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
Tuesday, May 08, 2012
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
Monday, April 30, 2012
Spartan Daily
last update 9:06 pm
April 29, 2012
SJSU to join Mountain West Conference
Wes Side Stories: Osama Bin Laden, one year later
Spartan "Run, Walk and Roll" sprints toward a healthy community
News
Sports
Opinion
A&E
Multimedia
Tech
Class Reports
National
World
Campus
San Jose
Wes Side Stories: Thoughts on the coming storm of election season
by Wesley Dugle Apr 22, 2012 4:49 pm Tags: 2012 election, Bill Mahr, Bill Oreilly, Brack obama, election season, elections, Keith Olberman, media, Megyn Kelly, Mitt Romney, Political discourse, politics, President, presidentcy, Wes Side Stories, Wesley Dugle
Wesley Dugle is the Spartan Daily Opinion Editor. His column "Wes Side Stories" appears each Monday.
To slightly paraphrase Ned Stark from “Game of Thrones” — “Brace yourselves, election season is coming.”
Yes, with pro-life senator Rick Santorum effectively “aborting” his presidential bid and Ron Paul wallowing away in obscurity, the Republican nomination process is all but finished.
Now Republican governor Mitt “Money Bags” Romney takes on Democratic President Barack “The Debt” Obama in a no holds barred mudslinging fest for the Presidency.
Prepare for a non-stop political war from now until November as the nominees and political pundits alike trade barbs and try to bribe swing voters to one side or the other.
A long time ago I used to care about this process.
During the 2004 elections, when senator John Kerry faced incumbent George W. Bush for the presidency, I was really into politics.
I was firmly a blue-blooded liberal back then and despite not being old enough to vote I actively campaigned amongst my friends and even their parents to vote for Kerry.
In 2008, I again got into the political scene, phone-banking for the Obama party and casting my first vote in my freshman year for the man who would become our president.
Nearly four years later, though, I’m not nearly as enthusiastic about politics as I used to be, and you can thank the volatile political climate of the past few years for that.
While I wouldn’t say Obama is a particularly bad president, he largely failed to bring the “hope” and bi-partisan politics I was expecting after he was elected.
His inability to fulfill campaign promises, like closing Guantanamo Bay and cutting Bush tax cuts, are among the many things that have made me jaded about his presidency.
The Republicans have not helped their side either.
Their entire campaign strategy since Obama got elected has been too spam voters with as much negative criticism of the president as possible, no matter if it’s fact or not.
Some claims are true, but frivolous attacks such as questioning Obama’s birthplace and attacking his Ivy League school background has made me even more jaded about party politics these days.
Now with the election season about to begin in earnest, we can expect 24/7 coverage of these two politicians trading attacks, questioning one another’s credibility and character and both trying to prove they are more American than the other.
It’s going to be a shit storm, in short.
Most of all, the problem with this process is going to be the media coverage.
Expect media blow-hards and political pundits alike ranting and arguing their side to one another and increasing the negative tension between blue and red voters.
It’s pretty much Crips and Bloods at this point.
There are ways to make this process more clean and less divisive.
For one, I would stop having media and political pundit attention hogs commentate on each candidates platform.
The voters can’t make an unbiased call on a nominee’s views if they're being filtered through Bill Maher’s angry tirades or Bill O'Reilly’s “Spin Zone.”
We don’t need to hear the opinions of people who will do anything to make their side look better than the other.
Next I would encourage the media to simply report each candidate’s platform without giving voice or opinion on it.
I don’t want to hear what Megyn Kelly or Rachel Maddow have to say about ObamaCare, or RomneyCare for that matter — just give me the bare facts and I’ll form my own damn opinion.
Next I would require candidates to ONLY talk about their views and not the views of their opponent, until debate time.
Too often do candidates spend 99 percent of their campaign money making ads purely aimed at destroying the other’s views and choices that we don’t even know what the hell their views are on those issues.
Lastly, I would cut Super Political Action Campaigns because the money they garner to make ads is not good for politics.
The amount of spam voters receive through these non-stop ads cannot possibly promote political balance or unbiased-ness.
You see the problem is all this mud-slinging and negative ad campaigns just creates bigger and bigger divides amongst our nation, to the point where bringing up politics in an average conversation between a conservative and liberal could turn into a full-on fist-fight of words.
It doesn’t need to be this way.
Politics can have healthy discussion if the media and our politicians can rework the way we use political discourse.
If the media can promote unbiased coverage and politicians can focus on themselves more than each other then we voters could actually think for ourselves and make our own opinions instead of them making it for us.
Alas, this is probably a pipe dream and more than likely we’ll be treated to several months of party hackery and bad media coverage.
So once again, my friends, brace yourselves. Election season is coming.
Ted Rudow III, MA ·
The total debt of the U.S. alone is 14 trillion dollars! It's hard to even conceive of how much money that really is, but if you spent one million dollars every day it would take over 8000 years to spend three trillion dollars! The U.S. has gotten to such a totally hopeless, bankrupt state that they know they will never be able to pay off that debt! And yet they continue spending far more than they earn in taxes, getting more in debt every year! To continue their false prosperity they have borrowed heavily from the U.S. Federal Bank!--And where does the Federal Bank get this money? Well, they just print it!...Billions upon billions of paper dollars worth nothing more than the paper they're printed on, & no more valuable than the counterfeit dollars printed by criminals! It's like trying to pull wealth out of an empty hat! But wealth must be made from something of actual value! Only nothing can be made out of nothing!
