Friday, July 06, 2012
Fourth of July
Friday, July 06, 2012
Stay Connected Socialize
The Stanford Daily
Home
NEWS
Academics
Crime & Safety
Environment
Health
Local
Money
Research
Speakers & Events
Student Government
Student Life
University
World & Nation
SPORTS
Baseball
Cross Country
Fencing
Daily Fellows
Interest Form
Subscribe
Print Subscriptions
Job Board
Classifieds
ASSU Election
Independence Day, Stanford and the military
By Miles Unterreiner
Yesterday marked the 236th year of this nation’s independence, a day celebrated, in true American style, by loud explosions and cheap beer. But another milestone went by this spring, less widely remarked but of great importance to this campus: it has been a little more than one year since the Faculty Senate voted to allow the return of ROTC, or Reserve Officer Training Corps, to Stanford for the first time since 1970.
One year later, we have made little progress toward recognizing and appreciating the students on this campus–all too few–who have chosen to serve their country by enlisting in the armed forces. We owe them better than that.
Zero. Seven. Zero. Four. The month and day we loudly celebrate this country’s freedom every year. But also, in that order: the number of buildings on this campus dedicated to military veterans or military personnel; the recent number of undergraduate campus veterans, out of a student body of some 6,600; the number of ROTC classes cadets can currently take at Stanford; and the number of tours in Iraq and Afghanistan one particularly eloquent veteran told me about, in harrowing detail.
Instead of recognizing the unique contribution members of the military make to our community, we have long exiled their programs and training from campus and fought a bitter battle to keep them out. Instead of giving them a community and dedicated space, we have picketed their 7 a.m. morning workouts with denunciations of imperialism.
There are very good reasons to oppose military action abroad. This is not the time for me to list them. But soldiers volunteer to protect and defend their country; they don’t get to decide when or where.
I don’t know everything about the growing disconnect between citizen and soldier. But in my spring quarter class on global justice two years ago, it was a military veteran who spoke most perceptively and most thoughtfully about the ethics of war and humanitarian intervention. And I do know that in my history class on the background of current global problems, it was an ROTC cadet who delivered a presentation on crucial military aspects of the U.S.-China diplomatic relationship that the rest of us knew nothing about.
I do know that this year, Sergeant Chris Clark wrote one of the best op-eds I have ever read, about his experience on a dirt road somewhere in Iraq. I do know that our Stanford military personnel are people I would be proud to see leading my country, in war or in peace. I do know that I cannot truly know the sacrifice it takes to leave one’s family and board a plane, never knowing if you’ll see them again.
So let’s argue about the ethics of humanitarian intervention. Let’s oppose American global imperialism. Let’s take as many steps as possible toward the world peace we all seek.
But let’s also remember, recognize and appreciate the men and women on this campus who continue to ensure that we can celebrate the Fourth of July–and the liberties and freedoms it represents to us all–next year, and the year after that, and after that. We owe our fellow students no less.
Showing 1 comments
Ted Rudow III
To equate the Fourth of July with Christianity is absurd! I do not like the spreading of American-style democracy at the hands of the bloodthirsty and warlike Americans themselves. This does not lead to more Christianity, but to a nation drifting further.
Has America brought more Christianity and Christian values to Iraq or Afghanistan, or other nations it has attacked in one way or another in recent years? No, the opposite is true. America cannot impose righteousness on others. That is a personal affair, not something that can be imposed in a national crusade.
Materialism, "the devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values," is virtually synonymous with capitalism, the profit-driven system that dominates the economies and nations of today.
Ted Rudow III
Wednesday, July 04, 2012
To equate the Fourth of July
Bohemian
SF Station
MetroActive
Boulevards
Santa Cruz Weekly
Bohemian
Letters to the Editor: June 27, 2012
To equate the Fourth of July with Christianity is absurd! I do not like the spreading of American-style democracy at the hands of the bloodthirsty and warlike Americans themselves. This does not lead to more Christianity, but to a nation drifting further.
Has America brought more Christianity and Christian values to Iraq or Afghanistan, or other nations it has attacked in one way or another in recent years? No, the opposite is true. America cannot impose righteousness on others. That is a personal affair, not something that can be imposed in a national crusade.
Materialism, "the devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values," is virtually synonymous with capitalism, the profit-driven system that dominates the economies and nations of today.
Ted Rudow III
Monday, July 02, 2012
Warlike
rsn
Warlike
by Ted Rudow III
Sunday, 01 July 2012
To equate the Fourth of July with Christianity is absurd! I do not like the spreading of American-style democracy at the hands of the bloodthirsty and warlike Americans themselves. This does not lead to more Christianity, but to a nation drifting further.
Has America brought more Christianity and Christian values to Iraq or Afghanistan, or other nations it has attacked in one way or another in recent years? No, the opposite is true. America cannot impose righteousness on others. That is a personal affair, not something that can be imposed in a national crusade.
Materialism, "the devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values," is virtually synonymous with capitalism, the profit-driven system that dominates the economies and nations of today.
TED RUDOW III, MA
Warlike
by Ted Rudow III
Sunday, 01 July 2012
To equate the Fourth of July with Christianity is absurd! I do not like the spreading of American-style democracy at the hands of the bloodthirsty and warlike Americans themselves. This does not lead to more Christianity, but to a nation drifting further.
