Castro

Castro


Sacbee: Opinion Newsletter Blogs | Cartoons | Daily Debate | Editorials | Forum | Letters
Editorial: Time to change on Cuba

Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Restrictions and oppression.Castro has done both good and evil, both godly and ungodly things, and in his old age he seeks to make amends and to do better before he passes on. Cuba desires and needs a Latin government, one that will allows Cuba to flourish and grow, while keeping evil and iniquity under control and in check. He has done much good for them, because he cares for them and wishes to see them prosper and do well. Many of the people chafe under the unnecessary restrictions and oppression. They do not need American-style democracy imposed upon them, but they do need more freedom. America fought him over the decades, and he vowed he would not change or give up, and he became rigid. But the world around him changed and Cuba changed, and his rigidity and inflexibility that once kept and preserved his people now works against them. But he nears the end of his days and Cuba too will change. Castro has become an has been, for he has grown set in his ways over the years, sometimes out of necessity.
Ted Rudow III,MA



http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2008/02/20/18480652.php


It's starting
by Ted Rudow III,MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Wednesday Feb 20th, 2008 5:10 PM
It's starting to become like Eastern Europe used to be in the days of the Soviet Union, when there were police informants all over the place, people who were recruited to inform the authorities about anything suspicious so it could be checked out.
Except nowadays governments are recruiting their entire populations to keep an eye out for anyone suspicious!
It hasn't gotten as bad as the Soviet Union was, of course, but it has had an effect on people and on society as a whole. There's more fear, less tolerance for differences, and certainly less tolerance for people who might appear to be "difference"
If it suits their purposes, governments don't have to wait for terrorists to come along to create "incidents," you know. Hitler certainly didn't, when he wanted to seize more power in Germany. He and his officers arranged for some people to set fire to the German parliament building, and then he blamed it on the communists. Not long afterwards, new laws were passed "for the Protection of the People and the State," new crackdowns were enacted, and Hitler's dictatorship was well on the way. So it wouldn't be the first time that a government used terrorism as a pretext!
Ted Rudow III,MA




The Stanford Daily



Opinions





Wednesday February 20, 2008






Home

Other Issues


«Previous
Archives


This Issue


Front page
News
Sports
Opinions



You're Not Special: An ode to Hennessy



February 20, 2008
By Rahul Kanakia
... "What changes minds is real sacrifice. Getting clubbed by policemen who then throw you in jail while you’re still bleeding. Or fleeing to Canada, never knowing if you will return to the country of your birth. Non-violent protest is not passive. It involves people radically changing their lives for something they passionately believe. Generally all that happens is a couple gatherings in White Plaza between classes. And even when something a bit more spectacular, like a hunger strike, happens, it’s brief and easy to ignore. All this protesting is lame — and everyone knows it’s lame — and that’s why you never get anywhere."

It's starting to become like Eastern Europe used to be in the days of the Soviet Union, when there were police informants all over the place, people who were recruited to inform the authorities about anything suspicious so it could be checked out. Except nowadays governments are recruiting their entire populations to keep an eye out for anyone suspicious!
It hasn't gotten as bad as the Soviet Union was, of course, but it has had an effect on people and on society as a whole. There's more fear, less tolerance for differences, and certainly less tolerance for people who might appear to be "difference"
If it suits their purposes, governments don't have to wait for terrorists to come along to create "incidents," you know. Hitler certainly didn't, when he wanted to seize more power in Germany. He and his officers arranged for some people to set fire to the German parliament building, and then he blamed it on the communists. Not long afterwards, new laws were passed "for the Protection of the People and the State," new crackdowns were enacted, and Hitler's dictatorship was well on the way. So it wouldn't be the first time that a government used terrorism as a pretext!
Ted Rudow III,MA