frankilin roosevelt

It's not about being liberal or conservative anymore y'all. That is a hype offered by the fascist whores who want to confuse the people with lies while they turn this country into an aristocratic police state. Some people will say anything to attain power and money. There is no such thing as the Liberal Media, but the Corporate media is very real.



Check out my old  Voice of the People page.


Gino Napoli
San Francisco, California
High School Math Teacher

jonsdarc@mindspring.com




Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.

a middle-aged
George Washington



ARCHIVES
1087 POSTS
LATEST ITEM

October 2017
September 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
September 2016
August 2016
May 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
September 2014
August 2014
May 2014
March 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
August 2012
July 2012
April 2012
March 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
August 2010
July 2010
March 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
August 2009
July 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
June 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
June 2005
May 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004

Thursday, 12 May 2005 at 17h 47m 16s

Seeds of commercialism

It's a world full of advertising. A world in which we are depicted as imbeciles, savages in dire need, or as persons enjoying the best life has to offer, achieving the ultimate bliss with a grandiose or smooth background tune. It's all a suggestive message that is a lightly offered reminder, a seed planted in the mind that will hopefully germinate.

If you pay attention, you permit the seeds to enter the brain.

It is really that simple.


Wednesday, 11 May 2005 at 6h 22m 13s

Irrelevancy

Liberals are irrelevant. Or so is the profound believe of certain voicebox's of the Reich-wing propaganda spin machine. The hired letter writers are out there are sending their packaged writing to the editorial pages of American newspapers. The words are leaving the lips of the radio-television hired guns of double-speak.

The audacity of the statement is incredible. How can someone profess belief in democracy and yet denounce the opinions of the "other side" as "irrelevant" -- something to be tossed into the dust bin of history by being completely ignored? The very idea of not bothering to listen to someone is the absolute contradiction of democratic beliefs.

What we have here is a twisted sort of "divine right of kings," driven and fueled by the aggregation of political power. That this voice is both twisted and reaches all people does not indicate a popularity of opinion, no more than the availability of coca-cola indicates that a vast majority of people drink Coca-cola. The Coke is there on account of the huge immensity of the Coke corporation, buying out local competitors when necessary. The opinions of the Reich-wing are there because they are abetted by the interests of the large- scale financial conglomerates that own the newspapers and media voice-boxes.

Irrelevant?

Most people don't know enough to have an opinion about most matters of substance and a medium amount of detail. This is not a negative statement. Most people are busy working, or raising families -- or they are incapable of achieving self-awareness. We might know quite a lot of detail about a particular subject, but are quite unaware and ignorant of a number of other topics. Very, very few people know a great deal of detail about a wide range of subjects. Therefore, most people simply don't know enough to form their own opinion independent of being influenced or nuanced by exterior sources.

Thus, there are a lot of people whose opinions are just a concatenation of phrases they have heard from media sources. These phrases and aphorisms form the basis of their proud opinionations. Do not expect them to analysis the meaning of these phrases and aphorisms, because they are fundamentally unquestionable. Would that I understood why this is so. My only venture is that people embed their sense of self and theier insecurity within the chosen phrases of their self-justification. To question the syllogisms of words is akin to questioning their very self.

Irrelevant?

Someone who makes a political statement which pillories the amorphous opposition with something beyond sarcasm is acting violently with words. The true conservatives of the 1950's were polite and respectful. This bunch that calls themselves arch-conservative should really call themselves corporatists, because that's what they really are. They are not at all conservative. They advocate political violence and destruction, not preservation. They do not believe in fundamental liberties, and only say so to promote the myth of their inclusion of the hard-working in their philosophy. It is only banter however. They are the breed which buys you a beer and talks you up, while they are sleeping with your wife and robbing your business.

Irrelevant?

Sounds like a "talk to the hand" technique. One does not have adjust or compromise, simply ignore. One does not have to reassess, learn from mistakes, or even admit that one is wrong. No. All admitting of fallibility is a thing of the past, committed to the dust bin of history, because of the belief that we are never wrong.

Or at least you can follow the finger principle. Simply put, the more you spend time criticizing and scapegoating the opponent, the less time you have to admit to culpability. When questioned, all you have to do is quickly admit to a superficial denial, and then deftly hone in on something specious about the opponent.

"Yes, I have behaved badly, but, but, ... but my opponent has never admitted to voting against bill 234." Alas, there were good reasons to vote against 234, but still that is not the point. The point is to change the subject and focus on the possible weakness of the opponent.

This is the oldest debate trick in the history of mankind. But it doesn't make reason irrelevant.