Ted Rudow III,MA
Class of 1996
last update 9:06 pm
April 29, 2012
SJSU to join Mountain West Conference
Wes Side Stories: Osama Bin Laden, one year later
Spartan "Run, Walk and Roll" sprints toward a healthy community
News
Sports
Opinion
A&E
Multimedia
Tech
Class Reports
National
World
Campus
San Jose
Wes Side Stories: Thoughts on the coming storm of election season
by Wesley Dugle Apr 22, 2012 4:49 pm Tags: 2012 election, Bill Mahr, Bill Oreilly, Brack obama, election season, elections, Keith Olberman, media, Megyn Kelly, Mitt Romney, Political discourse, politics, President, presidentcy, Wes Side Stories, Wesley Dugle
Wesley Dugle is the Spartan Daily Opinion Editor. His column "Wes Side Stories" appears each Monday.
To slightly paraphrase Ned Stark from “Game of Thrones” — “Brace yourselves, election season is coming.”
Yes, with pro-life senator Rick Santorum effectively “aborting” his presidential bid and Ron Paul wallowing away in obscurity, the Republican nomination process is all but finished.
Now Republican governor Mitt “Money Bags” Romney takes on Democratic President Barack “The Debt” Obama in a no holds barred mudslinging fest for the Presidency.
Prepare for a non-stop political war from now until November as the nominees and political pundits alike trade barbs and try to bribe swing voters to one side or the other.
A long time ago I used to care about this process.
During the 2004 elections, when senator John Kerry faced incumbent George W. Bush for the presidency, I was really into politics.
I was firmly a blue-blooded liberal back then and despite not being old enough to vote I actively campaigned amongst my friends and even their parents to vote for Kerry.
In 2008, I again got into the political scene, phone-banking for the Obama party and casting my first vote in my freshman year for the man who would become our president.
Nearly four years later, though, I’m not nearly as enthusiastic about politics as I used to be, and you can thank the volatile political climate of the past few years for that.
While I wouldn’t say Obama is a particularly bad president, he largely failed to bring the “hope” and bi-partisan politics I was expecting after he was elected.
His inability to fulfill campaign promises, like closing Guantanamo Bay and cutting Bush tax cuts, are among the many things that have made me jaded about his presidency.
The Republicans have not helped their side either.
Their entire campaign strategy since Obama got elected has been too spam voters with as much negative criticism of the president as possible, no matter if it’s fact or not.
Some claims are true, but frivolous attacks such as questioning Obama’s birthplace and attacking his Ivy League school background has made me even more jaded about party politics these days.
Now with the election season about to begin in earnest, we can expect 24/7 coverage of these two politicians trading attacks, questioning one another’s credibility and character and both trying to prove they are more American than the other.
It’s going to be a shit storm, in short.
Most of all, the problem with this process is going to be the media coverage.
Expect media blow-hards and political pundits alike ranting and arguing their side to one another and increasing the negative tension between blue and red voters.
It’s pretty much Crips and Bloods at this point.
There are ways to make this process more clean and less divisive.
For one, I would stop having media and political pundit attention hogs commentate on each candidates platform.
The voters can’t make an unbiased call on a nominee’s views if they're being filtered through Bill Maher’s angry tirades or Bill O'Reilly’s “Spin Zone.”
We don’t need to hear the opinions of people who will do anything to make their side look better than the other.
Next I would encourage the media to simply report each candidate’s platform without giving voice or opinion on it.
I don’t want to hear what Megyn Kelly or Rachel Maddow have to say about ObamaCare, or RomneyCare for that matter — just give me the bare facts and I’ll form my own damn opinion.
Next I would require candidates to ONLY talk about their views and not the views of their opponent, until debate time.
Too often do candidates spend 99 percent of their campaign money making ads purely aimed at destroying the other’s views and choices that we don’t even know what the hell their views are on those issues.
Lastly, I would cut Super Political Action Campaigns because the money they garner to make ads is not good for politics.
The amount of spam voters receive through these non-stop ads cannot possibly promote political balance or unbiased-ness.
You see the problem is all this mud-slinging and negative ad campaigns just creates bigger and bigger divides amongst our nation, to the point where bringing up politics in an average conversation between a conservative and liberal could turn into a full-on fist-fight of words.
It doesn’t need to be this way.
Politics can have healthy discussion if the media and our politicians can rework the way we use political discourse.
If the media can promote unbiased coverage and politicians can focus on themselves more than each other then we voters could actually think for ourselves and make our own opinions instead of them making it for us.
Alas, this is probably a pipe dream and more than likely we’ll be treated to several months of party hackery and bad media coverage.
So once again, my friends, brace yourselves. Election season is coming.
Ted Rudow III, MA ·
The total debt of the U.S. alone is 14 trillion dollars! It's hard to even conceive of how much money that really is, but if you spent one million dollars every day it would take over 8000 years to spend three trillion dollars! The U.S. has gotten to such a totally hopeless, bankrupt state that they know they will never be able to pay off that debt! And yet they continue spending far more than they earn in taxes, getting more in debt every year! To continue their false prosperity they have borrowed heavily from the U.S. Federal Bank!--And where does the Federal Bank get this money? Well, they just print it!...Billions upon billions of paper dollars worth nothing more than the paper they're printed on, & no more valuable than the counterfeit dollars printed by criminals! It's like trying to pull wealth out of an empty hat! But wealth must be made from something of actual value! Only nothing can be made out of nothing!
