http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/27/18716452.php
Dark policies of the past
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Wednesday Jun 27th, 2012
Honduras was effectively an outpost of the United States' worst campaigns during the Cold War. They built a huge air base in Honduras and a training centre there for the Central Americans. The US has always felt it had a perfect right to do anything it wanted to do in Latin America. That was its backyard, and for the sake of better security it had a right to do as it pleased down there! Zelaya was forced out of office and exiled to Costa Rica in a military coup d'etat.
Paraguayan President Fernando Lugo has been ousted in what he has described as a parliamentary coup. A former priest, Lugo was once called the "Bishop of the Poor" and was known for defending peasant rights. Argentina, Brazil, Venezuela, Chile and Uruguay have all condemned Lugo’s ouster, but the question remains whether the Obama administration will recognize the new government. He didn’t show up. But, they ousted him using very legalistic means, in some ways very similar to what happened in Honduras three years ago in 2009 in which the right gathered and used technical legalistic procedures in order to oust the president that they felt was a threat.
Lugo came to power —he was the first President or First presiding over a government not linked to the old Stroessner dictatorship that ruled Paraguay for much of the Cold War and the years after. Much of that land was illegally gotten through the dictatorship, through the dictatorship with Stroessner, and there’s been a movement to reclaim it. The two things to look out for is, one if military aid to Paraguayan army will continue. The U.S. is a supplier of much material and financial support to the security forces in Paraguay, and two, if it will take advantage of the crisis to go forward with a long sought military base in the region, which the Pentagon, Southcom, has wanted for a while. President Barack Obama said that he doesn't want to return to the dark policies of the past. Let us hope so!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Food stamp still needed
sfexaminer.com
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
News
Politics
Blogs
Under the Dome
Local
Crime
Transportation
Good Day
Blogs
Law and Disorder
Under the Dome
Columnists
Melissa Griffin
Entertainment
Travel
Music
Scoop!
Movies
Food and Wine
Opinion
Editorials
Letters to the Editor
Op Eds
Letters to the Editor
Tweet
Comments
Food stamps still needed
Food stamps still needed
Too many Americans are still out of work to justify cuts to the food stamp program. Democrats and Republicans banded together in the Senate to defeat an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to slash spending on the program nearly in half.
Still, a version of the 2012 Farm Bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee and being debated by the Senate floor contains a $4.5 billion reduction over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program budget.
The cuts arent as steep as Pauls proposal, and they represent a fraction of the federal programs$80 billion-a-year spending.
But it would nonetheless be a devastating blow to poor families. An amendment restoring cuts, offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is the best solution. Her amendment would not add to the deficit. Restoring cuts to the food stamp program would be paid for by capping subsidies to the highly profitable crop insurance companies.
They made the poor people fight these wars for them, when all the poor really wanted was peace, enough to eat and wear, and a place to sleep. They refuse to fight these wars and rebel against letting the rich rob them.
Ted Rudow III
Palo Alto
Food stamp
San Mateo Daily Journal
Tuesday
June
26
2012
10:07 am
Home
Local News
State / National / World
Sports
Opinion / Letters
Business
Click here for locations of where to find Daily Journal news racks.
VISIT US ON FACEBOOK! Click here
Follow us on Twitter!
Letter: Food stamps
June 26, 2012, 05:00 AM Letter
Editor,
Too many Americans are still out of work to justify cuts to the food stamp program. Democrats and Republicans banded together in the Senate to defeat an amendment by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to slash spending on the program nearly in half. Still, a version of the 2012 Farm Bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee and being debated by the Senate floor contains a $4.5 billion reduction over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program budget. The cuts aren’t as steep as Paul’s proposal and they represent a fraction of the federal program’s $80 billion a year spending. But it would nonetheless be a devastating blow to poor families. An amendment restoring cuts, offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is the best solution. Her amendment would not add to the deficit. Restoring cuts to the food stamp program would be paid for by capping subsidies to the highly profitable crop insurance companies. They even made the poor people fight these wars for them, when all the poor really wanted was peace and enough to eat and wear and a place to sleep. They refuse to fight these wars and rebelled against letting the rich rob them.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintRedditStumbleUponFavoritesGmailBloggerTumblrPinterestMore... (322)AddThisSettingsPrivacy
Tuesday
June
26
2012
10:07 am
Home
Local News
State / National / World
Sports
Opinion / Letters
Business
Click here for locations of where to find Daily Journal news racks.
VISIT US ON FACEBOOK! Click here
Follow us on Twitter!
