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

Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.

a middle-aged
George Washington

1267 POSTS

February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
December 2017
November 2017
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

Monday, 30 January 2006 at 19h 49m 21s

The essential point about the FISA law circumvention

From Larry Johnson:

I suppose the average American, one who has never held a security clearance or handled NSA intelligence, is inclined to cut George W. Bush some slack. Only a crazy person would argue that Al Qaeda terrorists have a right of privacy in the United States. But that, my friends, is a canard. The issue is not about giving aid and comfort to the enemy. Instead, does this President, hell, any President, have the right to unilaterally decide what does and does not constitute a threat to national security? We are a Republic founded on the principle that the power of the Federal Government is limited. It does not matter if George W. Bush is sincere or his intentions benign. What matters is whether he has chosen to ignore the Fourth Amendment because he, and he alone, has decided that the end justifies the means.

There's more here.

Friday, 27 January 2006 at 20h 25m 25s

Defeat the spin machine

It's a Republican scandal stupid. Here's the proof.

Not more than one dime of Abrahmof money went to a Democrat. True there were tribes which contributed to Democrats, but that was both before and after Abrahmof became a player and redirected those contributions. In other words, not relevant nor even related to the purposes by which Abrahmof and the K- street project were a strategy to turn Washington into a one-party regime.

But the media whores lie. That's why they get paid the big bucks.

Thursday, 26 January 2006 at 20h 37m 29s

Our legal scholar in chief

"FISA's still an important tool. It's an important tool, and we still use that tool. But, also -- and I looked. I said, 'Look, is it possible to conduct this program under the old law?' And people said, 'It doesn't work in order to be able do the job we expect us to do.' And so, that's why I made the decision I made. And, you know, 'circumventing' is a loaded word. And I refuse to accept it, because I believe what I'm doing is legally right."

That is George W. Bush, on January 26, 2006 confusing the law with being "an important tool" and reassuring us that by breaking the law he still believes what he's doing is "legally right."

Don't worry. They still use the FISA "tool", but since people have said that the "tool" keeps them from doing what they want to do, that's why he made the decision to break the law.

And by the way, I refuse to accept that the word "circumventing" is loaded. So is "tool" but since I believe what I'm doing is legally right, I'll break any damn law I want to.

Amazing. Simply. Amazing.

Tuesday, 24 January 2006 at 19h 27m 57s

Why they are hypocrites

You should go read the source for this paraphrased and quoted summary here from Glenn Greenwald.

Basically, the Bush administration and the Congress both agreed in 2002 that the circumvention of the FISA laws was unconstitutional. A Congressmen named DeWine submitted an amendment

. . . .to amend the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 to modify the standard of proof for issuance of orders regarding non-United States persons from probable cause to reasonable suspicion. . . .

"During that time, the Administration was asked to advise Congress as to its position on this proposed amendment to loosen the standard for obtaining FISA warrants, and in response, they submitted a Statement from James A. Baker, the Justice Department lawyer who oversees that DoJ's Office of Intelligence Policy and Review" which thanked the Congress for the Patriot Act lee-way of 72 hours before a FISA court had to be notified. Furthermore, Baker said in the statement:

This modification has allowed us to make full and effective use of FISA's pre- existing emergency provisions to ensure that the government acts swiftly to respond to terrorist threats. Again, we are grateful for the tools Congress provided us last fall for the fight against terrorism. Thank you.

Mind you they were already breaking the law at the time of the above Statement. So why are they lying? Why did they need to monitor 18,000 persons inside the United States without bothering to inform the FISA court, when they were gleefully touting the 72 hour leeway provision?

Because they are spying on "political" opponents, trying to blacklist them like J. Edgar Hoover did when he ran the FBI like his own personal fiefdom. The FBI (pushed on by the Nixon administrations operators) were infiltrating peace groups and Democratic Party functions in the early 1970's. There is a history here folks. We already know that John Bolton used wire-taps from the NSA on two occasions: to try and derail Joe Wilson's excursion to Africa, and on a diplomatic excursion to North Korea. We already know that Karl Rove has used bugs and a plethora of dirty tricks throughout his career.