Ted Rudow III,MA
Class of 1996
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/04/22/18711825.php
Earth day
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Sunday Apr 22nd, 2012
Ecowatch.org revealed that, in September 2008, nearly two years before the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, another BP rig had blown out in the Caspian Sea––which BP concealed from U.S. regulators and Congress.
Had BP, Chevron, Exxon or the Bush State Department revealed the facts of the earlier blow-out, it is likely that the Deepwater Horizon disaster would have been prevented.
Days after the Deepwater Horizon blow-out, a message came in to our offices in New York from an industry insider floating on a ship in the Caspian Sea. He stated there had been a blow-out, just like the one in the Gulf, and BP had covered it up.
But it's this damn use of oil that cause most of the world's troubles--industrially, automobiles, pollution, it pollutes the food, they cook their food on it & all the rest! . Most of man's modern inventions and so-called "improvements" are all dependent on oil, all these plastics and petro-chemicals. It's bad enough that plastics are littering the place and never decay or decompose or anything, but now they're discovering even after they've soaked at the bottom of the sea for a long time, they begin to give off some kind of poisonous substance that's killing the fish! They thought it was bad enough that plastics were just littering up the place & choking up things & killing people, but they found out now if it soaks long enough, sort of like when you burn it, it starts giving off poisonous toxic wastes.
Petroleum oil is what really caused the Industrial Revolution, cheap fuel. It's cheap fuel, but it's dirty fuel, polluting fuel, and coal is the same thing. Coal is nothing in the World but hard oil in rock form, because it gives off the same kind of oily smoke, polluting the atmosphere. It seems to me that instead of a blessing, petroleum oil has become a curse to the World!
Ted Rudow III, MA
Earth day
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Sunday Apr 22nd, 2012
Ecowatch.org revealed that, in September 2008, nearly two years before the Deepwater Horizon explosion in the Gulf of Mexico, another BP rig had blown out in the Caspian Sea––which BP concealed from U.S. regulators and Congress.
Had BP, Chevron, Exxon or the Bush State Department revealed the facts of the earlier blow-out, it is likely that the Deepwater Horizon disaster would have been prevented.
Days after the Deepwater Horizon blow-out, a message came in to our offices in New York from an industry insider floating on a ship in the Caspian Sea. He stated there had been a blow-out, just like the one in the Gulf, and BP had covered it up.
But it's this damn use of oil that cause most of the world's troubles--industrially, automobiles, pollution, it pollutes the food, they cook their food on it & all the rest! . Most of man's modern inventions and so-called "improvements" are all dependent on oil, all these plastics and petro-chemicals. It's bad enough that plastics are littering the place and never decay or decompose or anything, but now they're discovering even after they've soaked at the bottom of the sea for a long time, they begin to give off some kind of poisonous substance that's killing the fish! They thought it was bad enough that plastics were just littering up the place & choking up things & killing people, but they found out now if it soaks long enough, sort of like when you burn it, it starts giving off poisonous toxic wastes.
Petroleum oil is what really caused the Industrial Revolution, cheap fuel. It's cheap fuel, but it's dirty fuel, polluting fuel, and coal is the same thing. Coal is nothing in the World but hard oil in rock form, because it gives off the same kind of oily smoke, polluting the atmosphere. It seems to me that instead of a blessing, petroleum oil has become a curse to the World!
Ted Rudow III, MA
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/04/26/18712151.php
The poor
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Thursday Apr 26th, 2012
The latest census data shows nearly one in two Americans, or 150 million people, have fallen into poverty — or could be classified as low income. "There seems to be a bipartisan consensus in Washington that the poor just don’t matter.
There seems to be a bipartisan consensus in Washington that the poor just don’t matter. President Obama is a part of that. President Obama is a part of that. Poverty is the new slavery. Oligarchs are the new kings. They’re the new heads of this structure of domination."
There is this gap between the haves and the have-nots, a growing gap, in fact. When 1 percent of the people control 42 percent—own and control 42 percent of the wealth, that’s a problem. When one out of two Americans is either in or near poverty—you take the perennially poor or the persistent poor, on top of them the new poor—we argue in this book the new poor are the former middle class—and the near poor, folk who are a paycheck away, that’s 150 million Americans wrestling with poverty.
MITT ROMNEY: The challenge right now—we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and—and there’s no question, it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans. My campaign—I mean, you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans.
Ted Rudow III, MA
The poor
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Thursday Apr 26th, 2012
The latest census data shows nearly one in two Americans, or 150 million people, have fallen into poverty — or could be classified as low income. "There seems to be a bipartisan consensus in Washington that the poor just don’t matter.
There seems to be a bipartisan consensus in Washington that the poor just don’t matter. President Obama is a part of that. President Obama is a part of that. Poverty is the new slavery. Oligarchs are the new kings. They’re the new heads of this structure of domination."
There is this gap between the haves and the have-nots, a growing gap, in fact. When 1 percent of the people control 42 percent—own and control 42 percent of the wealth, that’s a problem. When one out of two Americans is either in or near poverty—you take the perennially poor or the persistent poor, on top of them the new poor—we argue in this book the new poor are the former middle class—and the near poor, folk who are a paycheck away, that’s 150 million Americans wrestling with poverty.