I feel sad when I read such vile disrespectful opinions, because deep down in my soul I have a great respect for personal opinions. I strongly believe that opinions should be aired out and discussed. Everyone needs to come together and realize that their is common interest, and everyone benefits. When I hear such abhorent statements that essentially murder the idea that another opinion has a right to exist, I am wounded at the core of my philosophical justification of existence.

How can anyone profess belief in democracy, and yet act like they can ignore the concerns of at least 50 percent of our population? All the horror movies in the entire history of Hollywood could not even come close to the one in which we are now experiencing.


Tuesday, 29 March 2005 at 19h 21m 20s

Rethuglican hypocrisy

The Party of No Principles
by Ari Behrman

03/29/2005 @ 10:22am [permalink]

On Sunday, a Los Angeles Times report detailed how House Majority Leader Tom DeLay let his own comatose father die in 1988. As the leader of the save Schiavo movement in Congress, DeLay embodies the GOP's rank hypocrisy on this issue. Democrats at Columbia University recently compiled a list of other examples of GOP hypocrisy in the Schiavo case. We've included the most relevant and added a few of our own.

** While Governor of Texas, George W. Bush signed a law allowing hospitals to remove a patient's life support regardless of the wishes of the family. Just a week ago Texas terminated the life of Sun Hudson, a five-month old baby suffering from a fatal genetic disorder.

** The 2000 Republican platform read: "Medical decision-making should be in the hands of physicians and their patients." Four years later, the language remained nearly the same: "We must attack the root causes of high health care costs...by putting patients and doctors in charge of medical decisions."

** Much of Terry Shiavo's care came courtesy of Medicaid, which the Bush Administration wants to cut by $60 billion. Just recently Republican Governor Bob Riley of Alabama tried to drop coverage for 13-year-old Lauren Rainey, a severely handicapped girl who requires a suction tube to breathe.

** In his previous career as a heart surgeon, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist pulled the plug "on a regular basis," his office acknowledged last week. In his 1989 book Transplant, Frist advocated killing anencephalic babies, who are born in the same mental state that Terry Schiavo finds herself in today.

** The tort-reform bill recently passed by the Senate would block cases like the malpractice suit that provided for Terri's care from reaching the courts in the first place.

** So-called family values Republicans who constantly invoke the "sanctity of marriage" have viciously attacked Terry Schiavo's husband Michael, calling him a lying, lecherous wife-killer. It got so bad that TV host Joe Scarborough asked fellow conservative Pat Buchanan, "Are you comparing Michael Schiavo to a Nazi?"


Thursday, 24 March 2005 at 20h 37m 45s

Another liar in this cruel hoax they call morality

This is from David NYC at the Dailykos.com.


Congressman Dave Weldon, smiling and holding a packet with some lady seated adjacent to his expensive suit.

Congressman Dave Weldon (R-FL) wrote a letter to the newspaper Florida Today, taking issue with some statements the paper had made in an editorial on the Schiavo matter. What did Weldon have to say?

Did the editors interview registered nurse Carla Iyer, who personally treated Terri for a year and a half? She said in a sworn court affidavit that Terri "was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis saying things like 'mommy' and 'help me" and 'hi' when I came into her room."

Iyer says Terri would sit up in the nurse's station from time to time and laugh at stories they told. She felt pain and would indicate so. Carla fed her by mouth and not by tube. Does this sound like a woman in persistent vegetative state for the past 15 years? (Emphasis added.)



Florida judge George Greer, one of the main judges in the Schiavo matter, called Iyer's affidavit "incredible," elaborating as follows:

Ms. Iyer details what amounts to a 15-month cover-up which would include the staff of Palm Garden of Lago Convalescent Center, the Guardian of the Person, the Guardian ad Litem, the medical professionals, the police and, believe it or not, Mr. and Mrs. Schindler. Her affidavit clearly states that she would "call them (Mr. and Mrs. Schindler) anyway because I thought they should know about their daughter." ... It is impossible to believe that Mr. and Mrs. Schindler would not have subpoenaed Ms. Iyer for the January 2000 evidentiary hearing had she contacted them as her affidavit alleges. (Emphasis added.)



No comment.


Thursday, 24 March 2005 at 20h 0m 50s

What did Bill Frist say when Christopher Reeve died ?

From CNN:[Link] --Thanks to Atrios for this.


NATIONAL HYPOCRITE
Senator Bill Frist (R-Tennessee)

Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist attacked Sen. John Edwards on Tuesday over a comment the Democratic vice presidential candidate made regarding actor Christopher Reeve.

Edwards said Reeve, who died Sunday, "was a powerful voice for the need to do stem cell research and change the lives of people like him.

"If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again," Edwards said.

Frist, a Republican from Tennessee, called Edwards' remark "crass" and "shameful," and said it gave false hope that new treatments were imminent.

...