Letter: Food stamps
June 26, 2012, 05:00 AM Letter
Editor,
Too many Americans are still out of work to justify cuts to the food stamp program. Democrats and Republicans banded together in the Senate to defeat an amendment by U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to slash spending on the program nearly in half. Still, a version of the 2012 Farm Bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee and being debated by the Senate floor contains a $4.5 billion reduction over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program budget. The cuts aren’t as steep as Paul’s proposal and they represent a fraction of the federal program’s $80 billion a year spending. But it would nonetheless be a devastating blow to poor families. An amendment restoring cuts, offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is the best solution. Her amendment would not add to the deficit. Restoring cuts to the food stamp program would be paid for by capping subsidies to the highly profitable crop insurance companies. They even made the poor people fight these wars for them, when all the poor really wanted was peace and enough to eat and wear and a place to sleep. They refuse to fight these wars and rebelled against letting the rich rob them.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
FacebookTwitterEmailPrintRedditStumbleUponFavoritesGmailBloggerTumblrPinterestMore... (322)AddThisSettingsPrivacy
Monday, June 25, 2012
Don't cut food stamps
Contra Costa Times
eEdition / Subscriber Services
Mobile
Mobile Alerts
RSS
News Photo Galleries
Obituaries
Crime & Courts
Bay Area
Breaking News
California
Nation & World
Science
Growth
Politics & Government
Publications Contra Costa Times
East County Times
San Ramon Valley Times
Tri-Valley Times
West County Times
Peninsula readers' letters: June 23
From Daily News Group readers mercurynews.com
Posted: 06/22/2012 02:16:47 PM PDT
June 23, 2012 6:50 AM GMT
Updated: 06/22/2012 11:50:07 PM PDT
Don't cut food stamps
Dear Editor: Too many Americans are still out of work to justify cuts to the food stamp program. Democrats and Republicans banded together in the Senate to defeat an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, to slash spending on the program nearly in half. Still, a version of the 2012 Farm Bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee and being debated by the Senate floor contains a $4.5 billion reduction over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program budget. The cuts aren't as steep as Paul's proposal and they represent a fraction of the federal program's $80 billion a year spending. But it would nonetheless be a devastating blow to poor families. An amendment restoring cuts, offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is the best solution. Her amendment would not add to the deficit. Restoring cuts to the food stamp program would be paid for by capping subsidies to the highly profitable crop insurance companies.They even made the poor people fight these wars for them, when all the poor really wanted was peace and enough to eat and wear, and a place to sleep. They refuse to fight these wars and rebelled against letting the rich rob them.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto, CA
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Don't cut food stamps
MercuryNews.com
eEdition / Subscriber Services
Mobile
Mobile Alerts
RSS
News breaking news
elections
obituaries
crime and courts
bay area news
data center
science
earthquakes
politics / government
california
nation / world
Publications San Mateo County Times
Palo Alto Daily News
Silicon Valley Community Newspapers:
Campbell Reporter
Cupertino Courier
Fremont Bulletin
Los Gatos Weekly Times
Milpitas Post
Pacifica Tribune
Saratoga News
Sunnyvale Sun
Willow Glen Resident
Rose Garden Resident
Almaden Resident
Cambrian Resident
Site Web Search by YAHOO!
Peninsula POWERED BY
Peninsula readers' letters: June 23
From Daily News Group readers mercurynews.com
Posted: 06/22/2012 02:16:47 PM PDT
June 23, 2012 6:50 AM GMT
Updated: 06/22/2012 11:50:07 PM PDT
Don't cut food stamps
Dear Editor: Too many Americans are still out of work to justify cuts to the food stamp program. Democrats and Republicans banded together in the Senate to defeat an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, to slash spending on the program nearly in half.
Still, a version of the 2012 Farm Bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee and being debated by the Senate floor contains a $4.5 billion reduction over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program budget. The cuts aren't as steep as Paul's proposal and they represent a fraction of the federal program's $80 billion a year spending. But it would nonetheless be a devastating blow to poor families. An amendment restoring cuts, offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is the best solution. Her amendment would not add to the deficit. Restoring cuts to the food stamp program would be paid for by capping subsidies to the highly profitable crop insurance companies.
They even made the poor people fight these wars for them, when all the poor really wanted was peace and enough to eat and wear, and a place to sleep. They refuse to fight these wars and rebelled against letting the rich rob them.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto, CA
Friday, June 22, 2012
Food stamps
Palo Alto Weekly
Sign up for Express
New from Palo Alto Online, Express is a daily e-edition, distributed by e-mail every weekday.
Sign up to receive Express!
Home
News
Palo Alto Weekly
The Almanac
Mountain View Voice
Fogster Classifieds
Town Square Forums
Sports
;
TownSquare Forum
(Postings listed from most recent to oldest)
View in an RSS Reader
Food stamps
Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ted Rudow III, MA, a member of the Palo Alto High School community,
Too many Americans are still out of work to justify cuts to the food stamp program. Democrats and Republicans banded together in the Senate to defeat an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to slash spending on the program nearly in half.
Still, a version of the 2012 Farm Bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee and being debated by the Senate floor contains a $4.5 billion reduction over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program budget. The cuts aren’t as steep as Paul’s proposal and they represent a fraction of the federal program’s $80 billion a year spending. But it would nonetheless be a devastating blow to poor families. An amendment restoring cuts, offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is the best solution. Her amendment would not add to the deficit. Restoring cuts to the food stamp program would be paid for by capping subsidies to the highly profitable crop insurance companies
They even made the poor people fight these wars for them, when all the poor really wanted was peace and enough to eat and wear and a place to sleep.They refuse to fight these wars and rebelled against letting the rich rob them.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Food stamps
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/22/18716026.php
Food stamps
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Friday Jun 22nd, 2012
Too many Americans are still out of work to justify cuts to the food stamp program. Democrats and Republicans banded together in the Senate to defeat an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to slash spending on the program nearly in half.
Still, a version of the 2012 Farm Bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee and being debated by the Senate floor contains a $4.5 billion reduction over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program budget. The cuts aren’t as steep as Paul’s proposal and they represent a fraction of the federal program’s $80 billion a year spending. But it would nonetheless be a devastating blow to poor families. An amendment restoring cuts, offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is the best solution. Her amendment would not add to the deficit. Restoring cuts to the food stamp program would be paid for by capping subsidies to the highly profitable crop insurance companies
They even made the poor people fight these wars for them, when all the poor really wanted was peace and enough to eat and wear and a place to sleep.They refuse to fight these wars and rebelled against letting the rich rob them.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Food stamps
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Friday Jun 22nd, 2012
Too many Americans are still out of work to justify cuts to the food stamp program. Democrats and Republicans banded together in the Senate to defeat an amendment by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., to slash spending on the program nearly in half.