MITT ROMNEY: The challenge right now—we will hear from the Democrat Party the plight of the poor, and—and there’s no question, it’s not good being poor, and we have a safety net to help those that are very poor. But my campaign is focused on middle-income Americans. My campaign—I mean, you can choose where to focus. You can focus on the rich. That’s not my focus. You can focus on the very poor. That’s not my focus. My focus is on middle-income Americans.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Sunday, April 29, 2012
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/04/29/18712382.php
Biggest con
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Sunday Apr 29th, 2012 6:22 PM
It is the biggest con game going. And the stakes are enormous. And the effort to regulate them is hopeless, because the very people who are in charge of regulating them are the same people who are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the lobbies that run them.
The connection between the legislators and the lobbyists is so intimate that it's not even embarrassing for a senator to say that in front of a room.
The culture is so hermetically sealed from the rest of the country that it doesn't occur to them that there is something deeply outrageous and offensive and corrosive of democracy to admit that the money side of politics and the elected side of politics belong to each other. The other day, the president of CBS, Les Moonves, was reported by "Bloomberg" to have said "Super PACs may be bad for America, but they're … good for CBS." This is a windfall every election season, which seems not to even stop ever, for the broadcast industry. So not only are they raking it in, they're also creating a toxic environment for civic discourse.
So one of the big reasons that things are at the pass they are is that the founders never could have anticipated that a small group of people, a financial enterprise and the technology could create this environment in which facts, truth, accountability, that stuff just isn't entertaining. Instead, the purpose of these debates is in order to have commercials. The suspense and coming back, those are devices deployed, in order to have people watch what happens in between. These are moneymaking propositions. They give bragging rights for those that get high ratings. They have nothing to do with the content.
So because it's not entertaining, because the stations think it's ratings poison, they don't cover it on the news.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Biggest con
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com )
Sunday Apr 29th, 2012 6:22 PM
It is the biggest con game going. And the stakes are enormous. And the effort to regulate them is hopeless, because the very people who are in charge of regulating them are the same people who are wholly-owned subsidiaries of the lobbies that run them.
The connection between the legislators and the lobbyists is so intimate that it's not even embarrassing for a senator to say that in front of a room.
The culture is so hermetically sealed from the rest of the country that it doesn't occur to them that there is something deeply outrageous and offensive and corrosive of democracy to admit that the money side of politics and the elected side of politics belong to each other. The other day, the president of CBS, Les Moonves, was reported by "Bloomberg" to have said "Super PACs may be bad for America, but they're … good for CBS." This is a windfall every election season, which seems not to even stop ever, for the broadcast industry. So not only are they raking it in, they're also creating a toxic environment for civic discourse.
So one of the big reasons that things are at the pass they are is that the founders never could have anticipated that a small group of people, a financial enterprise and the technology could create this environment in which facts, truth, accountability, that stuff just isn't entertaining. Instead, the purpose of these debates is in order to have commercials. The suspense and coming back, those are devices deployed, in order to have people watch what happens in between. These are moneymaking propositions. They give bragging rights for those that get high ratings. They have nothing to do with the content.
So because it's not entertaining, because the stations think it's ratings poison, they don't cover it on the news.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Wednesday, April 18, 2012
Banana republic
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
Click here to listen
The term "banana republic" was coined at the turn of the 20th Century in reference to the economic and political domination of weak or corrupt governments in Central America by the United Fruit Company, the corporation now known as Chiquita. (This article will refer to the company formerly known as United Fruit as "Chiquita"). Throughout much of its modern history, Honduras has been the quintessential "banana republic," a poor country ruled by a small group of wealthy elites, with national politics controlled by multinational business interests, particularly Chiquita. In fact, Chiquita has historically been known as "El Pulpo" ("The Octopus") in Honduras, as the company's tentacles had such a firm grip on Honduran national politics.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Chiquita maintained its grasp on Central American politics with a range of illegitimate tools, including the use of mercenary force and bribes. Since the birth of modern public relations in the mid-20th century, though, Chiquita has successfully fought many of its battles for political control with the power of spin. Recent revelations suggest they have done the same in the case of Honduras in 2009.
Through the next 30 years in Central America, small peasants were pushed off their traditional holdings by local oligarchs flush with money and military equipment furnished by the U.S. The sickness pestilence, starvation disease, war, domestic violence, and civil unrest that every day steals and destroys lives are choices that man has made-choices to turn a blind eye, choices of greed over sharing, choices of selfishness.
Ted Rudow III, MA
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
Click here to listen
The term "banana republic" was coined at the turn of the 20th Century in reference to the economic and political domination of weak or corrupt governments in Central America by the United Fruit Company, the corporation now known as Chiquita. (This article will refer to the company formerly known as United Fruit as "Chiquita"). Throughout much of its modern history, Honduras has been the quintessential "banana republic," a poor country ruled by a small group of wealthy elites, with national politics controlled by multinational business interests, particularly Chiquita. In fact, Chiquita has historically been known as "El Pulpo" ("The Octopus") in Honduras, as the company's tentacles had such a firm grip on Honduran national politics.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Chiquita maintained its grasp on Central American politics with a range of illegitimate tools, including the use of mercenary force and bribes. Since the birth of modern public relations in the mid-20th century, though, Chiquita has successfully fought many of its battles for political control with the power of spin. Recent revelations suggest they have done the same in the case of Honduras in 2009.