Has America brought more Christianity and Christian values to Iraq or Afghanistan, or other nations it has attacked in one way or another in recent years? No, the opposite is true. America cannot impose righteousness on others. That is a personal affair, not something that can be imposed in a national crusade.
Materialism, "the devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values," is virtually synonymous with capitalism, the profit-driven system that dominates the economies and nations of today.
TED RUDOW III, MA
Sunday, July 01, 2012
Warlike
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/07/01/18716691.php
Fourth of July
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Sunday Jul 1st, 2012
To equate the Fourth of July with Christianity is absurd! I do not like the spreading of American-style democracy at the hands of the bloodthirsty and warlike Americans themselves. This does not lead to more Christianity, but to a nation drifting further.
Has America brought more Christianity and Christian values to Iraq or Afghanistan, or other nations it has attacked in one way or another in recent years? No, the opposite is true. America cannot impose righteousness on others. That is a personal affair, not something that can be imposed in a national crusade.
Materialism, "the devotion to material wealth and possessions at the expense of spiritual or intellectual values," is virtually synonymous with capitalism, the profit-driven system that dominates the economies and nations of today.
TED RUDOW III, MA
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Dark policies of the past
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
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
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.
Thursday, May 31, 2012
Good reason?
Metro
SF Station
MetroActive
Boulevards
Santa Cruz Weekly
Bohemian
Ted Rudow III /
North Bay 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
Letters to the Editor
Community Events
Columns Archives
May 30, 2012 Columns & Blogs » Letters to the Edit
Letters to the Editor: May 30, 2012
Add to favorites Saving…
Comments (1)
Write to us at letters@bohemian.com.
Letters to the Editor archives »
Showing 1-1 of 1
Add a comment
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.
Ted Rudow III
Posted by Ted Rudow III on 05/31/2012 at 9:38 AM
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Fighting
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/05/30/18714389.php
Fighting
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77@aol,com )
Wednesday May 30th, 2012
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?
Ted Rudow III, MA
Fighting
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77@aol,com )
Wednesday May 30th, 2012
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?
Ted Rudow III, MA
Monday, May 28, 2012
Defense?
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/05/28/18714269.php
Defense?
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Monday May 28th, 2012
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Sunday that it would be "disastrous" for Congress to allow cuts in defense spending as scheduled in January. If the U.S would cancel all of its military spending, they'd eliminate the deficit in no time at all! The deficit is going to destroy the U.S. But the Americans don't want to reduce weapons, because they know that will also wreck the American economy.
Defense spending is the biggest part of the American budget, about 631 billions Dollars a year.--That means the salaries of hundreds of thousands of Americans. So they don't really want peace, because it would bring economic collapse.
The Americans want war because it is more profitable, it's better for the economy! They can't stand peace, they've got to have war, or the threat of it, to survive! It would destroy all their excuses for spending so much on arms and the military and defense because there would no longer be any reason for it. They know that this huge expenditure on war and "defense" and the military and arms is what's literally keeping their economy going. And if they stop producing weapons, they're going to fall flat on their face!
They've got to keep spending these hundreds of billions on the military, just to keep the economy going. But if the people don't fear an enemy, because peace has been made, they're going to ask, "Why do we have to spend all of this money on defense?" They've got to keep up the propaganda of the threat in order to keep the military and defense industry going.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Defense?
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Monday May 28th, 2012
Defense Secretary Leon Panetta warned Sunday that it would be "disastrous" for Congress to allow cuts in defense spending as scheduled in January. If the U.S would cancel all of its military spending, they'd eliminate the deficit in no time at all! The deficit is going to destroy the U.S. But the Americans don't want to reduce weapons, because they know that will also wreck the American economy.
Defense spending is the biggest part of the American budget, about 631 billions Dollars a year.--That means the salaries of hundreds of thousands of Americans. So they don't really want peace, because it would bring economic collapse.
The Americans want war because it is more profitable, it's better for the economy! They can't stand peace, they've got to have war, or the threat of it, to survive! It would destroy all their excuses for spending so much on arms and the military and defense because there would no longer be any reason for it. They know that this huge expenditure on war and "defense" and the military and arms is what's literally keeping their economy going. And if they stop producing weapons, they're going to fall flat on their face!
They've got to keep spending these hundreds of billions on the military, just to keep the economy going. But if the people don't fear an enemy, because peace has been made, they're going to ask, "Why do we have to spend all of this money on defense?" They've got to keep up the propaganda of the threat in order to keep the military and defense industry going.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Saturday, May 26, 2012
Bottom half
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 comment
FEATURE THIS Bottom half : Indybay
by indybay.org Thu May 24 11:20:41 PDT 2012
Peter Edelman, member of President Bill Clinton's administration, until he resigned in protest after Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform legislationour economy has been very unkind to the entire bottom half of our people over the last 40 years.
We have terrific public policy in place, although it's threatened now by Paul Ryan, as you just showed.
The fact that people in the bottom half have been absolutely stuck, that the wages for people at the bottom have not have grown only 7 percent over that 40-year period. So we're fighting uphill with the public policies that we have. But 20 million people now and these are census numbers live in deep poverty, extreme poverty, incomes below half the poverty line. That's below $9,000 for a family of three.