Still, a version of the 2012 Farm Bill passed by the Senate Agriculture Committee and being debated by the Senate floor contains a $4.5 billion reduction over the next decade to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program budget. The cuts aren’t as steep as Paul’s proposal and they represent a fraction of the federal program’s $80 billion a year spending. But it would nonetheless be a devastating blow to poor families. An amendment restoring cuts, offered by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., is the best solution. Her amendment would not add to the deficit. Restoring cuts to the food stamp program would be paid for by capping subsidies to the highly profitable crop insurance companies
They even made the poor people fight these wars for them, when all the poor really wanted was peace and enough to eat and wear and a place to sleep.They refuse to fight these wars and rebelled against letting the rich rob them.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Witchcraft
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/21/18715923.php
Witchcraft
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Thursday Jun 21st, 2012
Witchcraft
"President Bush, who will go down in history as the great tax cutter, owes almost all of his fortune to a tax increase that was funneled into his pocket.
What happened is, an oil man named Eddie Chiles wanted to sell his money-losing Texas Rangers baseball team. So George Bush put together a group of very wealthy investors to buy the team. He put up himself $600,000 of borrowed money. The partners then gave him a 10 percent stake as the managing partner.Then they held a special election in January of the year in question to increase the sales tax in the town of Arlington, Texas, by one half-cent. That money was used to build a new baseball stadium.
The value of this subsidy, according to Ray Hutchison, who is the husband of Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, is a prominent Republican insider in Texas and is the leading authority on municipal bond finance in Texas, was $202.5 million. The profit that President Bush and his partners made when they sold the team was $164 million. Every single penny of additional money President Bush got from that investment, his gain, came from the taxpayers. He did not add on cent to the value of that team through his skill as an MBA manager.
And at the same time, a kind of corporate triumphalism, in which the corporations, the oligarchs, the plutocrats, running this country want to hold onto absolute power absolutely. So George Orwell anticipated a state as big brother, hovering over us, watching us, keeping us under surveillance, taking care of our needs as long as we repaid them with utter loyalty. But the capitalistic financier, they're all like a whole bunch Panders. Those who solicit business for a profits, and they've got a whole lot invested in this country, and they don't want to lose it. So they try to save her so they can save their investments, and they're trying to get the rest of the world save her, so they can save her and continue to make a little money on her.
It's totally artificial for them to support the dollar! If they'd just let the dollar sink down to where it belongs.
A perfect picture of the certain self-destruction of corrupt Capitalism by its own selfish weakness and rottenness and cruelty, as predicted by both Marx and the Bible! So there you have it, in the plain Words of Scripture, especially in Revelation 17 and 18!--Read it! And even so shall be her own destruction! For thy merchants were the great men of the Earth, and by thy sorceries (the deceitfulness of riches and the witchcraft of wealth!) were all nations deceived!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Friday, June 15, 2012
Animal Farm 2
Animal Farm 2
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Friday Jun 15th, 2012
Animal Farm is a satirical novella by George Orwell, ostensibly about a group of animals who oust the humans from the farm on which they live. They run the farm themselves, only to have it degenerate into a brutal tyranny of its own.
The book was written during World War II and published in 1945, although it was not widely successful until the late 1950s. Animal Farm is a satirical allegory of Soviet totalitarianism. Totalitarianism is a term employed to describe modern regimes in which the state regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior. Totalitarian regimes maintain themselves in political power by means of single-party state, secret police, propaganda disseminated through the state-controlled mass media, personality cult, regulation and restriction of free discussion and criticism, the use of mass surveillance, and widespread use of terror tactics (political purges and persecution of specific groups of people).
Does this book, Animal Farm, and current U.S. government has similar traits? Robbers of the poor and the protectors of the rich, illegally boring into the private affairs of its citizens and scandalously destroying their personal freedoms. And at the same time, a kind of corporate triumphalism, in which the corporations, the oligarchs, the plutocrats, running this country want to hold onto absolute power absolutely. So George Orwell anticipated a state as big brother, hovering over us, watching us, keeping us under surveillance, taking care of our needs as long as we repaid them with utter loyalty. Aldous Huxley anticipated a Brave New World in which we were amusing ourselves to death. Who's proving the most successful prophet? Huxley or Orwell? Well, I think Huxley is probably right.
Ted Rudow III, MA
__._,_.___
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Cuba Libre
Bohemian
Metro
SF Station
MetroActive
Boulevards
Santa Cruz Weekly
Bohemian
News & Features
Music, Arts & Culture
Food & Drink
Columns & Blogs
Deals & Giveaways Browse News & Features
News & Features Home
Culture
Features
News
News Archives Browse Music, Arts & Culture
June 13, 2012 Columns & Blogs » Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor: June 13, 2012
Cuba Libre
The United States is trying to blame Cuba's poverty and troubles and everything else on Castro, when for 50 years this country has devastated Cuba through American sanctions and embargoes, etc. Before Castro took over, the U.S. was Cuba's closest and biggest trading partner, and they used to supply America with sugar, coffee, tourism and a lot of things. It was notorious that American men would go to Cuba to visit the prostitutes there. But Castro got rid of them and got rid of Batista, who was the bad guy.
Before that, the U.S. was very happy to recognize Castro. They said, "Yes, he's gotten rid of Batista, a bad man, and he made Cuba better for the Cubans"—until he started nationalizing all the industries, businesses and plantations of the rich. They thought the embargoes and the sanctions would work, that they'd starve Castro and his supporters out. That was too much. So then the U.S. government began to fight Cuba, and they helped some Cuban exiles stage the Bay of Pigs invasion under John F. Kennedy—becoming a laughingstock because they lost so badly.
Terrorist groups based in Miami have even confessed to being killers, in published books published and in interviews on television. But they have not been brought to justice. However, Cuba has more than 5,000 victims of state terrorism between the dead and the wounded. Thus, as a society, as a sovereign nation, we have the right to defend ourselves, and we do it peacefully. It's hurting the poor of Cuba more than anybody, whom they claim they want to help!