Through the next 30 years in Central America, small peasants were pushed off their traditional holdings by local oligarchs flush with money and military equipment furnished by the U.S. The sickness pestilence, starvation disease, war, domestic violence, and civil unrest that every day steals and destroys lives are choices that man has made-choices to turn a blind eye, choices of greed over sharing, choices of selfishness.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Monday, April 16, 2012
Banana re
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/04/16/18711424.php
"Banana republic"
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com ) Monday Apr 16th, 2012
The term "banana republic" was coined at the turn of the 20th Century in reference to the economic and political domination of weak or corrupt governments in Central America by the United Fruit Company, the corporation now known as Chiquita. (This article will refer to the company formerly known as United Fruit as "Chiquita"). Throughout much of its modern history, Honduras has been the quintessential "banana republic," a poor country ruled by a small group of wealthy elites, with national politics controlled by multinational business interests, particularly Chiquita. In fact, Chiquita has historically been known as "El Pulpo" ("The Octopus") in Honduras, as the company's tentacles had such a firm grip on Honduran national politics.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Chiquita maintained its grasp on Central American politics with a range of illegitimate tools, including the use of mercenary force and bribes. Since the birth of modern public relations in the mid-20th century, though, Chiquita has successfully fought many of its battles for political control with the power of spin. Recent revelations suggest they have done the same in the case of Honduras in 2009. Through the next 30 years in Central America, small peasants were pushed off their traditional holdings by local oligarchs flush with money and military equipment furnished by the U.S. The sickness‚ pestilence, starvation‚ disease, war, domestic violence, and civil unrest that every day steals and destroys lives are choices that man has made-choices to turn a blind eye, choices of greed over sharing, choices of selfishness.
Ted Rudow III, MA
"Banana republic"
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com ) Monday Apr 16th, 2012
The term "banana republic" was coined at the turn of the 20th Century in reference to the economic and political domination of weak or corrupt governments in Central America by the United Fruit Company, the corporation now known as Chiquita. (This article will refer to the company formerly known as United Fruit as "Chiquita"). Throughout much of its modern history, Honduras has been the quintessential "banana republic," a poor country ruled by a small group of wealthy elites, with national politics controlled by multinational business interests, particularly Chiquita. In fact, Chiquita has historically been known as "El Pulpo" ("The Octopus") in Honduras, as the company's tentacles had such a firm grip on Honduran national politics.
During the late 19th and early 20th centuries, Chiquita maintained its grasp on Central American politics with a range of illegitimate tools, including the use of mercenary force and bribes. Since the birth of modern public relations in the mid-20th century, though, Chiquita has successfully fought many of its battles for political control with the power of spin. Recent revelations suggest they have done the same in the case of Honduras in 2009. Through the next 30 years in Central America, small peasants were pushed off their traditional holdings by local oligarchs flush with money and military equipment furnished by the U.S. The sickness‚ pestilence, starvation‚ disease, war, domestic violence, and civil unrest that every day steals and destroys lives are choices that man has made-choices to turn a blind eye, choices of greed over sharing, choices of selfishness.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Social Darwinism
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/04/14/18711314.php
Social Darwinism
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com ) Saturday Apr 14th, 2012
Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection. The concept of adaptation allowed him to claim that the rich and powerful were better adapted to the social and economic climate of the time, and the concept of natural selection allowed him to argue that it was natural, normal, and proper for the strong to thrive at the expense of the weak. After all, he claimed, that is exactly what goes on in nature every day.
"Wow, what a great leap forward for mankind (or what passes for it these days). Stand you ground partner, but lose your civilization".
Mike Caggiano
Ted Rudow III, MA
Social Darwinism
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.com ) Saturday Apr 14th, 2012
Social Darwinism is a belief, popular in the late Victorian era in England, America, and elsewhere, which states that the strongest or fittest should survive and flourish in society, while the weak and unfit should be allowed to die. The theory was chiefly expounded by Herbert Spencer, whose ethical philosophies always held an elitist view and received a boost from the application of Darwinian ideas such as adaptation and natural selection. The concept of adaptation allowed him to claim that the rich and powerful were better adapted to the social and economic climate of the time, and the concept of natural selection allowed him to argue that it was natural, normal, and proper for the strong to thrive at the expense of the weak. After all, he claimed, that is exactly what goes on in nature every day.
"Wow, what a great leap forward for mankind (or what passes for it these days). Stand you ground partner, but lose your civilization".
Mike Caggiano
Ted Rudow III, MA
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Bank and special interests
MercuryNews.com
eEdition / Subscriber ServicesMobile Mobile Alerts RSS
News breaking news
obituaries
crime and courts
bay area newsdata center
science
earthquakes
politics / governmentcalifornianation / 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: April 11
From Daily News Group readers mercurynews.comPosted: 04/10/2012 07:26:06 PM PDTApril 11, 2012 5:17 AM GMTUpdated: 04/10/2012 10:17:19 PM PDT
Banks and special interests
Dear Editor: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed two years ago in the wake of our disastrous financial meltdown. The president signs it into law, but then we discover the fight's just begun, because the special interests immediately set out to win back what they lost when the reform became law. They spread money like manure on the campaign trails of key members of Congress. They unleash hordes of lobbyists on Capitol Hill, cozy up to columnists and editorial writers, spend millions on lawyers who try to rewrite or water down the regulations required for enforcement. And before you know it, what once was an attempt at genuine reform creeps back toward business as usual.