Frist, who was a heart surgeon before coming to the Senate, responded Tuesday in a conference call with reporters arranged by the Bush-Cheney campaign.

"I find it opportunistic to use the death of someone like Christopher Reeve -- I think it is shameful -- in order to mislead the American people," Frist said. "We should be offering people hope, but neither physicians, scientists, public servants or trial lawyers like John Edwards should be offering hype.

"It is cruel to people who have disabilities and chronic diseases, and, on top of that, it's dishonest. It's giving false hope to people, and I can tell you as a physician who's treated scores of thousands of patients that you don't give them false hope."



Really now.


Thursday, 24 March 2005 at 19h 23m 54s

The real sadness of Iraq

This is from Ari Behrman. [Link]

Rumsfeld, November 13, 2003: "We're making enormous progress. In terms of essential services, schools are open, hospitals are functioning, people are out on the streets eating in restaurants, and life is going on, and 23 million people have been liberated."

Awbalth, a soldier from CA, October 20, 2004: "Immediately after the 'war' portion of the fighting, we should have been prepared to send in a massive reconstruction effort. Right away we needed engineers to diagnose problems, we needed contractors repairing problems, we needed immediate food, water, shelter, and fuel for the Iraqi people, and we needed more security for all of this to work...Establishing massive reconstruction efforts that employed millions of Iraqis would have gone a long way toward proving to the Iraqis that we were there to help them, not steal their oil and get rich from reconstruction contracts paid for by the American taxpayer."




Thursday, 24 March 2005 at 19h 4m 26s

Big firms are different from smaller investors

Mutual fund giants don't bilk the small-fry investors do they? Of course they do. The big 4 US firms just paid $81.25 million dollars in fines because they were pushing securities that had lower rates of return (which means in economist-speak, investors got less profit on the investment ) because they were getting bigger commissions.

Read the story on the BBC here. A permalink is here.

But this is how the market works. Larger investors, or investing firms, pool a very large amount of money (as in more than 100 million dollars) and make money by selling whenever there are 1 to 3 cent increases. That doesn't sound like a lot, but when you have 10,000 to 100,000 various stocks sold with (say) a 2 cent profit per share --- dat's $200 to $2000 profit a pop. And when counting 1% commissions on all sales that are in the millions -- 0.01 times $1,000,000 equals an extra $10,000 on top. And this is per day! 240 business days per year, times $12,000 ... equals 2.5 million dollars a year. Now imagine a large firm with 100 stock brokers.

But this money has to come from somewhere. In the immediate moment the buyers and sellers are all a mixed composite of stock-brokers, firms, and re-issues, but the nexus of these events are all in the hands of the larger sellers, simply on account of the large aggregation of funds. When small investors buy into a mutual fund or have a firm manage their securities, that small investor is giving the larger firm or fund managers more money with which to play the market. In return the larger firm and fund managers promise to share with their investors some of the profits.

Seems like a fair arrangement on the face of this exchange of services, but the reality is that these large firms are no more fair and respectful of their customer investors than other large companies can with telephone, gas, et al services. There is also no guarantee that your returns will match expectations because small investors alone have to depend on the machinations of others unless they are truly independent. Most small investors will not understand how the market works or not spend the time necessary to be successful independently, and thus the vast majority of investors entrust their investments to the machinations of others.

Which brings us back to the important question : where do these profits come from? The notion of buying low and selling high is simple enough, but that increase is still bourn by that someone who paid the higher price. Since this person perhaps thought they could resell at a higher price, the logical conclusion would seem that desire for profit is what produces the driving force behind the ability to reap profits from the difference between a high and low price. And when the price rises too high -- well of course the price then falls to the point where someone buys that thinks they got a good deal. This is called the "self-correcting" market, and in this school of economic theology, the world of investments becomes riddled with winners and losers.

Except one thing. The big firms don't lose. Yes, Citibank, Bank of America, the DuPont family trust investments -- don't fail. They might make less profits, but they don't go bankrupt (ie, fail.) We are talking about financial institutions and multi-billionaire investors who are simply too big to fail, because since the fall-out would affect too many, the big players either all pool their resources whenever they have a crisis - or the government (ie, taxpayers) foot the bill to cover the massive losses.

These are institutions that aren't bothered by the "self-correcting" market, who simply change machinations when the market dips low, and thus, this idea of the "self-correcting" market doesn't really apply. Simply said : the small investors win and lose, but either way, Citibank makes money.

I'll have to return to this theme, once I've thought this through more. But I'm not saying anything new. Adam Smith himself, and John K. Galbraith have both mentioned this vulnerability to the "self-correcting" market theory.

To be continued...


Wednesday, 23 March 2005 at 21h 2m 14s

Why do I do this

I've been told by a friend who looked at this blog that I needed to get a girlfriend. Well ...