—Ted Rudow
Palo Alto
Metro
SF Station
MetroActive
Boulevards
Santa Cruz Weekly
Bohemian
News & Features
Music, Arts & Culture
Food & Drink
Columns & Blogs
Deals & Giveaways Browse News & Features
News & Features Home
Culture
Features
News
News Archives Browse Music, Arts & Culture
June 13, 2012 Columns & Blogs » Letters to the Editor
Letters to the Editor: June 13, 2012
Cuba Libre
The United States is trying to blame Cuba's poverty and troubles and everything else on Castro, when for 50 years this country has devastated Cuba through American sanctions and embargoes, etc. Before Castro took over, the U.S. was Cuba's closest and biggest trading partner, and they used to supply America with sugar, coffee, tourism and a lot of things. It was notorious that American men would go to Cuba to visit the prostitutes there. But Castro got rid of them and got rid of Batista, who was the bad guy.
Before that, the U.S. was very happy to recognize Castro. They said, "Yes, he's gotten rid of Batista, a bad man, and he made Cuba better for the Cubans"—until he started nationalizing all the industries, businesses and plantations of the rich. They thought the embargoes and the sanctions would work, that they'd starve Castro and his supporters out. That was too much. So then the U.S. government began to fight Cuba, and they helped some Cuban exiles stage the Bay of Pigs invasion under John F. Kennedy—becoming a laughingstock because they lost so badly.
Terrorist groups based in Miami have even confessed to being killers, in published books published and in interviews on television. But they have not been brought to justice. However, Cuba has more than 5,000 victims of state terrorism between the dead and the wounded. Thus, as a society, as a sovereign nation, we have the right to defend ourselves, and we do it peacefully. It's hurting the poor of Cuba more than anybody, whom they claim they want to help!
—Ted Rudow
Palo Alto
Tuesday, June 12, 2012
Hurting Cuba
Palo Alto Weekly
Sign up for Express
New from Palo Alto Online, Express is a daily e-edition, distributed by e-mail every weekday.
Sign up to receive Express!
Login
Register
Sign up for eBulletins
Join UsFollow Us
Home
News
Palo Alto Weekly
The Almanac
Mountain View Voice
Fogster Classifieds
Town Square Forums
Sports
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
Hurting Cuba
Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ted Rudow III, MA, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, 0 minutes ago
The U.S. is trying to blame Cuba's poverty and troubles and everything else on Fidel Castro, when for 50 years the U.S. has devastated Cuba through American sanctions and embargoes. Before Castro took over, the U.S. was Cuba's closest and biggest trading partner, and Cuba used to supply the U.S. with sugar, coffee, tourism and a lot of things. American men would go to Cuba to visit the prostitutes there. But Castro got rid of the prostitutes and Fulgencio Batista, who was the dictator and a bad guy.
The U.S. was happy to recognize Castro until he started nationalizing all the industries, businesses and plantations of the rich. The U.S. thought the embargoes and the sanctions would work, that it would starve Castro and his supporters out. They didn't work, so the U.S. then began to fight Cuba and helped some Cuban exiles stage the Bay of Pigs invasion under John F. Kennedy, which became a laughingstock because they lost so badly.
The beginning of the revolution has been the victim of terrorist attempts organized and perpetrated by terrorist groups of Cubans based in Miami. They have confessed their crimes, even in books that have been published and in interviews on television. But they have not been brought to justice. However, Cuba has more than 5,000 victims of state terrorism between the dead and the wounded. Thus, as a society, as a sovereign nation, we have the right to defend ourselves, and we do it peacefully. It's hurting the poor of Cuba more than anybody.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Sign up for Express
New from Palo Alto Online, Express is a daily e-edition, distributed by e-mail every weekday.
Sign up to receive Express!
Login
Register
Sign up for eBulletins
Join UsFollow Us
Home
News
Palo Alto Weekly
The Almanac
Mountain View Voice
Fogster Classifieds
Town Square Forums
Sports
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
Hurting Cuba
Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ted Rudow III, MA, a member of the Palo Alto High School community, 0 minutes ago
The U.S. is trying to blame Cuba's poverty and troubles and everything else on Fidel Castro, when for 50 years the U.S. has devastated Cuba through American sanctions and embargoes. Before Castro took over, the U.S. was Cuba's closest and biggest trading partner, and Cuba used to supply the U.S. with sugar, coffee, tourism and a lot of things. American men would go to Cuba to visit the prostitutes there. But Castro got rid of the prostitutes and Fulgencio Batista, who was the dictator and a bad guy.
The U.S. was happy to recognize Castro until he started nationalizing all the industries, businesses and plantations of the rich. The U.S. thought the embargoes and the sanctions would work, that it would starve Castro and his supporters out. They didn't work, so the U.S. then began to fight Cuba and helped some Cuban exiles stage the Bay of Pigs invasion under John F. Kennedy, which became a laughingstock because they lost so badly.
The beginning of the revolution has been the victim of terrorist attempts organized and perpetrated by terrorist groups of Cubans based in Miami. They have confessed their crimes, even in books that have been published and in interviews on television. But they have not been brought to justice. However, Cuba has more than 5,000 victims of state terrorism between the dead and the wounded. Thus, as a society, as a sovereign nation, we have the right to defend ourselves, and we do it peacefully. It's hurting the poor of Cuba more than anybody.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Hurting Cuba
MercuryNews.com
eEdition / Subscriber Services
Mobile
Mobile Alerts
RSS
News breaking news
elections
obituaries
crime and courts
bay area news
data center
science
earthquakes
politics / government
california
nation / world
Opinion columns
editorials
letters
Publications San Mateo County Times
Palo Alto Daily News
Silicon Valley Community Newspapers:
Campbell Reporter
Cupertino Courier
Fremont Bulletin
Los Gatos Weekly Times
Milpitas Post
Pacifica Tribune
Saratoga News
Sunnyvale Sun
Willow Glen Resident
Rose Garden Resident
Almaden Resident
Cambrian Resident
Site Web Search by YAHOO!