Here is the 4th Amendment:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Is that absolutely clear people? Don't let the corporate media jackals dumb it down, or try to use weasel words. If the Bush administration can't notify the FISA court 72 hours after they wire tapped someone -- or whatever -- they are violating the Constitution and breaking the law. They want to make this a "fighting terrorism" issue, but they are completely full of shit. They were spying on political groups not at all related to "terrorism" and this is why they keep feebly changing the story and why they ignored the laws for 3 years. They quite obviously understood the law in 2002, and in a signed statement to boot.

But this is their modus operandi. They want to center all authority in the executive department and the judicial branch that they think they can control. This is the central idea behind Samuel Alito's "unitary executive" theory. What the biscuit! We got a constitution for a reason, and this is not a god- damn scientific inquiry. Were we to allow "theories" about the constitution, than what theory do we pick? I got a few theories myself.

And as far as the executive goes, we aught to heed the first inaugural executive our nation ever had ... George Washington, who himself respected the right of Congress to deliberate, who obeyed the Constitution in its infant stages, and who understood the true role of the executive as meant by the fore- fathers. Washington always worked through Congress during a time when the Colonies were being freaking invaded by the British Army, but this "unitary executive" theory proposes just the opposite in this new dangerous world that is supposedly different from the old dangerous world.

Again, this is how the Aristocracy builds and creates an Aristocratic state. You make narrow and whittle-down the interpretation of the laws until the vast numberless people who aren't super-rich find that they are surrounded by bureaucratic intermediaries between themselves and their rights.

Sunday, 22 January 2006 at 10h 7m 55s

Like get-over it will ya

As to the tripe of "Oceans do not protect us" and "we live in a dangerous world" I have two responses.

When has the world not been dangerous? When? Give me a decade, or any year in a decade. There has always been something that was dangerous that could quite possibly harm us. That is why we need representative democracy and the rule of law more than ever. What we have "now" is not something so completely new that we must dismantle the constitution and obviate the rule of law. That is the stuff Adolph Hitler said back in the 1930's.

Uh, Oceans have never protected us morons. Washington was burned by the British during the War of 1812. Immigrants flooded the country between 1880 and 1910. Pearl Harbor was attacked on December 7, 1941. The Oil shortages occurred in 1973.

The Bush administration deliberately ignored the evidence that was abundantly available during the first 8 months of 2001. Cheney could have multiple meetings with Energy conglomerates where oil maps of Iraq were looked at, but could not hold one single meeting on Terrorism, despite the heated debate from ex-Clinton officials and Richard Clarke.

Sunday, 22 January 2006 at 9h 51m 47s

Why I love Atrios

... Because he sees through all of the Bulls**t. [SOURCE ]

I imagine that there are some out there who wonder why a factual error in an ombudsman's column combined with the dismissive attitude about complaints pisses people off so much. It's very simple. Time and time again those of us who pay attention see how right wing narratives grow to dominate ongoing news stories. Factual errors, distortions, and general misinformation on which those right wing narratives are hung are repeated over and over again both by right wing hacks and mainstream journalists.

Since the Abramoff story broke there has been a concerted effort by right wing hacks, journalists, and their editors to paint this as a bipartisan scandal when it simply isn't one. Doing so requires a degree of ignorance about who Abramoff is and what his role was which, no matter what one's opinion of the general intelligence of the Washington press, simply has to be deliberate. Reporters understand how lobbying works in DC. They also understand who Abramoff was, what his history was, what his role was, what his entire existence in Republican politics was about.

Small factual errors aren't in themselves the biggest deal in the world, but nor are they in the words of the increasingly wankerific Michael Crowley "foolish semantics." The propogation and repetition of these errors provides the structure onto which the false narrative can be hung.

Are their corrupt Democrats in congress? Quite possibly. I have no illusions that having a 'D' after your name guarantees your purity. Will their be lobbying scandals which bring down Democrats at some point in the future? Quite possibly. But this isn't a general "lobbying scandal," this is a Jack Abramoff scandal. It is a Republican scandal. That is what this story is about, and any seasoned media observer who hasn't yet figured out how bullshit right wing narratives are constantly wrapped around "foolish semantics" just hasn't figured out how this game is played.

Thank you Atrios, a true patriot.

Friday, 20 January 2006 at 18h 23m 54s

The people speak out

Recently Monsieur Chris Matthews compared Michael Moore to Bin Laden, calling what Bin Laden said in the latest terrifyingly scary audio similar to "Michael Moore."