We have six million people in this country whose only income is food stamps. That's an income at a third of the poverty line. In the state of Wyoming, there are 644 people in the whole state, 4 percent of the state's poor children. For are not many nations of the world driven by the same power? Are not many world leaders driven by the same corruption, the same lust, the same greed? Is this not the powerful force which motivates and guides them? For her hypocrisy, greed, selfishness and lust are exposed. The world clearly that she cares not for the hearts and lives of the innocent, but only looks to greed and lust as her god.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Friday, May 25, 2012
Bottom half
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
TownSquare Forum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST A NEW TOPIC GO TO MESSAGE BOARD VIEW RETURN TO HOME PAGE
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
Bottom half
Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ted Rudow III, MA, a member of the Palo Alto High School community
Bottom half
Peter Edelman, member of President Bill Clinton’s administration, until he resigned in protest after Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform legislationour economy has been very unkind to the entire bottom half of our people over the last 40 years.
We have terrific public policy in place, although it’s threatened now by Paul Ryan.
The fact that people in the bottom half have been absolutely stuck, that the wages for people at the bottom have not—have grown only 7 percent over that 40-year period. So we’re fighting uphill with the public policies that we have. But 20 million people now—and these are census numbers—live in deep poverty, extreme poverty, incomes below half the poverty line. That’s below $9,000 for a family of three.
We have six million people in this country whose only income is food stamps. That’s an income at a third of the poverty line. In the state of Wyoming, there are 644 people in the whole state, 4 percent of the state’s poor children. For are not many nations of the world driven by the same power? Are not many world leaders driven by the same corruption, the same lust, the same greed? Is this not the powerful force which motivates and guides them? For her hypocrisy, greed, selfishness and lust are exposed. The world clearly that she cares not for the hearts and lives of the innocent, but only looks to greed and lust as her god.
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
TownSquare Forum
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
POST A NEW TOPIC GO TO MESSAGE BOARD VIEW RETURN TO HOME PAGE
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
Bottom half
Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ted Rudow III, MA, a member of the Palo Alto High School community
Bottom half
Peter Edelman, member of President Bill Clinton’s administration, until he resigned in protest after Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform legislationour economy has been very unkind to the entire bottom half of our people over the last 40 years.
We have terrific public policy in place, although it’s threatened now by Paul Ryan.
The fact that people in the bottom half have been absolutely stuck, that the wages for people at the bottom have not—have grown only 7 percent over that 40-year period. So we’re fighting uphill with the public policies that we have. But 20 million people now—and these are census numbers—live in deep poverty, extreme poverty, incomes below half the poverty line. That’s below $9,000 for a family of three.
We have six million people in this country whose only income is food stamps. That’s an income at a third of the poverty line. In the state of Wyoming, there are 644 people in the whole state, 4 percent of the state’s poor children. For are not many nations of the world driven by the same power? Are not many world leaders driven by the same corruption, the same lust, the same greed? Is this not the powerful force which motivates and guides them? For her hypocrisy, greed, selfishness and lust are exposed. The world clearly that she cares not for the hearts and lives of the innocent, but only looks to greed and lust as her god.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Thursday, May 24, 2012
Bottom Half
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/05/24/18714056.php
Bottom half
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Thursday May 24th, 2012
Peter Edelman, member of President Bill Clinton’s administration, until he resigned in protest after Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform legislationour economy has been very unkind to the entire bottom half of our people over the last 40 years.
We have terrific public policy in place, although it’s threatened now by Paul Ryan, as you just showed.
The fact that people in the bottom half have been absolutely stuck, that the wages for people at the bottom have not—have grown only 7 percent over that 40-year period. So we’re fighting uphill with the public policies that we have. But 20 million people now—and these are census numbers—live in deep poverty, extreme poverty, incomes below half the poverty line. That’s below $9,000 for a family of three.
We have six million people in this country whose only income is food stamps. That’s an income at a third of the poverty line. In the state of Wyoming, there are 644 people in the whole state, 4 percent of the state’s poor children. For are not many nations of the world driven by the same power? Are not many world leaders driven by the same corruption, the same lust, the same greed? Is this not the powerful force which motivates and guides them? For her hypocrisy, greed, selfishness and lust are exposed. The world clearly that she cares not for the hearts and lives of the innocent, but only looks to greed and lust as her god.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Bottom half
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Thursday May 24th, 2012
Peter Edelman, member of President Bill Clinton’s administration, until he resigned in protest after Clinton signed the 1996 welfare reform legislationour economy has been very unkind to the entire bottom half of our people over the last 40 years.
We have terrific public policy in place, although it’s threatened now by Paul Ryan, as you just showed.
The fact that people in the bottom half have been absolutely stuck, that the wages for people at the bottom have not—have grown only 7 percent over that 40-year period. So we’re fighting uphill with the public policies that we have. But 20 million people now—and these are census numbers—live in deep poverty, extreme poverty, incomes below half the poverty line. That’s below $9,000 for a family of three.
We have six million people in this country whose only income is food stamps. That’s an income at a third of the poverty line. In the state of Wyoming, there are 644 people in the whole state, 4 percent of the state’s poor children. For are not many nations of the world driven by the same power? Are not many world leaders driven by the same corruption, the same lust, the same greed? Is this not the powerful force which motivates and guides them? For her hypocrisy, greed, selfishness and lust are exposed. The world clearly that she cares not for the hearts and lives of the innocent, but only looks to greed and lust as her god.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Wobblies
In 1905 representatives of 43 groups who opposed the policies of American Federation of Labour, formed the radical labour organisation, the Industrial Workers of the World (IWW). The IWW's goal was to promote worker solidarity in the revolutionary struggle to overthrow the employing class. Its motto was "an injury to one is an injury to all". Many unions refused to accept immigrant workers. This was especially a problem for Jewish and Irish immigrants. This was not true of the Industrial Workers of the World and as a result many of its members were first and second generation immigrants. Several immigrants such as Mary 'Mother' Jones, Hubert Harrison, Carlo Tresca, Arturo Giovannitti and Joe Haaglund Hill became leaders of the organization.
The Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies) was a radical syndicalist labor union. Composed primarily of unemployed and homeless workers, including dissatisfied elements from the lumber industry, Their voices for social and economic justice. Tom Morello is the Harvard-educated guitarist who dabbled in politics, then chose rock music to make a difference.
Two things that inspire me about the Wobblies is it was a singing union, first of all. And they realized that, in order to organize diverse groups of immigrants who often didn't speak the same language, they would do it through song. And their solidarity came through music.And Joe Hill, the great poet laureate of the early 20th century, you know, said, "You--" I'm paraphrasing. But--"A pamphlet you'll read once. But a song you can sing again and again and stays in your heart."
Ted Rudow III,MA
The Industrial Workers of the World (Wobblies) was a radical syndicalist labor union. Composed primarily of unemployed and homeless workers, including dissatisfied elements from the lumber industry, Their voices for social and economic justice. Tom Morello is the Harvard-educated guitarist who dabbled in politics, then chose rock music to make a difference.
Two things that inspire me about the Wobblies is it was a singing union, first of all. And they realized that, in order to organize diverse groups of immigrants who often didn't speak the same language, they would do it through song. And their solidarity came through music.And Joe Hill, the great poet laureate of the early 20th century, you know, said, "You--" I'm paraphrasing. But--"A pamphlet you'll read once. But a song you can sing again and again and stays in your heart."
Ted Rudow III,MA
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Too big fail
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/05/16/18713566.php
Too big fail
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Wednesday May 16th, 2012
JPMorgan’s latest woes stem from the flaws endemic to "too big fail." "Allowing [banks] to be this big, even conservative economists call this crony capitalism-
the only way this can work is to shrink the systemically dangerous institutions — this is the 20 largest banks in the United States — down to the point that they no longer pose a systemic risk, they are no longer too big to fail, and therefore, they will no longer have this implicit federal subsidy that completely distorts competition". William Black
They had about $15 billion in distressed European debt. Europe has been in just a ton of trouble. A hedge is something where you invest in a second asset that is supposed to offset losses that you suffer in the first asset. In this case, the first asset was that distressed European debt, and the second asset, the supposed hedge, was a derivative of a derivative. In this case, it was an index of credit default swaps, which are a form of derivative that blew up AIG.
JPMorgan is nobody was looking very carefully at the supposed hedge, and the hedge didn’t perform to offset losses, instead it increased the losses and increased the losses dramatically. And supposedly, no one was looking, and no one adjusted for this. And they woke up, and they had a $2 billion loss. So this is hedginess: not really a hedge, but you call it a hedge to evade the law. This also destroys democracy, because these giant institutions have so much political power.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Too big fail
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Wednesday May 16th, 2012
JPMorgan’s latest woes stem from the flaws endemic to "too big fail." "Allowing [banks] to be this big, even conservative economists call this crony capitalism-
the only way this can work is to shrink the systemically dangerous institutions — this is the 20 largest banks in the United States — down to the point that they no longer pose a systemic risk, they are no longer too big to fail, and therefore, they will no longer have this implicit federal subsidy that completely distorts competition". William Black
They had about $15 billion in distressed European debt. Europe has been in just a ton of trouble. A hedge is something where you invest in a second asset that is supposed to offset losses that you suffer in the first asset. In this case, the first asset was that distressed European debt, and the second asset, the supposed hedge, was a derivative of a derivative. In this case, it was an index of credit default swaps, which are a form of derivative that blew up AIG.
JPMorgan is nobody was looking very carefully at the supposed hedge, and the hedge didn’t perform to offset losses, instead it increased the losses and increased the losses dramatically. And supposedly, no one was looking, and no one adjusted for this. And they woke up, and they had a $2 billion loss. So this is hedginess: not really a hedge, but you call it a hedge to evade the law. This also destroys democracy, because these giant institutions have so much political power.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Tuesday, May 15, 2012
Narco-industrial complex
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
Peninsula readers' letters: May 15
From Daily News Group readers mercurynews.com
Posted: 05/14/2012 05:41:00 PM PDT
May 15, 2012 6:51 AM GMTUpdated: 05/14/2012 11:51:32 PM PDT
Narco-industrial complex
Dear Editor: Nearly five decades ago, in January 1961, President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address about the influence of what he famously called the "military-industrial complex." What we're witnessing now is something new. It's the emergence of a narco-industrial complex: a proliferation of U.S. companies lining up, with congressional support, to obtain public money for anti-drug campaigns overseas.
Foreign aid isn't exactly aid if it has to be spent on U.S. military equipment and weapons. They'd do better to feed and clothe the poor, and that would help to eliminate a lot of the need for such weapons.