Peninsula POWERED BY
Peninsula readers' letters: June 12
From Daily News Group readers mercurynews.com
Posted: 06/11/2012 11:49:05 PM PDT
June 12, 2012 6:49 AM GMTUpdated: 06/11/2012 11:49:06 PM PDT
Peninsula readers' letters: June 12
From Daily News Group readers
mercurynews.com
Posted: 06/11/2012 11:49:05 PM PDT
June 12, 2012 6:49 AM GMTUpdated: 06/11/2012 11:49:06 PM PDT
Hurting Cuba
Dear Editor: The U.S. is trying to blame Cuba's poverty and troubles and everything else on Fidel Castro, when for 50 years the U.S. has devastated Cuba through American sanctions and embargoes. Before Castro took over, the U.S. was Cuba's closest and biggest trading partner, and Cuba used to supply the U.S. with sugar, coffee, tourism and a lot of things. American men would go to Cuba to visit the prostitutes there. But Castro got rid of the prostitutes and Fulgencio Batista, who was the dictator and a bad guy.
The U.S. was happy to recognize Castro until he started nationalizing all the industries, businesses and plantations of the rich. The U.S. thought the embargoes and the sanctions would work, that it would starve Castro and his supporters out. They didn't work, so the U.S. then began to fight Cuba and helped some Cuban exiles stage the Bay of Pigs invasion under John F. Kennedy, which became a laughingstock because they lost so badly.
The beginning of the revolution has been the victim of terrorist attempts organized and perpetrated by terrorist groups of Cubans based in Miami. They have confessed their crimes, even in books that have been published and in interviews on television. But they have not been brought to justice. However, Cuba has more than 5,000 victims of state terrorism between the dead and the wounded. Thus, as a society, as a sovereign nation, we have the right to defend ourselves, and we do it peacefully. It's hurting the poor of Cuba more than anybody.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
eEdition / Subscriber Services
Mobile
Mobile Alerts
RSS
News breaking news
elections
obituaries
crime and courts
bay area news
data center
science
earthquakes
politics / government
california
nation / world
Opinion columns
editorials
letters
Publications San Mateo County Times
Palo Alto Daily News
Silicon Valley Community Newspapers:
Campbell Reporter
Cupertino Courier
Fremont Bulletin
Los Gatos Weekly Times
Milpitas Post
Pacifica Tribune
Saratoga News
Sunnyvale Sun
Willow Glen Resident
Rose Garden Resident
Almaden Resident
Cambrian Resident
Site Web Search by YAHOO!
Peninsula POWERED BY
Peninsula readers' letters: June 12
From Daily News Group readers mercurynews.com
Posted: 06/11/2012 11:49:05 PM PDT
June 12, 2012 6:49 AM GMTUpdated: 06/11/2012 11:49:06 PM PDT
Peninsula readers' letters: June 12
From Daily News Group readers
mercurynews.com
Posted: 06/11/2012 11:49:05 PM PDT
June 12, 2012 6:49 AM GMTUpdated: 06/11/2012 11:49:06 PM PDT
Hurting Cuba
Dear Editor: The U.S. is trying to blame Cuba's poverty and troubles and everything else on Fidel Castro, when for 50 years the U.S. has devastated Cuba through American sanctions and embargoes. Before Castro took over, the U.S. was Cuba's closest and biggest trading partner, and Cuba used to supply the U.S. with sugar, coffee, tourism and a lot of things. American men would go to Cuba to visit the prostitutes there. But Castro got rid of the prostitutes and Fulgencio Batista, who was the dictator and a bad guy.
The U.S. was happy to recognize Castro until he started nationalizing all the industries, businesses and plantations of the rich. The U.S. thought the embargoes and the sanctions would work, that it would starve Castro and his supporters out. They didn't work, so the U.S. then began to fight Cuba and helped some Cuban exiles stage the Bay of Pigs invasion under John F. Kennedy, which became a laughingstock because they lost so badly.
The beginning of the revolution has been the victim of terrorist attempts organized and perpetrated by terrorist groups of Cubans based in Miami. They have confessed their crimes, even in books that have been published and in interviews on television. But they have not been brought to justice. However, Cuba has more than 5,000 victims of state terrorism between the dead and the wounded. Thus, as a society, as a sovereign nation, we have the right to defend ourselves, and we do it peacefully. It's hurting the poor of Cuba more than anybody.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
Hurting Cuba
Contra Costa Times
eEdition / Subscriber Services
Mobile
Mobile Alerts
RSS
News Photo Galleries
Obituaries
Crime & Courts
Bay Area
Breaking News
California
Data Center
Education
Elections
Environment
Nation & World
Publications Contra Costa Times
East County Times
San Ramon Valley Times
Tri-Valley Times
West County Times
My Town Alamo
Antioch
Brentwood
Concord
Contra Costa County
Danville
El Cerrito
Hercules
Lafayette
Martinez
Moraga
Oakley
Orinda
Pittsburg
Pleasant Hill
Richmond
San Ramon
Walnut Creek
In The News:
Peninsula readers' letters: June 12
From Daily News Group readers mercurynews.com
Posted: 06/11/2012 11:49:05 PM PDT
June 12, 2012 6:49 AM GMTUpdated: 06/11/2012 11:49:06 PM PDT
Hurting Cuba
Dear Editor: The U.S. is trying to blame Cuba's poverty and troubles and everything else on Fidel Castro, when for 50 years the U.S. has devastated Cuba through American sanctions and embargoes. Before Castro took over, the U.S. was Cuba's closest and biggest trading partner, and Cuba used to supply the U.S. with sugar, coffee, tourism and a lot of things. American men would go to Cuba to visit the prostitutes there. But Castro got rid of the prostitutes and Fulgencio Batista, who was the dictator and a bad guy.