Then Scarbourgh on Scarbourgh Country brings on Clinton smear-artist Kellyanne Conway to say

Conway: If you held a piece of tissue paper between some of the comments that Bin Laden today and some of the comments that the president's detractor's say-it would be very difficult to stick more than a piece of tissue paper between--there's not much of a difference.

Scarborough: When you look at what Osama Bin Laden said it sounds an awful lot like what we hear the President's political enemies domestically--- not only like what a lot of democratic senators have been saying, but also what one or two movie makers have been saying over the past several years...

There is a video here.

I mean just look at this B***h !

Look at that smug smirk she has on her face, posing as the "expert" who somehow knows soooooooo much that she deserves the make baseless speculative assertions akin to taking a crap outside in an open pit.

This is absolutely disgusting.

The time to act is now folks. We need to stand on the streets on January 31st when Herr Bush attempts to lie once again to the American public in what is called the State of the Union. You know this is true. All we have to do is stand outside where we live, together. That's all we have to do.

The rest will follow, right after we all go back into our houses and quickly turn the televisions on to tell us what just happened.

Friday, 13 January 2006 at 21h 20m 29s

The brainwashing begins

"A feeling of weariness had overwhelmed him. The faint, mad gleam of enthusiasm had come back into O'Brien's face. He knew in advance what O'Brien would say. That the Party did not seek power for its own ends, but only for the good of the majority. That it sought power because men in the mass were frail cowardly creatures who could not endure liberty or face the truth, and must be ruled over and systematically deceived by others who were stronger than themselves. That the choice for mankind lay between freedom and happiness, and that, for the great bulk of mankind, happiness was better. That the party was the eternal guardian of the weak, a dedicated sect doing evil that good might come, sacrificing its own happiness to that of others. The terrible thing, thought Winston, the terrible thing was that when O'Brien said this he would believe it. You could see it in his face. O'Brien knew everything. A thousand times better than Winston he knew what the world was really like, in what degradation the mass of human beings lived and by what lies and barbarities the Party kept them there. He had understood it all, weighed it all, and it made no difference: all was justified by the ultimate purpose. What can you do, thought Winston, against the lunatic who is more intelligent than yourself, who gives your arguments a fair hearing and then simply persists in his lunacy?"

    -- Winston Smith , 1984 , by George Orwell

Friday, 13 January 2006 at 12h 1m 0s

The Chronicle sucks, don't bother reading it

Dear Chronicle headquarters,

-- or should I say Hearst Corporation headquarters?

I must say, your paper not only sucks, it sucks real bad. But let me not just utter pejorative iconography. Allow a few recent examples.

You publish a story about the horrible mining accident, but never mention once that the company had violated 105 federal regulations -- 54 alone during the prior 30 days to the accident. You didn't detail that Bush administration appointee Jack Spiderro's interpretation of coal dust might be related to the high levels of coal dust that was 40% of the above mine violations. Methane gas and coal dust are the 2 reasons mine explosions occur, which your pathetic paper also neglected to discuss. You didn't also outline that the same mining corporation has other mines that also have a history of problems.

Instead, the story you put on the front page was how you made a mistake, and that actually 11 of the 12 miners died. Yep, that was THE story. Then the story became what this political hack said, and how it was a sad event, and how the surviving family members would have a hard time adjusting. Oh but at least the paper did say that mining is a dangerous occupation. Wow, that's really chomping at the bit folks, telling everyone the obvious.

No kidding. But how did that particular mine get to become dangerous? How come that story was not on the front page?

And today's earth-shattering events on the frontpage ... ( January 13, 2006 .)

3 killed at store in 1980
- Stacy Finz

Big changes sought in how UC raises pay
Regents asked to give president more power to set salary levels
- Todd Wallack, Tanya Schevitz

Bleak audit of S.F. public golf courses
- Becky Bowman

Parents, teachers fight for schools S.F. education board postpones vote to close or merge 26 of them
- Heather Knight


State steps in to help seniors get medicines

Golf courses? Seriously, on the front page?

Way back in ... 1980? Wow.

Sad people at a police funeral. Like Duh.