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
Peninsula readers' letters: May 15
From Daily News Group readers mercurynews.com
Posted: 05/14/2012 05:41:00 PM PDT
May 15, 2012 6:51 AM GMTUpdated: 05/14/2012 11:51:32 PM PDT
Narco-industrial complex
Dear Editor: Nearly five decades ago, in January 1961, President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address about the influence of what he famously called the "military-industrial complex." What we're witnessing now is something new. It's the emergence of a narco-industrial complex: a proliferation of U.S. companies lining up, with congressional support, to obtain public money for anti-drug campaigns overseas.
Foreign aid isn't exactly aid if it has to be spent on U.S. military equipment and weapons. They'd do better to feed and clothe the poor, and that would help to eliminate a lot of the need for such weapons.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
Sunday, May 13, 2012
Narco
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/05/13/18713417.php
Narco
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Sunday May 13th, 2012
Nearly five decades ago, in January 1961, President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address about the influence of what he famously called the "military-industrial complex."
What we're witnessing now is something new. It's the emergence of a narco-industrial complex: a proliferation of U.S. companies lining up, with congressional support, to obtain public money for anti-drug campaigns overseas.
Foreign aid isn't exactly aid if it has to be spent on U.S. military equipment and weapons. They'd do better to feed and clothe the poor, and that would help to eliminate a lot of the need for such weapons.
Ted Rudow III,MA
Narco
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Sunday May 13th, 2012
Nearly five decades ago, in January 1961, President Eisenhower warned in his farewell address about the influence of what he famously called the "military-industrial complex."
What we're witnessing now is something new. It's the emergence of a narco-industrial complex: a proliferation of U.S. companies lining up, with congressional support, to obtain public money for anti-drug campaigns overseas.
Foreign aid isn't exactly aid if it has to be spent on U.S. military equipment and weapons. They'd do better to feed and clothe the poor, and that would help to eliminate a lot of the need for such weapons.
Ted Rudow III,MA
Saturday, May 12, 2012
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 comment
FEATURE THIS (4 of 10 votes)
Crash course to bankruptcy again! : Indybay
by indybay.org Thu May 3 13:12:15 PDT 2012
In the great economic depression of the late 20's and 30's , they had no economic guarantees on wages.The auto business was one of the first places where people cut their spending, because it's a luxury to buy a new car. It was a vicious cycle, a downward spiral that just couldn't stop, and industry kept cutting prices to where people could afford to still buy. This was the deflation. Inflation at home mostly hurts the rich, but it mostly helps the poor, except for those who are on set incomes, like pensions.
That's why the rich are trying to bring about deflation. The very rich, however, profit from the deflation, because their dollars grow in value even though they're doing nothing with them. We're on a crash course to bankruptcy again, but they think they're going to patch it all up instead of curing the disease: which is that they're hanging onto their riches instead of putting them into circulation.
In the past, deflation and depression have frequently led to a vicious circle of nationalism, xenophobia, the disintegration of states, and even war which is happening today. It collapsed!--In total deflation! That's a deflation: It The Dollar, the green Dollar, the Green Pig, is literally inflating right now very rapidly. But I was thinking, well it's inflating, so of course it's going up! But the dollar is definitely inflating and it's got to eventually explode.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Friday, May 11, 2012
This Doesnt mean the US has won the war
community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center
Participate
Publish
make media
participate
subscribe
chat
About Contact Us Policies Mailing Lists Radio Video Publish! Calendar Search
This Doesnt mean the US has won the war
by Ted Rudow III, MA Thursday, May. 10, 2012 at 8:38 PM
This Doesnt mean the US has won the war
Killing Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein won't mean the U.S. has won, because terrorism will continue and probably grow worse than ever. In fact, there's not only no definite ending to the war on terrorism, there's no definite enemy! First Osama was the evildoer, then Saddam was, since he had all these "weapons of mass destruction" that seem to have become invisible. Maybe the Iranians will morph into the enemy next, or the Syrians, or the North Koreans. After all, there are vacancies on the "Axis of Evil" now that Iraq has been occupied.
"It's very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for," U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee said. We've got to remove our young men and women from harm's way, and we've got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world does not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national Regcure security.
Ted Rudow III ,MA
add your comments
© 2001-2009 Pittsburgh Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not endorsed by the Pittsburgh Independent Media Center.
Disclaimer
Privacy
PGHIMC - Pittsburgh Independent Media Center
Participate
Publish
make media
participate
subscribe
chat
About Contact Us Policies Mailing Lists Radio Video Publish! Calendar Search
This Doesnt mean the US has won the war
by Ted Rudow III, MA Thursday, May. 10, 2012 at 8:38 PM
This Doesnt mean the US has won the war
Killing Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein won't mean the U.S. has won, because terrorism will continue and probably grow worse than ever. In fact, there's not only no definite ending to the war on terrorism, there's no definite enemy! First Osama was the evildoer, then Saddam was, since he had all these "weapons of mass destruction" that seem to have become invisible. Maybe the Iranians will morph into the enemy next, or the Syrians, or the North Koreans. After all, there are vacancies on the "Axis of Evil" now that Iraq has been occupied.
"It's very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for," U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee said. We've got to remove our young men and women from harm's way, and we've got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world does not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national Regcure security.
Ted Rudow III ,MA
add your comments
© 2001-2009 Pittsburgh Independent Media Center. Unless otherwise stated by the author, all content is free for non-commercial reuse, reprint, and rebroadcast, on the net and elsewhere. Opinions are those of the contributors and are not endorsed by the Pittsburgh Independent Media Center.
