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

1579 POSTS

March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
May 2022
April 2022
February 2022
January 2022
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
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

Thursday, 12 June 2008 at 14h 54m 21s

Remember Pakistan

US troops just attacked a group of Pakistani paramilitary units within Pakistan. The US military is saying they were coordinating the effort with the Pakistani military, and that the units which were attacked were militants attacking US forces in Afghanistan.

Now considering how many times the US military has been wrong over the last 5 years, and how many times the US military top brass has covered up its mistakes, you have to take the reaction by the Pakistani military seriously, because they might be telling the truth:

Pakistan contended Wednesday that the Tuesday night strike was deliberate and unprovoked. The United States called it a legitimate response to an attack by militants on an American unit, and said the U.S. operation had been coordinated in advance with the Pakistanis.

"This was on purpose," Pakistan's military spokesman, Maj. General Athar Abbas, told McClatchy Newspapers. "There was no engagement on our side. We consider this a deliberate act of aggression. I'm dumbfounded."

"It's a disaster," Talat Masood, a retired Pakistani general, told McClatchy after the Tuesday night incident. "How can we call ourselves allies when this sort of thing happens? This will create greater mistrust. The only beneficiaries will be the militants."

The vehemence of the Pakistani official reaction was the latest sign of growing tensions with the United States.

[SOURCE: Saeed Shah and Jonathan S. Landay | McClathcy News Services | 11 June 2008]

Now considering how bungled and mismanaged this administration and the current top brass have made of Iraq, Afghanistan, Saudia Arabia, and Pakistan -- how much do you trust them to do anything against Iran? All the saber-rattling to bomb Iranian nuclear facilities will only make matters much worse, and (I fear) will begin the slide into World War Three and the Apocalypse that much closer. But that's what Bush wants, because in chaos and crisis they can destroy democracy and create the totalitarian police state.

But what do I know, eh?

Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 22h 55m 19s

Are we winning yet?

Thanks to bartcop, and (who is the comic creator).

Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 1h 2m 29s

The John McCain you never knew

Of course, this has to come from a Newspaper in Britain, because the US press is full of speculating nincompops who dishonor the meaning of journalism every day.

Click here to find out why John McCain left his first wife.

‘My marriage ended because John McCain didn’t want to be 40, he wanted to be 25. You know that just does,’[ John McCain's former wife Carol].

Some of McCain’s acquaintances are less forgiving, however. They portray the politician as a self-centred womaniser who effectively abandoned his crippled wife to ‘play the field’. They accuse him of finally settling on Cindy, a former rodeo beauty queen, for financial reasons.

McCain was then earning little more than £25,000 a year as a naval officer, while his new father-in-law, Jim Hensley, was a multi- millionaire who had impeccable political connections.


Ted Sampley, who fought with US Special Forces in Vietnam and is now a leading campaigner for veterans’ rights, said: ‘I have been following John McCain’s career for nearly 20 years. I know him personally. There is something wrong with this guy and let me tell you what it is – deceit.

‘When he came home and saw that Carol was not the beauty he left behind, he started running around on her almost right away. Everybody around him knew it.

‘Eventually he met Cindy and she was young and beautiful and very wealthy. At that point McCain just dumped Carol for something he thought was better.

‘This is a guy who makes such a big deal about his character. He has no character. He is a fake. If there was any character in that first marriage, it all belonged to Carol.’

[SOURCE: Sharon Churcher | The Daily Mail | 8 June 2008]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

For those who are curious as to the political perspective of the British press, here is A Wikipedia on the British Newspaper Daily Mail -- in case you are interested. Accordingly,The Mail is well-known for its right wing stance on numerous issues which it sees as being of moral significance...The paper, and the stereotypical "Daily Mail reader" have become stock characters in the UK (as the phrase "Guardian reader" has become for the left/liberal archetype).

and also (because things are not that simple)

The Daily Mail considers itself to be the voice of Middle England speaking up for "small-c" conservative[11] values against what it sees as a liberal establishment. It generally takes an anti-EU, anti-mass immigration, anti-abortion view, based around what it describes as "traditional values", and is correspondingly pro-family, pro-capitalism (though not always supportive of its aftereffects), and pro-monarchy, as well as, in some cases, advocating stricter punishments for crime. It also often calls for lower levels of taxation. The paper is generally critical of the BBC, which it argues is biased to the left. However, it is less supportive of deregulated commercial television than The Sun, and unlike Rupert Murdoch's tabloid it seems to be broadly nostalgic for what it believes the BBC once was.

Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 20h 27m 26s

Why Chris Matthews is an a**hole

Wednesday, 11 June 2008 at 19h 34m 38s

Your Whiteness Is Showing

This is totally awesome. I got the snippet from AmericaBlog, but the piece is from an old college buddy of mine named Tim Wise. Click here for the article in Lip Magazine.

Back in the day, 1987-1991, Tim had a unique way of making his point irrefutable. I'm glad to see he still has that knack.

This is an open letter to those white women who, despite their proclamations of progressivism, and supposedly because of their commitment to feminism, are threatening to withhold support from Barack Obama in November. You know who you are....

For those threatening to vote for John McCain or to stay home and help ensure Barack Obama's defeat, as a way to protest what you call Obama's sexism (examples of which you seem to have difficulty coming up with), all the while claiming to be standing up for women...

Your whiteness is showing.

When I say your whiteness is showing this is what I mean: You claim that your opposition to Obama is an act of gender solidarity, in that women (and their male allies) need to stand up for women in the face of the sexist mistreatment of Clinton by the press. On this latter point--the one about the importance of standing up to the media for its often venal misogyny--you couldn't be more correct. As the father of two young girls who will have to contend with the poison of patriarchy all their lives, or at least until such time as that system of oppression is eradicated, I will be the first to join the boycott of, or demonstration on, whatever media outlet you choose to make that point. But on the first part of the above equation--the part where you insist voting against Obama is about gender solidarity--you are, for lack of a better way to put it, completely full of crap. And what's worse is that at some level I suspect you know it. Voting against Senator Obama is not about gender solidarity. It is an act of white racial bonding, and it is grotesque....

[B]lack folks would have sucked it up, like they've had to do forever, and voted for Clinton had it come down to that. Indeed, they were on board the Hillary train early on, convinced that Obama had no chance to win and hoping for change, any change, from the reactionary agenda that has been so prevalent for so long in this culture. They would have supported the white woman--hell, for many black folks, before Obama showed his mettle they were downright excited to do so--but you won't support the black man. And yet you have the audacity to insist that it is you who are the most loyal constituency of the Democratic Party, and the one before whom Party leaders should bow down, and whose feet must be kissed?

Your whiteness is showing.

Personally I am getting sick of Hillary supporters calling "Hillary haters" those who are disgusted by her feckless self-serving compromises over the last 7 years. It's not like our disgruntlements don't actually have a basis in fact.

Hillary used push-polls to try to disparage people from voting for Obama. Hillary made comments like "Obama is alienating White voters" after she won West Virginia. Hillary made comments like "Obama is not a muslim, at least as far as I know" when the press barraged her with that nonsense. How come she didn't stand up for Obama vociferously and criticize the person who kept asking this question and use it as a moment to be disgusted with the way media tries to manipulate the message?

But she didn't do that did she. Just like she didn't stand up for the constitution when the Republicans were passing laws without oversight. Nope, she played nice and tried to work the mythical middle ground. How come she didn't act like Russell Feingold or Henry Waxman or Barbara Lee or Dennis Kucinich, instead of trying to be Republican-lite? Did she think she could still sell her brand-name despite the numberous contradictions?