Stay on that pay raise story. The public really, really needs to know about how the public university system is not causing pay raises to get outta hand. We can't let that happen, right?

Hmm, how'bout a story about how nominee Alito promised the Senate that he would recuse himself from any cases involving the financial company that manages his stock portfolio, which he breaks the very first time a case comes up, makes odd legal decisions, and then writes an adamant letter complaining when another judge asks him to recuse himself from the very case. Or a judge who rules that it was acceptable to strip search a teenage girl when she didn't have her id? Or ... ?

Oh but how nice of the state to help Seniors? Don't you think an in depth detail of the pork of the Medicare Act of 2004 would be a great idea? Or actions by Schwastikanigger on California medical regulations?

Seems to me like you don't want to leave the shoe box to get to the bigger picture, and in that box are only three things : 1) opinions of political hacks, 2) over-flowing grandeur about the personality or hard-ships involved without the details or even an outline on the connections between the people and the historical context, and last but not least: 3) loaded adjectives with subtle conjectures not supported by facts.

Look at the way you numb-skulls stretch to avoid to put a story about Alito's judicial history, or anything relevant on the NSA circumvention of the FISA laws, or anything about the details concerning the pathetic "reconstruction" process going on during Katrina, or how the Diebold and ES systems corporations are having their voting machines recinded in counties of North Carolina, Florida, New York, Texas, and Minnesota when Governor Schwastikanigger's appointed Secretary of State is currently reinstalling the Diebold machines that Kevin Shelley himself recinded after the Schwastikanigger recall hoax election.

Oh but Shelley did what over a $10,000 check? Did y'all bother to even print the fact that he was NEVER indicted after he resigned because "the irregularities were not sufficient to warrant a full investigation." How come you could'nt give that fact the same everyday frontpage treatment that the hoax scandal got?

And was Schwastikanigger paid $1 million by Chevron? And what was the 9 billion Energy Market Rigging lawsuit that Schwastikanigger cancelled his very first day in office? And how much digging did your paper due into this man our Governor when he meet with various Enron and Reliant energy officials during the summer of 2001 at a Los Angeles hotel? But that $10,000 check was front page for close to 2 weeks.

How come the attack dogs have highly selective noses?

Oh, and nice job printing 5 pages of high-quality photography trying to prove that only 65,000 people attended the 2003 protest. Now that was quality journalism morons. You'd think you would also print the White House's involvement with the tainted justifications used to drag the country down their megalomaniacal path to war and dictatorship. Scotter Libby, Karl Rove, Stephen Hadley, Bolton, Wolfowitz, etc could have used at least 20 percent of the space you filled up with trying to prove that an exact number of people filled Market street completely for 8 hours.

Christ, don't you idiots recognize historical moments at all. When was the last time that many people marched down Market Street?

And what the blarney-stone is Laura Slanders doing on any paper news staff? A Conservative philosophy is not equivalent to a lying, deliberately misleading stale ruthlessly opinated hack.

And I won't forget how you served as the springboard for mendacious propagandista Kenneth Garcia's entrance into the world of columnists with opinions so biased that they manage to obviate the relevant issues rather than enlighten the public with ideas and thoughtful perspectives. Kenny-boy has since moved over to the less sophisticated but still slanted pages of the Examiner, but it was you who gave him some years as a farce of reason.

And how can the Sunday paper be ready for sale on Saturday morning? Ugh, I want to throw up.

You disgrace this city. It disgusts me that you actually publish and yet can't even be even 20 percent close to the quality of the Sacramento Bee or the San Jose Mercury News. How much of the staff was fired when the Hearst corporation decided to double the profit margin at the expense of the paper's content? Ever wonder maybe that is why subscriptions are down and a lot of folks are having the New York Times delivered?

So when will you guys just admit the Chronicle is just a haven for corporate shills.


Gino Napoli.

Friday, 6 January 2006 at 19h 3m 59s

History repeats

"When they came for the trade unionists and socialists, I said nothing because I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the homosexuals and the gypsies, I said nothing because I was neither.

When they came for the Jews, I said nothing because I was not a Jew.

When they came for the Catholics, I said nothing because I was not a Catholic.

And when they came for me, there was nobody left to say anything."

-- Rev. Martin Niemoller, A German who lived through the 1930's in Germany.