Especially vulnerable is a key provision of Dodd-Frank known as the Volcker Rule -- an attempt to keep the banks in which you deposit your money from gambling your savings on the banks' own sometimes very risky investments. It will come as no surprise that the financial industry hates the Volcker Rule and is fighting back hard. It stops them from doing speculative trading.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
eEdition / Subscriber ServicesMobile Mobile Alerts RSS
News breaking news
obituaries
crime and courts
bay area newsdata center
science
earthquakes
politics / governmentcalifornianation / 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: April 11
From Daily News Group readers mercurynews.comPosted: 04/10/2012 07:26:06 PM PDTApril 11, 2012 5:17 AM GMTUpdated: 04/10/2012 10:17:19 PM PDT
Banks and special interests
Dear Editor: The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act was passed two years ago in the wake of our disastrous financial meltdown. The president signs it into law, but then we discover the fight's just begun, because the special interests immediately set out to win back what they lost when the reform became law. They spread money like manure on the campaign trails of key members of Congress. They unleash hordes of lobbyists on Capitol Hill, cozy up to columnists and editorial writers, spend millions on lawyers who try to rewrite or water down the regulations required for enforcement. And before you know it, what once was an attempt at genuine reform creeps back toward business as usual.
Especially vulnerable is a key provision of Dodd-Frank known as the Volcker Rule -- an attempt to keep the banks in which you deposit your money from gambling your savings on the banks' own sometimes very risky investments. It will come as no surprise that the financial industry hates the Volcker Rule and is fighting back hard. It stops them from doing speculative trading.
Ted Rudow III, MA
Palo Alto
Special interests
San Mateo Daily Journal
Wednesday
11
2012
Home
Local News
State / National / World
Sports
Opinion / Letters
Business
Arts / Entertainment
Lifestyle
Obituaries
Calendar
Submit Event
Click here for locations of where to find Daily Journal news racks.
VISIT US ON FACEBOOK! Click here
Follow us on Twitter!
Letter: Special interests
April 11, 2012, 05:00 AM Letter
Editor,
The president signs it into law, but then we discover the fight’s just begun because the special interests immediately set out to win back what they lost when the reform became law. They spread money like manure on the campaign trails of key members of Congress. They cozy up to columnists and editorial writers, unleash hordes of lobbyists on Capitol Hill and spend millions on lawyers who try to rewrite or water down the regulations required for enforcement. And before you know it, what once was an attempt at genuine reform creeps back toward business as usual.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act — passed two years ago in the wake of our disastrous financial meltdown. Especially vulnerable is a key provision of Dodd-Frank known as the Volcker rule — an attempt to keep the banks in which you deposit your money from gambling your savings on the bank’s own, sometimes very risky investments. It will come as no surprise that the financial industry hates the Volcker rule and is fighting back hard. Stop them from doing speculative trading.
Using your deposits to go speculate? It would permit ordinary trading to go on but take away the big speculative — big or small speculative activity. You’ve got great advantages if you’re a government-regulated bank. Take the two big remaining investment banks. We used to call them investment banks. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Both during the crisis got a banking license. “While the Volker Rule will surely put a damper on bank trading profits, it will force many firms to go back to the basic blocking and tackling of the financial services business.”
Ted Rudow III,MA
Palo Alto
Wednesday
11
2012
Home
Local News
State / National / World
Sports
Opinion / Letters
Business
Arts / Entertainment
Lifestyle
Obituaries
Calendar
Submit Event
Click here for locations of where to find Daily Journal news racks.
VISIT US ON FACEBOOK! Click here
Follow us on Twitter!
Letter: Special interests
April 11, 2012, 05:00 AM Letter
Editor,
The president signs it into law, but then we discover the fight’s just begun because the special interests immediately set out to win back what they lost when the reform became law. They spread money like manure on the campaign trails of key members of Congress. They cozy up to columnists and editorial writers, unleash hordes of lobbyists on Capitol Hill and spend millions on lawyers who try to rewrite or water down the regulations required for enforcement. And before you know it, what once was an attempt at genuine reform creeps back toward business as usual.
The Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act — passed two years ago in the wake of our disastrous financial meltdown. Especially vulnerable is a key provision of Dodd-Frank known as the Volcker rule — an attempt to keep the banks in which you deposit your money from gambling your savings on the bank’s own, sometimes very risky investments. It will come as no surprise that the financial industry hates the Volcker rule and is fighting back hard. Stop them from doing speculative trading.
Using your deposits to go speculate? It would permit ordinary trading to go on but take away the big speculative — big or small speculative activity. You’ve got great advantages if you’re a government-regulated bank. Take the two big remaining investment banks. We used to call them investment banks. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Both during the crisis got a banking license. “While the Volker Rule will surely put a damper on bank trading profits, it will force many firms to go back to the basic blocking and tackling of the financial services business.”
Ted Rudow III,MA
Palo Alto
Tuesday, April 10, 2012
Special interests?
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/04/10/18711082.php
Special interests?
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.cm ) Tuesday Apr 10th, 2012
The president signs it into law, but then we discover the fight’s just begun, because the special interests immediately set out to win back what they lost when the reform became law. They spread money like manure on the campaign trails of key members of Congress.