Disclaimer
Privacy
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
Won't mean the U.S. has won
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/05/08/18713159.php
Won't mean the U.S. has won
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77@aolcom )
Tuesday May 8th, 2012
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement, and drew both praise and skepticism around the world. But critics called the Nobel committee's decision premature, given that Obama has achieved few tangible gains, as he still grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, and now the war on Libya. The raid has further strained ties between the United States and Pakistan. They are quick to highlight his recent successes against Osama bin Laden
Killing Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein won't mean the U.S. has won, because terrorism will continue and probably grow worse than ever. In fact, there's not only no definite ending to the war on terrorism, there's no definite enemy! First Osama was the evildoer, then Saddam was, since he had all these "weapons of mass destruction" that seem to have become invisible. Maybe the Iranians will morph into the enemy next, or the Syrians, or the North Koreans. After all, there are vacancies on the "Axis of Evil" now that Iraq has been occupied.
"It's very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for," U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee said. We've got to remove our young men and women from harm's way, and we've got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world does not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national security.
Ted Rudow III ,MA
Won't mean the U.S. has won
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77@aolcom )
Tuesday May 8th, 2012
Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize in a stunning decision that honored the first-year U.S. president more for promise than achievement, and drew both praise and skepticism around the world. But critics called the Nobel committee's decision premature, given that Obama has achieved few tangible gains, as he still grapples with challenges ranging from the war in Afghanistan and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to nuclear standoffs with Iran and North Korea, and now the war on Libya. The raid has further strained ties between the United States and Pakistan. They are quick to highlight his recent successes against Osama bin Laden
Killing Osama bin Laden or Saddam Hussein won't mean the U.S. has won, because terrorism will continue and probably grow worse than ever. In fact, there's not only no definite ending to the war on terrorism, there's no definite enemy! First Osama was the evildoer, then Saddam was, since he had all these "weapons of mass destruction" that seem to have become invisible. Maybe the Iranians will morph into the enemy next, or the Syrians, or the North Koreans. After all, there are vacancies on the "Axis of Evil" now that Iraq has been occupied.
"It's very important to use this defining moment, I think, to rally the American people and to remind the American people that we are spending trillions of dollars, billions every week, on this open-ended longest war in American history and that we have economic priorities, economic recovery, job creation priorities here in our own country that this money can be used for," U.S. Rep. Barbara Lee said. We've got to remove our young men and women from harm's way, and we've got to really make sure that our presence in countries throughout the world does not create more danger and more anger toward the United States, which, you know, diminishes our national security.
Ted Rudow III ,MA
Monday, May 07, 2012
Banned books
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/05/07/18713110.php
Banned books
by Ted Rudow III,MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Monday May 7th, 2012
A banned book is one that has been removed from the shelves of a library, bookstore, or classroom because of its controversial content. In some cases, banned books of the past have been burned and/or refused publication. Possession of banned books has at times been regarded as an act of treason or heresy, which was punishable by death, torture, prison time, or other acts of retribution. They have banned books today for less offenses along those lines than the Bible. They're just circling around and circling around like this, circling around and getting all the other books.
They got rid of Mexican-American studies in the state of Arizona. They put all of the books that they took away from the students, they boxed them and put them away. The catch-22 seems to be that anybody who's not from that ethnic studies world could teach it but that there would be disciplinary action as I understand it if anyone complains about those being taught. So in essence they've been, what I call a soft-banning. They're out of the picture.
Chicano, the History of the Mexican Civil Rights Movement, boxed. Critical Race Theory by Delgado and Stefancic, boxed. Five Hundred Years of Chicano History in Pictures, boxed. Message to Aztlan, boxed. Occupied America, boxed. Rethinking Columbus, the Next 500 Years, boxed. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire, boxed. And then Howard Zinn’s, A People's History of the United States? The Tempest- William Shakespeare's because it deals with race--It's anti-colonial.
1984 again!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Banned books
by Ted Rudow III,MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Monday May 7th, 2012
A banned book is one that has been removed from the shelves of a library, bookstore, or classroom because of its controversial content. In some cases, banned books of the past have been burned and/or refused publication. Possession of banned books has at times been regarded as an act of treason or heresy, which was punishable by death, torture, prison time, or other acts of retribution. They have banned books today for less offenses along those lines than the Bible. They're just circling around and circling around like this, circling around and getting all the other books.
They got rid of Mexican-American studies in the state of Arizona. They put all of the books that they took away from the students, they boxed them and put them away. The catch-22 seems to be that anybody who's not from that ethnic studies world could teach it but that there would be disciplinary action as I understand it if anyone complains about those being taught. So in essence they've been, what I call a soft-banning. They're out of the picture.
Chicano, the History of the Mexican Civil Rights Movement, boxed. Critical Race Theory by Delgado and Stefancic, boxed. Five Hundred Years of Chicano History in Pictures, boxed. Message to Aztlan, boxed. Occupied America, boxed. Rethinking Columbus, the Next 500 Years, boxed. Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Paulo Freire, boxed. And then Howard Zinn’s, A People's History of the United States? The Tempest- William Shakespeare's because it deals with race--It's anti-colonial.
1984 again!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Saturday, May 05, 2012
Crash course to bankruptcy again!
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 Us Follow Us
Home
News
Palo Alto Weekly
The Almanac
Mountain View Voice
TownSquare Forum
(Postings listed from most recent to oldest)
View in an RSS Reader
E-mail this topic.
Print this topic.
Crash course to bankruptcy again!
Issues Beyond Palo Alto, posted by Ted Rudow III, MA, a member of the Palo Alto High School community,
Crash course to bankruptcy again!
In the great economic depression of the late 20's and 30's , they had no economic guarantees on wages.The auto business was one of the first places where people cut their spending, because it's a luxury to buy a new car. It was a vicious cycle, a downward spiral that just couldn't stop, and industry kept cutting prices to where people could afford to still buy. This was the deflation. Inflation at home mostly hurts the rich, but it mostly helps the poor, except for those who are on set incomes, like pensions.
That's why the rich are trying to bring about deflation. The very rich, however, profit from the deflation, because their dollars grow in value even though they're doing nothing with them. We're on a crash course to bankruptcy again, but they think they're going to patch it all up instead of curing the disease: which is that they're hanging onto their riches instead of putting them into circulation.
In the past, deflation and depression have frequently led to a vicious circle of nationalism, xenophobia, the disintegration of states, and even war which is happening today. It collapsed!--In total deflation! That's a deflation: It the Dollar, the green Dollar, the Green Pig, is literally inflating right now very rapidly. But I was thinking, well it's inflating, so of course it's going up! But the dollar is definitely inflating and it's got to eventually explode.
Ted Rudow III, MA
The conservative religion
San Mateo Daily Journal
Home
Local News
State / National / World
Sports
Opinion / Letters
Business
Arts / Entertainment
Lifestyle
Obituaries
Calendar
Submit Event
Comics / Games
Classifieds
DJ Designers
Archives
Advertise With Us
About Us
The print edition in its entirety. Click here to see it.
Click here for locations of where to find Daily Journal news racks.
VISIT US ON FACEBOOK! Click here
Follow us on Twitter!
Letter: The conservative religion
March 06, 2012, 05:00 AM Letter
Editor,
When conservatives think they have won an argument by comparing liberals to communists, they are promoting a myth. Liberals don’t want to destroy capitalism. They just want all Americans to share its benefits. Sharing the wealth is evidently not a conservative belief. This country prospered when there was greater economic equality. There were more consumers for more products. What could be wrong with that?
I think it’s really ironic that conservative businessmen are profiting by selling Chinese communist-made goods to American consumers. Another irony: why do conservative politicians argue against supporting American auto manufacturers? Is it because foreign automotive companies have plants in their states? How patriotic is that? As Ted Rudow III mentioned in his letter “Taking responsibility” in the Feb. 18 edition of the Daily Journal, conservatism has become a religion which is based on a number of faith-based beliefs. To be truthful and logical, a conservative must face reality, which conflicts with their beliefs.
Raymond DeMattei
San Carlos
Thursday, May 03, 2012
Being back democracy!
Peninsula Peace and Justice Center
www.PeaceandJustice.org
RESIST CORPORATE RULE!
Tuesday, May 1, 7:00 PM
Community Media Center
900 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto [ Map]
A conversation with
Richard Hobbs, Mary Klein, Judy Young
Santa Clara County Move to Amend
How is it that corporations have been found by the Supreme Court to have the same rights as actual people? How is it that the Supreme Court has decided that money is equivalent to free speech? Most importantly, how do we reverse these disastrous decisions that have left our democracy in the hands of the highest corporate bidders, rather than we the people?
Move to Amend is a national effort to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to overturn these Supreme Court decisions. And it is a movement that is rapidly gaining steam around the country. Join us on May Day to learn more about the problem ... and the solution. As always, you are an important part of the conversation, so join us as a member of the studio audience and ...
Get in on the conversation! Get in on the activism! Being back democracy!
Tuesday, May 1, 7:00 PM
Community Media Center
900 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto
Free and open to all. Wheelchair accessible.
OTHER VOICES TV is PPJC's award-winning monthly public forum and TV program. The forum is broadcast live on cable TV channel 27 (Mid-Peninsula area) and on the Web at http://midpenmedia.org/watch/stream/ (select channel 27).
http://peaceandjustice.org/article.php?story=Move_To_Amend_Forum
625
Crash course to bankruptcy again
Crash course to bankruptcy again!
,In the great economic depression of the late 20's and 30's , they had no economic guarantees on wages.The auto business was one of the first places where people cut their spending, because it's a luxury to buy a new car. It was a vicious cycle, a downward spiral that just couldn't stop, and industry kept cutting prices to where people could afford to still buy. This was the deflation. Inflation at home mostly hurts the rich, but it mostly helps the poor, except for those who are on set incomes, like pensions.
That's why the rich are trying to bring about deflation. The very rich, however, profit from the deflation, because their dollars grow in value even though they're doing nothing with them. We're on a crash course to bankruptcy again, but they think they're going to patch it all up instead of curing the disease: which is that they're hanging onto their riches instead of putting them into circulation.
In the past, deflation and depression have frequently led to a vicious circle of nationalism, xenophobia, the disintegration of states, and even war which is happening today. It collapsed!--In total deflation! That's a deflation: It The Dollar, the green Dollar, the Green Pig, is literally inflating right now very rapidly. But I was thinking, well it's inflating, so of course it's going up! But the dollar is definitely inflating and it's got to eventually explode.