I already have 5 girlfriends. Their names are Thumb, Index, Middle, Ring, and Pinky, and I assure you that each of them are equally hot for me. They are also a great help in producing these flashes of verbage and whatever other creative endeavors to which life has thrust into my soul. And I am a grateful man, so what else is there?

But now as to the question of having 6 girlfriends?

I won't answer that.

Why do I do this? Why not?


Wednesday, 23 March 2005 at 20h 52m 28s

Tom Delay predicting a fight for conservatism

This is really scary. But here is the corrupt bug man Tom Delay trying to pretend that the movement of conservatism is related to his corrupt autocratic style of government.

You can get the mp3 audio here.

And so itís bigger than any one of us, and we have to do everything that is in our power to save Terri Schiavo and anybody else that may be in this kind of position.

And let me just finish with this: This is exactly the issue thatís going on in America. That attacks against the conservative movement, against me, and against many others. The point is, itís, the other side has figured out how to win and defeat the conservative movement. And that is to go after people, personally charge them with frivolous charges, and link that up with all these do-gooder organizations funded by George Soros, and then, and then get the national media on their side. That whole syndicate that they have going on right now is for one purpose and one purpose only and thatís to destroy the conservative movement. Itís to destroy conservative leaders and itís, uh, not just in elected office but leading. I mean Ed Feulner, today at the Heritage Foundation, was under attack in the National Journal. I mean they, they, this is a huge nationwide concerted effort to destroy everything we believe in, and, and you need to look at this and whatís going on and participate in fighting back.

Donít, you know, the one way they stopped churches from getting into politics was Lyndon Johnson, who passed a law that said you couldnít get in politics or youíre going to lose your tax exempt status because they were all opposed to him when he was running for president. That law weíre trying to repeal; itís very difficult to do that. But the point is, is when they can knock out a leader then no other leader will step forward for awhile because they donít want to go through the same thing. When, if they go after and get a pastor then other pastors shrink from what they should be doing. It forces Christians back into the church and thatís whatís going on in America: ďThe world is too bad. Iím going to go get inside this building and Iím not going to play in the world.Ē Uh, thatís not what Christ asked us to do. And, and so this, they understand that it is a political maneuver, and, and they are, uh, going to try to destroy the conservative movement and we have to fight back.

So, please, this afternoon, each and every one of you, if you know a senator give him a call. Tell him, theyíll say, ďOur bill can pass in the House.Ē Tell him, ďThatís fine. Your billís okay but the House bill is better and, uh, I want the House bill.Ē Particularly if you know Democrats, uh, donít let them get off the hook, um, by hiding behind one House and the other is adjourned. We can do anything we need to do to pass any bill that we need to pass. So I appreciate what youíre doing. God bless you and thank you for the Family Research Council.



Yes. He actually said those warped words.

Here is a photo of da man, along with the Texas redistricting map that was fought over during 2002 (yea, way back then -- 3 years ago.) Notice how Austin is split into 3 other heavily Republican districts. Silly you. That is how they gained 3 seats in Congress last year. Didn't you know?

And look at those long skinny district slices. Whatever happened to rectangular objects? That's the scientology called gerrymandering you see.

Mr. Delay's district is in the southeast corner of the state,including Galveston and the wealthier suburbs of Houston. It is the dumbell looking district (or an upside down phone receiver) on the edge of Louisiana.

††

By the way, Tom Delay is the Republican Majority Leader of the House. He is the one the House Republicans tried to change the ethics rules so that Congressmen who are indicted by a court do not have to step down.


Wednesday, 23 March 2005 at 20h 23m 30s

And that doctor you see on Fox news is a hoax

Doctor Hammesfahr was introduced by Sean Hannity on Fox news as a "Nobel prize winning" doctor. As it turns out ... (source)

Hammesfahr, a Florida neurologist disciplined in 2003 by the Florida Board of Medicine who claims he can help Terri Schiavo, testified during an October 2002 court hearing on the Schiavo case that his claim to be a Nobel nominee is based on a letter written by Rep. Mike Bilirakis (R-FL) recommending him for the prize. But Bilirakis is not qualified to make a valid nomination under the Nobel rules.


Hammesfahr was "disciplined by the Florida Board of Medicine in 2003" because he was falsely advertising a treatment for strokes for profit. He was fined $52,084 and given a 6 month probation during which he had submit monthly reports corrobated by independent medical monitors appointed by the court, who had to by law review 50% of his cases.

So how much can you trust this fellows belief that he can "help" Terri Schiavo?

You can watch a Windows media video of Hannity and Scarborough repeatedly make this "nobel prize" claim here.

Have fun !




GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS