when it comes to choosing our leaders, especially our presidents.

As far as the Republicans go, McCain, the most honorable of the candidates, has backed the wrong horse when he went to bat for GW on this War in Iraq. Thompson is better left an actor. Romney seems to have the Clinton disease of saying what people want to hear when he needs their votes. Guilliani, while a formidable mayor and a powerful force in his own right; he has certainly shown poor judgement in his choices. His choice of Kerik, his choice of women and no matter what anyone says his relationship with his children speaks volumes about the real man.

Here is the link to the Des Moine Register article.
http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071109/NEWS09/71109071

I hope my proselytizing hasn't turned too many of you off!