Ted Rudow III, MA
,In the great economic depression of the late 20's and 30's , they had no economic guarantees on wages.The auto business was one of the first places where people cut their spending, because it's a luxury to buy a new car. It was a vicious cycle, a downward spiral that just couldn't stop, and industry kept cutting prices to where people could afford to still buy. This was the deflation. Inflation at home mostly hurts the rich, but it mostly helps the poor, except for those who are on set incomes, like pensions.
That's why the rich are trying to bring about deflation. The very rich, however, profit from the deflation, because their dollars grow in value even though they're doing nothing with them. We're on a crash course to bankruptcy again, but they think they're going to patch it all up instead of curing the disease: which is that they're hanging onto their riches instead of putting them into circulation.
In the past, deflation and depression have frequently led to a vicious circle of nationalism, xenophobia, the disintegration of states, and even war which is happening today. It collapsed!--In total deflation! That's a deflation: It The Dollar, the green Dollar, the Green Pig, is literally inflating right now very rapidly. But I was thinking, well it's inflating, so of course it's going up! But the dollar is definitely inflating and it's got to eventually explode.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Spartan Daily
May 3, 2012 Spartan Daily Drug Poll
Fizzy Logic: Bring on the body positivity EX-NFL Player Junior Seau's Death Shocks Sports World
News Sports Opinion A&E Multimedia Tech Class Reports National World Campus San Jose Fizzy Logic: Bring on the body positivity for people everywhere
by Julie Tran
May 2, 2012 2:57 pm
Tags: body image, body positivity, Fizzy Logic, girls, Julie Tran, models, sexuality, Valeria Lukyanova, women
Julie Tran is a Spartan Daily staff writer. Her column "Fizzy Logic" appears every other Thursday.
Ladies and gents, it’s that one time that we’ve all been dreading ever since the weather started warming up — swimsuit season.
As a woman, I loathe the idea of swimsuit shopping because I feel I am exposing my flaws to the world, especially with hot supermodels prancing around in their skivvies.
Although I have a small frame, I get extremely self-conscious of my stomach, thighs and arms in a swimsuit because it’s not fit or toned like a celebrity’s body.
According to a recent news story from ABC News, a 21-year-old Ukrainian woman named Valeria Lukyanova who modified her appearance to look like a Barbie doll.
With her voluptuous chest, tiny waist and full lips, Lukyanova’s body looks as plastic as the infamous dolls lining toy shelves across the nation — but why did she do it?
Sure, it could just be a horrible Photoshop botch but the image holds a more subliminal message to women everywhere.
On a daily basis, there are advertisements on television that tell women to become skinnier, prettier or to buy a certain product to feel better about their appearance.
In a 2009 statistic from the University of Washington, 40 percent of girls ages nine to 10 years old tried to lose weight and by age 13, 53 percent of girls feel dissatisfied with their bodies.
It also doesn’t help that 56 percent of commercials targeted at women use beauty as a tool to persuade them to buy a product as oppose to three percent of these commercials targeted at men, according to a Kaiser Foundation study.
With this type of subliminal messaging presented in both broadcast and print media, people may succumb to low self-esteem and eating disorders such as anorexia, bulimia or binge eating.
In a journal article from Academic Psychiatry, eating disorders are on the rise due to the media's portrayal of beauty with younger girls and even men are being admitted to treatment facilities for these issues.
Words such as “fat” or “chubby” are thrown around as insults to people in a degrading manner, which forms self-loathing within the individual.
From personal experience, I have heard several nasty comments from my older relatives about how people deemed as “fat” aren’t even human.
During Thanksgiving a few years ago, my family didn’t dine on the traditional American fare such as mashed potatoes, roast turkey or pumpkin pie in fear of getting big like the majority of the American population.
While eating baked fish with salad and rice noodles, one of my aunts exclaimed, “I’m so glad the Vietnamese diet is so much better than the American diet! If any of our family members were fat, I would totally disown them!”
On another occasion, my mother had watched an episode of Travel Channel’s “Man v.s. Food” and she felt disgusted upon looking at the host.
“Why does he always have to eat so much?” my mom asked. “I’m surprised that he’s not dead yet because he is so fat.”
I’ve been made fun of from my family members about eating a bit too much during family reunions or ostracized for not exercising as much as I used to. It kind of hurts, not going to lie.
On the other end, some of my peers gripe about me for being too thin and it feels as if I can never satisfy anyone.
Why the constant criticism about a person’s body size? A person should be judged based on the individual’s character rather than the number on the clothing tag.
So if anyone ever makes you feel ostracized for your body shape, forget them and strut your style for the world to see.
+1 Vote up Vote down Ted Rudow III, MA · 1 minute ago
MOST OF ALL SEEK THAT INDEFINABLE THING CALLED PERSONALITY, that sparkle, that thing we used to call "it" back in the '20s.--Seek not only the vivaciousness of the flesh, but the liveliness of the spirit, the fascination of the mind, the irresistibility of her heart and its genuine unselfish love, and the greatness, and magnanimity of her soul, that spiritual part of her--her whole composite personality make up--which, in turn, can only be satisfied by the spiritual in you, and the absorbing interest of your mind, and the warmness of your heart, and the thrill of your soul! The things of this earth can satisfy your body, but God has made you so that your soul or heart or spirit can only be satisfied by the things which are spiritual and the things of the spirit.
Ted Rudow III,MA
Class of 1996
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)