The U.S. was happy to recognize Castro until he started nationalizing all the industries, businesses and plantations of the rich. The U.S. thought the embargoes and the sanctions would work, that it would starve Castro and his supporters out. They didn't work, so the U.S. then began to fight Cuba and helped some Cuban exiles stage the Bay of Pigs invasion under John F. Kennedy, which became a laughingstock because they lost so badly.
The beginning of the revolution has been the victim of terrorist attempts organized and perpetrated by terrorist groups of Cubans based in Miami. They have confessed their crimes, even in books that have been published and in interviews on television. But they have not been brought to justice. However, Cuba has more than 5,000 victims of state terrorism between the dead and the wounded. Thus, as a society, as a sovereign nation, we have the right to defend ourselves, and we do it peacefully. It's hurting the poor of Cuba more than anybody.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
__._,_.___
Monday, June 11, 2012
Blame Cuba's poverty
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/11/18715179.php
Blame Cuba's poverty
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Monday Jun 11th, 2012
The U.S. is trying to blame Cuba's poverty and troubles and everything else on Castro, when for 50 years the U.S. has devastated Cuba through American sanctions and embargoes, etc.
Before Castro took over, the U.S. was Cuba's closest and biggest trading partner, and they used to supply the U.S. with sugar, coffee, tourism and a lot of things. It was notorious that American men would go to Cuba to visit the prostitutes there. But Castro got rid of them and got rid of Batista, who was the dictator and a bad guy.
Before that, the U.S. was very happy to recognise Castro. They said, "Yes, he's gotten rid of Batista, a bad man, and he made Cuba better for the Cubans."--Until he started nationalising all the industries, businesses and plantations of the rich. They thought the embargoes and the sanctions would work, that they'd starve Castro and his supporters out. That was too much. So then the U.S. government began to fight Cuba, and they helped some Cuban exiles stage the Bay of Pigs invasion under John F. Kennedy--which became a laughingstock because they lost so badly.
The beginning of the revolution, has been the victim of terrorist attempts, organized and perpetrated by terrorist groups based in Miami of Cubans who have even confessed to be killers. They have confessed their crimes, even in books that have been published and in interviews on television. But they have not been brought to justice. However, Cuba has more than 5,000 victims of state terrorism between the dead and the wounded. Thus, as a society, as a sovereign nation, we have the right to defend ourselves, and we do it peacefully. It's hurting the poor of Cuba more than anybody, whom they claim they want to help!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Blame Cuba's poverty
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Monday Jun 11th, 2012
The U.S. is trying to blame Cuba's poverty and troubles and everything else on Castro, when for 50 years the U.S. has devastated Cuba through American sanctions and embargoes, etc.
Before Castro took over, the U.S. was Cuba's closest and biggest trading partner, and they used to supply the U.S. with sugar, coffee, tourism and a lot of things. It was notorious that American men would go to Cuba to visit the prostitutes there. But Castro got rid of them and got rid of Batista, who was the dictator and a bad guy.
Before that, the U.S. was very happy to recognise Castro. They said, "Yes, he's gotten rid of Batista, a bad man, and he made Cuba better for the Cubans."--Until he started nationalising all the industries, businesses and plantations of the rich. They thought the embargoes and the sanctions would work, that they'd starve Castro and his supporters out. That was too much. So then the U.S. government began to fight Cuba, and they helped some Cuban exiles stage the Bay of Pigs invasion under John F. Kennedy--which became a laughingstock because they lost so badly.
The beginning of the revolution, has been the victim of terrorist attempts, organized and perpetrated by terrorist groups based in Miami of Cubans who have even confessed to be killers. They have confessed their crimes, even in books that have been published and in interviews on television. But they have not been brought to justice. However, Cuba has more than 5,000 victims of state terrorism between the dead and the wounded. Thus, as a society, as a sovereign nation, we have the right to defend ourselves, and we do it peacefully. It's hurting the poor of Cuba more than anybody, whom they claim they want to help!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Friday, June 08, 2012
Romney
SFGate Web Search by YAHOO! Businesses
Advanced
Home
News
Sports
Business
Bay Area & State
Nation
World
Politics
Crime
Tech
Obituaries
Education
Green
Science
Health
Weird
Opinion
Letters to the editor, June 8
It's both sad and fascinating that the tobacco lobby appears to have gotten a majority of Californians to oppose Proposition 29 ("Big money brings the votes ... " June 7). First, it's sad to see how a socially toxic...
Mark Twain coined the term "Gilded Age" to describe the era. His characterization is based on the concept of "Gilding the Lilly." The lilly, is naturally beautiful, it needs no further embellishment. Attempting to "Gild the Lilly", or add a gold covering to it, to enhance its beauty is superfluous and unnecessary. Thus, Twain's description refers to the unabashed desire of the wealthy of this era to broadcast their status through their status through extravagant opulence
The era known as the Gilded Age (1870s to 1890s) was a time of vigorous, exploitative individualism. These nouveau riche families broadcast their new status through conspicuous consumption. This was particularly true in New York City where families such as the Astors, the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers built extravagant homes in Manhattan and luxurious vacation residences on Long Island and New Port, Rhode Island.
A new "Gilded Age" has happen in Mitt Romney. In the popular view, the late nineteenth century was a period of greed and guile: of rapacious Robber Barons, unscrupulous speculators, and corporate buccaneers, of shady business practices, scandal-plagued politics, and vulgar display. Unfettered capitalism is another way of saying greed! Still in fact what seems like a new reality is really an old American tradition; a tradition of unlimited corporate money in campaigns that dates back more than 100 years to what came to be called the Gilded Age. So, remembering the old admonition that those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Ted Rudow III, MA
RTF RADIO
RTF RADIO
live 24/7
var so = new SWFObject('http://www.raisethefist.com/streamplayer/player.swf', 'streambaby', '150', '20', '9');// so.addParam('allowscriptaccess','always');so.addParam('allowfullscreen','true');so.addVariable('type', 'mp3');so.addVariable('autostart', 'true');so.addVariable('title', 'true');// so.addVariable('file', 'http://raisethefist2.dlinkddns.com:8030/listen.pls');// Icecast stream - Proton Radioso.addVariable('file', 'http://raisethefist2.dlinkddns.com:8030/;stream.nsv');so.write('player');
Share
Mark Twain coined the term "Gilded Age" to describe the era. His characterization is based on the concept of "Gilding the Lilly." The lilly, is naturally beautiful, it needs no further embellishment.
Attempting to "Gild the Lilly", or add a gold covering to it, to enhance its beauty is superfluous and unnecessary. Thus, Twain's description refers to the unabashed desire of the wealthy of this era to broadcast their status through their status through extravagant opulence
The era known as the Gilded Age (1870s to 1890s) was a time of vigorous, exploitative individualism. These nouveau riche families broadcast their new status through conspicuous consumption. This was particularly true in New York City where families such as the Astors, the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers built extravagant homes in Manhattan and luxurious vacation residences on Long Island and New Port, Rhode Island.
A new "Gilded Age" has happen in Mitt Romney. In the popular view, the late nineteenth century was a period of greed and guile: of rapacious Robber Barons, unscrupulous speculators, and corporate buccaneers, of shady business practices, scandal-plagued politics, and vulgar display. Unfettered capitalism is another way of saying greed! Still in fact what seems like a new reality is really an old American tradition; a tradition of unlimited corporate money in campaigns that dates back more than 100 years to what came to be called the Gilded Age. So, remembering the old admonition that those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Thursday, June 07, 2012
More courage
rsn
More courage
by Ted Rudow III
Wednesday, 06 June 2012
More courage
by Ted Rudow III, MA
Wednesday Jun 6th, 2012
It may well be more difficult for Israelis to comprehend the idea of Palestinian non-violence than for Palestinians to do so. For many Israelis, the very thought of non-violent Palestinian protest goes so far against the grain as to be incomprehensible, lethally suspicious, a violation of a bedrock narrative.
In many cases, Israeli media have actively ignored or obscured non-violent Palestinian protest. At a time when use of overwhelming force has cost Israel dearly in its world standing, what will it take for Israelis to re-think the idea that what they have can be maintained only by force, a new kind of leader.
Employing non-violent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for non-violence, civil rights and freedom across the world. But Gandhi comes along, and he says, "I think nonviolence takes more courage than violence." But Gandhi says, "Nonviolence means you’re supposed to march into the line of fire" — That’s what nonviolence means for Gandhi.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Last Updated on Wednesday, 06 June 2012
More courage
by Ted Rudow III
Wednesday, 06 June 2012
More courage
by Ted Rudow III, MA
Wednesday Jun 6th, 2012
It may well be more difficult for Israelis to comprehend the idea of Palestinian non-violence than for Palestinians to do so. For many Israelis, the very thought of non-violent Palestinian protest goes so far against the grain as to be incomprehensible, lethally suspicious, a violation of a bedrock narrative.
In many cases, Israeli media have actively ignored or obscured non-violent Palestinian protest. At a time when use of overwhelming force has cost Israel dearly in its world standing, what will it take for Israelis to re-think the idea that what they have can be maintained only by force, a new kind of leader.
Employing non-violent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for non-violence, civil rights and freedom across the world. But Gandhi comes along, and he says, "I think nonviolence takes more courage than violence." But Gandhi says, "Nonviolence means you’re supposed to march into the line of fire" — That’s what nonviolence means for Gandhi.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Last Updated on Wednesday, 06 June 2012
Wednesday, June 06, 2012
More courage
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/06/18714874.php
More courage
by Ted Rudow III, MA
Wednesday Jun 6th, 2012
It may well be more difficult for Israelis to comprehend the idea of Palestinian non-violence than for Palestinians to do so. For many Israelis, the very thought of non-violent Palestinian protest goes so far against the grain as to be incomprehensible, lethally suspicious, a violation of a bedrock narrative.
In many cases, Israeli media have actively ignored or obscured non-violent Palestinian protest. At a time when use of overwhelming force has cost Israel dearly in its world standing, what will it take for Israelis to re-think the idea that what they have can be maintained only by force, a new kind of leader.
Employing non-violent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for non-violence, civil rights and freedom across the world. But Gandhi comes along, and he says, "I think nonviolence takes more courage than violence." But Gandhi says, "Nonviolence means you’re supposed to march into the line of fire" — That’s what nonviolence means for Gandhi.
Ted Rudow III, MA
More courage
by Ted Rudow III, MA
Wednesday Jun 6th, 2012
It may well be more difficult for Israelis to comprehend the idea of Palestinian non-violence than for Palestinians to do so. For many Israelis, the very thought of non-violent Palestinian protest goes so far against the grain as to be incomprehensible, lethally suspicious, a violation of a bedrock narrative.
In many cases, Israeli media have actively ignored or obscured non-violent Palestinian protest. At a time when use of overwhelming force has cost Israel dearly in its world standing, what will it take for Israelis to re-think the idea that what they have can be maintained only by force, a new kind of leader.
Employing non-violent civil disobedience, Gandhi led India to independence and inspired movements for non-violence, civil rights and freedom across the world. But Gandhi comes along, and he says, "I think nonviolence takes more courage than violence." But Gandhi says, "Nonviolence means you’re supposed to march into the line of fire" — That’s what nonviolence means for Gandhi.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Monday, June 04, 2012
Repeat it
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/04/18714733.php
Repeat it
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Monday Jun 4th, 2012
Mark Twain coined the term "Gilded Age" to describe the era. His characterization is based on the concept of "Gilding the Lilly." The lilly, is naturally beautiful, it needs no further embellishment.
Attempting to "Gild the Lilly", or add a gold covering to it, to enhance its beauty is superfluous and unnecessary. Thus, Twain's description refers to the unabashed desire of the wealthy of this era to broadcast their status through their status through extravagant opulence
The era known as the Gilded Age (1870s to 1890s) was a time of vigorous, exploitative individualism. These nouveau riche families broadcast their new status through conspicuous consumption. This was particularly true in New York City where families such as the Astors, the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers built extravagant homes in Manhattan and luxurious vacation residences on Long Island and New Port, Rhode Island.
A new "Gilded Age" has happen in Mitt Romney. In the popular view, the late nineteenth century was a period of greed and guile: of rapacious Robber Barons, unscrupulous speculators, and corporate buccaneers, of shady business practices, scandal-plagued politics, and vulgar display. Unfettered capitalism is another way of saying greed! Still in fact what seems like a new reality is really an old American tradition; a tradition of unlimited corporate money in campaigns that dates back more than 100 years to what came to be called the Gilded Age. So, remembering the old admonition that those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Ted Rudow III,MA
Repeat it
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Monday Jun 4th, 2012
Mark Twain coined the term "Gilded Age" to describe the era. His characterization is based on the concept of "Gilding the Lilly." The lilly, is naturally beautiful, it needs no further embellishment.
Attempting to "Gild the Lilly", or add a gold covering to it, to enhance its beauty is superfluous and unnecessary. Thus, Twain's description refers to the unabashed desire of the wealthy of this era to broadcast their status through their status through extravagant opulence
The era known as the Gilded Age (1870s to 1890s) was a time of vigorous, exploitative individualism. These nouveau riche families broadcast their new status through conspicuous consumption. This was particularly true in New York City where families such as the Astors, the Vanderbilts and the Rockefellers built extravagant homes in Manhattan and luxurious vacation residences on Long Island and New Port, Rhode Island.
A new "Gilded Age" has happen in Mitt Romney. In the popular view, the late nineteenth century was a period of greed and guile: of rapacious Robber Barons, unscrupulous speculators, and corporate buccaneers, of shady business practices, scandal-plagued politics, and vulgar display. Unfettered capitalism is another way of saying greed! Still in fact what seems like a new reality is really an old American tradition; a tradition of unlimited corporate money in campaigns that dates back more than 100 years to what came to be called the Gilded Age. So, remembering the old admonition that those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it.
Ted Rudow III,MA
Friday, June 01, 2012
Civil war
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/06/01/18714512.php
Civil War
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Friday Jun 1st, 2012
Panama used to be a part of Colombia, but because the U.S. wanted to build a canal down there, they backed a rebel leader who led a revolt against Colombia and then declared himself a new government, the government of Panama
The U.S. went in there and backed him so they could grab off this piece of land that they needed to build their canal. That's the beginning of that history, and Colombia still disputes that Panama was ever a different government. But the U.S. backed it and helped this guy to grab it!
Colombia, one of the closest U.S. allies in Latin America, has been ravaged for decades by a civil war pitting left-wing guerrilla groups against right-wing paramilitary organizations. In fact, Colombia is the largest cocaine producer on planet earth, and half of the heroin picked up on U.S. streets is said to originate in Colombia. The two predominant rebel groups--the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (known by its Spanish acronym, FARC) and the National Liberation Army (ELN)--are included on the U.S. State Department's list of foreign terrorist organizations. Under Colombian President Alvaro Uribe, who took office in 2002 and has been boosted by large inflows of U.S. funding, both groups have been depleted in numbers and resources. Yet peace talks between each group and the government remain dogged by difficulties. Allegations in March 2008 and August 2009 by the Colombian government that the FARC is receiving support from the Venezuelan government have further complicated prospects for peace.
.
In other words, the U.S. grabbed Panama in the beginning, that's the history of it, so they could be sure that they were going to control that neck of land through which they built the Panama Canal. I can remember when I was much younger that Guatemala voted in a Communist president. The U.S. immediately sent in the Marines and ousted him! They've invaded Mexico, Guatemala, Honduras, Grenada, the Dominican Republic and Cuba, not to mention Puerto Rico. Nearly every Central American state has been invaded at some time by the Americans. And if they didn't invade them, they put sanctions on'm and did all kinds of other things to them!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Fighting?
Palo Alto Weekly
Sign up for Express
New from Palo Alto Online, Express is a daily e-edition, distributed by e-mail every weekday.
Sign up to receive Express!
Home
News
Palo Alto Weekly
The Almanac
Mountain View Voice
Fogster Classifieds
Town Square Forums
Sports
TownSquare Forum
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
Fighting?
Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ted Rudow III, MA, a member of the Palo Alto High School community
I bet you could ask almost any American today why the U.S. was fighting in Vietnam and they couldn't give you a good reason. You know the reasons that Johnson and Kennedy gave?--"We're fighting for freedom for the Vietnamese. We're fighting to protect free South Vietnam Well, whether they wanted to be or not they wound up not being free, the U.S. lost the war and North Vietnam took over!
Really now, how many Americans really cared about the Vietnamese being free or not? How many American boys would have been happy to go over there and give their lives to free the Vietnamese? How many had such idealistic ideals? They don't know what they fought the Korean war for either, which they lost. They also don't know why they fought the Grenadian war or why they fought the Panamanian war. They don't know what they fought these wars for.--And they know just as little about why they're now going to be made to fight and die. I don't even think most of them would be willing to go there and die for the oil.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)