-->
They unleash hordes of lobbyists on Capitol Hill, cozy up to columnists and editorial writers, spend millions on lawyers who try to rewrite or water down the regulations required for enforcement. And before you know it, what once was an attempt at genuine reform creeps back towards business as usual. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform and Consumer Protection Act -- passed two years ago in the wake of our disastrous financial meltdown. Especially vulnerable is a key provision of Dodd-Frank known as the Volcker rule -- an attempt to keep the banks in which you deposit your money from gambling your savings on the bank’s own, sometimes very risky investments. It will come as no surprise that the financial industry hates the Volcker rule and is fighting back hard. Stops them from doing speculative trading. Using your deposits to go speculate? It would permit ordinary trading to go on but take away the big speculative-- big or small speculative activity. You've got great advantages if you're a government regulated bank. Take the two big remaining investment banks. We used to call them investment banks. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Both during the crisis got a banking license. “While the Volker Rule will surely put a damper on bank trading profits, it will force many firms to go back to the basic blocking and tackling of the financial services business,"
Ted Rudow III, MA
Special interests?
by Ted Rudow III, MA ( Tedr77 [at] aol.cm ) Tuesday Apr 10th, 2012
The president signs it into law, but then we discover the fight’s just begun, because the special interests immediately set out to win back what they lost when the reform became law. They spread money like manure on the campaign trails of key members of Congress.
-->
They unleash hordes of lobbyists on Capitol Hill, cozy up to columnists and editorial writers, spend millions on lawyers who try to rewrite or water down the regulations required for enforcement. And before you know it, what once was an attempt at genuine reform creeps back towards business as usual. The Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform and Consumer Protection Act -- passed two years ago in the wake of our disastrous financial meltdown. Especially vulnerable is a key provision of Dodd-Frank known as the Volcker rule -- an attempt to keep the banks in which you deposit your money from gambling your savings on the bank’s own, sometimes very risky investments. It will come as no surprise that the financial industry hates the Volcker rule and is fighting back hard. Stops them from doing speculative trading. Using your deposits to go speculate? It would permit ordinary trading to go on but take away the big speculative-- big or small speculative activity. You've got great advantages if you're a government regulated bank. Take the two big remaining investment banks. We used to call them investment banks. Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley. Both during the crisis got a banking license. “While the Volker Rule will surely put a damper on bank trading profits, it will force many firms to go back to the basic blocking and tackling of the financial services business,"
Ted Rudow III, MA
Wednesday, April 04, 2012
PP&J
Peninsula Peace and Justice Center
Peninsula Peace and Justice Centerwww.PeaceandJustice.org Tonight! Join us in the studio and take part in the conversation! OCCUPYTHEFUTUREA Brief History of Economic & Political InequalityAnd what we might do about it ... A talk byPaul GeorgeDirector, Peninsula Peace and Justice Center"We all learned more than we had expected, we have a better understanding of what we are up against, and we are more determined to persist." ~ Mike F., Occupy Mountain View, after Paul gave this talk for OMVOTHER VOICES TV TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 7:00 PMCommunity Media Center, 900 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto [ Map]FREE and open to all. Wheelchair accessible.[This month's Other Voices TV will undergo a slight (and temporary) change in format as PPJC Director Paul George delivers a talk, rather than interviewing a guest. Paul has given this well-received talk all around the Bay Area and PPJC thought it was time he delivered it for PPJC's own audience.]Over the past generation, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite in the U.S. has grown at an astonishing rate. Today, a mere 1% of the population controls 40% of the national wealth, an all-time record. This concentration of wealth has also resulted in a concentration of political power, and this concentration of wealth and political power has brought us to what is being called plutonomy: an economy powered solely by and solely for the wealthy. The "average American" consumer no longer exists.In this talk, Paul George, Director of Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, will examine how this concentration of wealth and power came to be. (Unsurprisingly, it was not by accident.) He will explore what it means for a supposedly democratic society. Finally, he will propose some ways in which we might begin to reverse course. As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted, "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."Simultaneous live TV broadcast on Mid-Peninsula Cable Channel 27(But please come to the studio and be part of the TV audience!) The origins of the Arab Spring come from within Arab nations and we need a Arab Spring here!
Peninsula Peace and Justice Centerwww.PeaceandJustice.org Tonight! Join us in the studio and take part in the conversation! OCCUPYTHEFUTUREA Brief History of Economic & Political InequalityAnd what we might do about it ... A talk byPaul GeorgeDirector, Peninsula Peace and Justice Center"We all learned more than we had expected, we have a better understanding of what we are up against, and we are more determined to persist." ~ Mike F., Occupy Mountain View, after Paul gave this talk for OMVOTHER VOICES TV TUESDAY, APRIL 3, 7:00 PMCommunity Media Center, 900 San Antonio Road, Palo Alto [ Map]FREE and open to all. Wheelchair accessible.[This month's Other Voices TV will undergo a slight (and temporary) change in format as PPJC Director Paul George delivers a talk, rather than interviewing a guest. Paul has given this well-received talk all around the Bay Area and PPJC thought it was time he delivered it for PPJC's own audience.]Over the past generation, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a tiny elite in the U.S. has grown at an astonishing rate. Today, a mere 1% of the population controls 40% of the national wealth, an all-time record. This concentration of wealth has also resulted in a concentration of political power, and this concentration of wealth and political power has brought us to what is being called plutonomy: an economy powered solely by and solely for the wealthy. The "average American" consumer no longer exists.In this talk, Paul George, Director of Peninsula Peace and Justice Center, will examine how this concentration of wealth and power came to be. (Unsurprisingly, it was not by accident.) He will explore what it means for a supposedly democratic society. Finally, he will propose some ways in which we might begin to reverse course. As former Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis noted, "We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both."Simultaneous live TV broadcast on Mid-Peninsula Cable Channel 27(But please come to the studio and be part of the TV audience!) The origins of the Arab Spring come from within Arab nations and we need a Arab Spring here!
Monday, April 02, 2012
Nonsense
The Daily Star
Monday, April 2, 2012
Nonsense
Ted Rudow III, MA, Encina Ave, Palo Alto, CA
One neo-conservative advocate of the invasion had predicted that a "cakewalk" had killed well over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians, cost nearly 4500 American soldiers their lives, maimed many others, and incurred costs that could reach more than 3 trillion dollars before the last invoice comes due.
Yet here we are, nine years later, and once again the drumbeat sounds for war in the Middle East. This time the bull's eye is Iran, and many of the bloodthirsty cries are coming from the same lusty throats that agitated a decade ago for invading Iraq. Now the neo-con armchair warriors call for hitting Iran before it builds a nuclear bomb to drop on Israel a scenario that remains in doubt.
One would refer to Afghan history here, that this is simply not a place that accommodates foreign invaders who think they know how to run the place better than the local population. Some neo-conservatives believe that somehow we are responsible for the Arab Spring, that the Arab Spring is a natural outgrowth of the Iraq War and the George Bush Freedom Agenda. That's nonsense. The origins of the Arab Spring come from within Arab nations.
© thedailystar.net, 1991-2008. All Rights Reserved
Monday, April 2, 2012
Nonsense
Ted Rudow III, MA, Encina Ave, Palo Alto, CA
One neo-conservative advocate of the invasion had predicted that a "cakewalk" had killed well over a hundred thousand Iraqi civilians, cost nearly 4500 American soldiers their lives, maimed many others, and incurred costs that could reach more than 3 trillion dollars before the last invoice comes due.
Yet here we are, nine years later, and once again the drumbeat sounds for war in the Middle East. This time the bull's eye is Iran, and many of the bloodthirsty cries are coming from the same lusty throats that agitated a decade ago for invading Iraq. Now the neo-con armchair warriors call for hitting Iran before it builds a nuclear bomb to drop on Israel a scenario that remains in doubt.
One would refer to Afghan history here, that this is simply not a place that accommodates foreign invaders who think they know how to run the place better than the local population. Some neo-conservatives believe that somehow we are responsible for the Arab Spring, that the Arab Spring is a natural outgrowth of the Iraq War and the George Bush Freedom Agenda. That's nonsense. The origins of the Arab Spring come from within Arab nations.
© thedailystar.net, 1991-2008. All Rights Reserved
Sunday, April 01, 2012
"Feudal society'
http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2012/04/01/18710510.php
"feudal society"by Ted Rudow III,MA Sunday Apr 1st, 2012
The Koch brothers fueled the conservative Tea Party movement that vigorously opposes Barack Obama, the US president. They fund efforts to derail action on global warming, and support politicians who object to raising taxes on corporations or the wealthy to help fix America’s fiscal problems. They are so rich that their pockets are almost bottomless, and they can keep pouring money into this whole process".
The Koch brothers fueled the conservative Tea Party movement that vigorously opposes Barack Obama, the US president. They fund efforts to derail action on global warming, and support politicians who object to raising taxes on corporations or the wealthy to help fix America’s fiscal problems. They are so rich that their pockets are almost bottomless, and they can keep pouring money into this whole process". The Kochs founded and provide millions to Americans for Prosperity, a political organisation that builds grassroots support for conservative causes and candidates. Americans for Prosperity, which has 35 state chapters and claims to have about two million members, has close ties to Tea Party groups and played a key role in opposing Obama's health care initiative. Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the Kochs supported have taken the lead in opposing US Environmental Protection Agency efforts to reduce global warming emissions.
The Kochs contributed to 62 of the 87 new members of the US House of Representatives in 2010. Rich just because there are a few feudal landlords(like the Kochs) who own every thing and are very rich, so they say the country's rich, when most of the people are mere serfs, slaves, peons and peasants on the land, like South America! There is also a broader definition, as described by Marc Bloch (1939), that includes not only warrior nobility but the peasantry bonds of manorialism, sometimes referred to as a "feudal society".
Ted Rudow III, MA
"feudal society"by Ted Rudow III,MA Sunday Apr 1st, 2012
The Koch brothers fueled the conservative Tea Party movement that vigorously opposes Barack Obama, the US president. They fund efforts to derail action on global warming, and support politicians who object to raising taxes on corporations or the wealthy to help fix America’s fiscal problems. They are so rich that their pockets are almost bottomless, and they can keep pouring money into this whole process".
The Koch brothers fueled the conservative Tea Party movement that vigorously opposes Barack Obama, the US president. They fund efforts to derail action on global warming, and support politicians who object to raising taxes on corporations or the wealthy to help fix America’s fiscal problems. They are so rich that their pockets are almost bottomless, and they can keep pouring money into this whole process". The Kochs founded and provide millions to Americans for Prosperity, a political organisation that builds grassroots support for conservative causes and candidates. Americans for Prosperity, which has 35 state chapters and claims to have about two million members, has close ties to Tea Party groups and played a key role in opposing Obama's health care initiative. Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee that the Kochs supported have taken the lead in opposing US Environmental Protection Agency efforts to reduce global warming emissions.
The Kochs contributed to 62 of the 87 new members of the US House of Representatives in 2010. Rich just because there are a few feudal landlords(like the Kochs) who own every thing and are very rich, so they say the country's rich, when most of the people are mere serfs, slaves, peons and peasants on the land, like South America! There is also a broader definition, as described by Marc Bloch (1939), that includes not only warrior nobility but the peasantry bonds of manorialism, sometimes referred to as a "feudal society".
Ted Rudow III, MA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)