Vivaldi Released

I just purchased a recent cd release of Vivaldi violin concertos, performed by Giuliano Carmignola violinist with Andrea Marcon and the Venice Baroque Orchestra. If you enjoy Vivaldi, and are tired of The Four Seasons, you should give this one a try. Carmignola's violin is passionate and fiery. The five concertos have not been recorded before. This premiere is wonderful listening.

Ironically it was his recording on Sony of The Four Seasons that introduced me to Carmignola. His approach to those over-recorded concertos is fresh and vigorous. Marcon and the Venice Baroque orchestra play with obvious love and enthusiasm for the music. Carmignola released two subsequent discs for Sony containing previously unrecorded Vivaldi concertos. All of them are wonderful listening.

In case you want to check it out, this recent release is on DGG Archive, B0006504-02.

Another Site for Classical CDs

I just added Universal Classics to the list of recorded music sites in the box at the right. This page has links to catalogs of Philips, Decca, and DGG compact discs.

Blog Anniversary

I planned to do this post last Tuesday.

Tuesday, September 11, 2008, was the sixth anniversary of the attack on the World Trade Center. It was also the first anniversary of the my first blog posting. In the last year, some things that I discussed have improved, and some have not.

• Thanks to the idiots in the executive and legislative branches of our government, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan continue to be American political issues, as opposed to military issues, or parts of the campaign against terrorism. One group of politicians stubbornly refuses to acknowledge its errors, another group continues to be more concerned about their own political ambitions than about the safety of either Iraq or the U.S. They are just too self-centered and they have too much power and too little knowledge or intelligence to do the right things.
• Hatred and ad hominum attacks continue to pervade the American political scene, as opposed to sensible, concrete proposals to improve our society. The voters are still voting for the smile and the charisma of ignorant and crooked candidates instead of supporting people who show exceptional knowledge of the problems to be solved. Politicians who are not intelligent enough to propose a better solution than their opponents investigate and denigrate them instead.
• The politicians talk about compromise, cooperation, and eliminating corruption. But their actions are exactly the opposite of their rhetoric.
• We have seen little progress toward securing our borders to eliminate illegal immigration while establishing a sensible program for importing temporary labor. This continues to be a political issue, as opposed to a social problem. Politicians sense that no one comes away from a compromise completely happy. They fear losing votes and financial support resulting from a solution more than they dislike the damage resulting from the status quo.
• "Political correctness" continues to poison our literature, our entertainment, and even our daily actions. People just do not understand that by eliminating or changing a word or other symbol we cannot abolish either a concept or a past event. But they find it easier to "erase" the symbol than to teach people the proper understanding of the concept or the perspective of the event. When you erase the symbol, the concept still exists--it just becomes represented by another symbol. The hard solution is the right one, but we remain too lazy to work it.

But it's not all bad--I just lament the lack of progress on some of my most vexing issues. Bonnie says that I am too cynical, and that I should look on the bright side and talk about happier stuff. So I will do that.

• In spite of the sub-prime mortgage fiasco, and the housing boom and bust, the nation's economy is fairly robust and unemployment is relatively low.
• From I-phones to HDTV to X-boxes, we have more technological advances and high--tech toys than our grandfathers ever dreamed of. I don't use many myself, but many people are enjoying them.
• My personal life continues to be as positive and rewarding as I can make it. I made significant progress on the plans for a convention of the American Political Items Collectors in Las Vegas in August, 2008. And, my own campaign collection has seen modest gains.
• Despite the demise of Tower Records, I have added some excellent classical CDs to my collection, giving me many hours of listening enjoyment.
• My renewed interest in the ukulele has brought me some pleasure, probably not as much for Bonnie. I added about a dozen songs to my repertoire.
• My part-time teaching job has enabled me to enrich the knowledge and values of hundreds of young children. And it has added some really fine acquaintances to my network.
• Although we blew right through our initial budget, Bonnie and I are pleased with the results so far in the redecoration of our living room and dining room. We are about 80% done, and we like it every bit as much as we hoped to.
• Bonnie and I and the two shar peis are all enjoying reasonably good health. We have begun to adjust to a more healthy diet, and have shed more than a few excess pounds.
• Thanks to the computer and the internet I have been able to maintain contact with many long-term friends, and to make some valuable additions to that network. We mostly swap humorous emails, but we also exchange ideas and information.
• Bonnie and I are fortunate to live close to both of our daughters and their husbands. To see their happiness and success is a source of joy to us.

So, I continue to make the most of the things that I can control. And for those things beyond my control, I will use the blog as my soap box. Maybe in a small way I can encourage somebody to take some steps in the right direction. Besides my own visits, the blog has experienced well over a thousand hits. It must be very boring, or a lot of readers share my views, because I have only received a couple of comments against over 100 postings.

Taxes

Someone once said that the essence of a communist philosophy is that people should contribute to the society according to their ability, and derive from society according to their need. To capitalist, that is the wildest form of heresy; rather, one should derive in proportion to his ability.

Several presidential candidates in the Democratic party have been criticized for proposing tax increases in order to increase existing welfare programs and to add new ones. They claim that they only want to tax the wealthy, but many of the folks they call wealthy don't have much more to contribute. Candidates in the Republican party claim tax cuts for the wealthy increase revenue and improve the economy, but many of the extremely wealthy are performing artists, athletes, and politicians who neither develop nor produce new products nor do they hire large numbers of employees.

Part of the conflict is that while the term "wealth" is relatively easy to define, the term "need" is a little more ambiguous. For example, as a person's wealth increases, so does his "need." Most of us can get along just fine owning one house; many feel the need for a second "summer home;" and the very wealthy "need" to maintain several homes. The need for cars, TV sets, and many other items also grows as a person's wealth increases. I can get along fine with 2 or 3 business suits in my closet, but a wealthy man "needs" two dozen suits. A two thousand square foot house is adequate for most folks to live in, but when you are wealthy, you "need" a 20,000 square foot house on 10 acres of land. The wealthy few "need" all of these things that the other 99% of us consider to be pure excess. They cling to their excesses, and will not cut back on them to help the poor.

For even the poorest people, "need" has increased significantly. People who can barely afford food for the table have satellite dishes on their rooftops, tied to multiple TV sets. They are behind on their mortgage and utility bills, but their children have cell phones and wear designer shoes to school. And the politicians tell us that EVERYONE needs access to a computer.

Most of the people who draft our tax laws are wealthy. They are members of that elite 1 or 2 percent of our population whose annual income exceeds $500,000.00. While they claim to increase taxes for the "wealthy," they actually want to raise the taxes of folks whose annual income is in the $50,000.00 to $499,000.00 range. Their rationale is that the "over $500,000.00 club" are already paying more than their "fair share."

But in reality, 99% of us would really feel the pinch if our income tax increased by, say, $2,000.00 next year. But do you think for a minute that an executive, an athlete, or an actor who earns $3 million dollars next year would have to endure hardship to deal with an increase of even one hundred times that much?

Some people will argue that many of the wealthy are indeed generous--they build schools for the underprivileged, they donate computers to the public schools, etc., etc. That is true, but their is a big difference between what they do and what they want us to do. You see, they determine not only how much they will give, but when and to whom they will give it. They know that their money will be better spent if they donate directly to the cause than it would if they gave it to the government to spend. And, if they want to buy a new private jet this year, they will skip the donation.

The rich don't want you to have those choices. You will be forced under penalty of law to donate an amount they determine to the government every year. The people who set the policies and the people who write our tax laws are mostly members of that wealthiest 1%. They don't want to forego their third house or their fifth automobile, so they will increase the taxes of the people in the upper middle income range. This also serves as a barrier to keep others from joining their ranks and competing for the luxuries.

It's not an organized conspiracy; they wealthy just think that way. The extremely wealthy are the "royalty" in an otherwise democratic society. They exempt themselves from the very requirements they place on the commoners. They agree with each other, and they write the laws. You see, it's a really good deal for over half of the voters who get the handouts but not the tax increases. That's why the rich guys keep getting re-elected. They "buy" their votes with entitlements that are funded by our tax money, not their own. The result is forced charity. Think about that before you select the next candidate to get your vote.