Obviously, the answer is yes. The shame is that so many people out there in the pundit media-consultant land are still talking tripe about how 18 million people voted for Hillary and that this is supposed to represent a ground-swell of revolutionary fervor. How many of those 18 milion people are just plain racist or rigidly feminist? How many are just knee-jerk brand-name voters who couldn't tell you why Hillary did not vote when the bankruptcy bill came up (Obama voted NO)? How many accuse Obama of voting for the war spending, when Hillary also voted for the same appropriations bills?

Does the name blind hypocrite mean anything?

Tuesday, 10 June 2008 at 15h 52m 40s

Helping democracy by insisting upon 58 military bases

This is absolutely incredible.

BAGHDAD -Iraqi lawmakers say the United States is demanding 58 bases as part of a proposed "status of forces" agreement that will allow U.S. troops to remain in the country indefinitely.

Leading members of the two ruling Shiite parties said in a series of interviews the Iraqi government rejected this proposal along with another U.S. demand that would have effectively handed over to the United States the power to determine if a hostile act from another country is aggression against Iraq. Lawmakers said they fear this power would drag Iraq into a war between the United States and Iran.

"The points that were put forth by the Americans were more abominable than the occupation," said Jalal al Din al Saghir, a leading lawmaker from the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. "We were occupied by order of the Security Council," he said, referring to the 2004 Resolution mandating a U.S. military occupation in Iraq at the head of an international coalition. "But now we are being asked to sign for our own occupation. That is why we have absolutely refused all that we have seen so far."

Other conditions sought by the United States include control over Iraqi air space up to 30,000 feet and immunity from prosecution for U.S. troops and private military contractors. The agreement would run indefinitely but be subject to cancellation with two years notice from either side, lawmakers said....

The 58 bases would represent an expansion of the U.S. presence here. Currently, the United States operates out of about 30 major bases, not including smaller facilities such as combat outposts, according to a U.S. military map.

" Is there sovereignty for Iraq - or isn't there? If it is left to them, they would ask for immunity even for the American dogs," Saghir said.

[SOURCE: Laila Fadel | McClatchy Newspapers | 9 June 2008]

So when the French helped us in the 1780's, did they insist on 58 permanent military bases? How many foreign military bases would any sovereign nation want to act independently within the national boundaries?

But of course, only terrorists are resisting the will of the United States, right?

Tuesday, 10 June 2008 at 0h 37m 50s

The real story about Laura Bush Visiting Afghanistan

Laura Bush Visits Afghanistan

By CARLOTTA GALL for the New York Times
Published: June 9, 2008
KABUL, Afghanistan — Laura Bush flew by helicopter deep into central Afghanistan on Sunday on a one-day visit to perform a face-saving media stunt for her husband highlight the United States’ continued commitment to the country and to President Hamid Karzai, ahead of an international moment of pity for a disentegrating nation being used by the United States donors conference this week in Paris.

Her visit comes as concern has been growing, particularly in Europe and at the United Nations, that Mr. Karzai might soon be driven from office or assassinated by the Afghan resistance movements not be up to the task of addressing Afghanistan’s many economic and political problems.

The occasion was marred, too, by continuing violence around the country. Eleven police officers were killed in an ambush south of the capital, and a local journalist was found shot dead in southern Helmand Province after he was abducted by gunmen from his house on Saturday. Also in Helmand Province on Sunday, three British soldiers were killed and a fourth was wounded by a suicide bomber, Reuters reported.

As on her two previous visits to Afghanistan, Mrs. Bush emphasized her deranged insincerely and politically motivated support for women’s development and educational and training projects. She flew to Bamian, one of the country’s poorest provinces, which is overseen by Afghanistan’s only female governor, Habiba Sarabi, a former minister of women’s affairs.

Bamian suffered some of the worst massacres and devastation under the Taliban, including the destruction of the two colossal Buddhas just months before the United States intervention in Afghanistan in 2001. Today, however, it is one of the most violent and chaotic peaceful and secure places in the country so much so that President Karzai cannot leave the palace confines without being surround by 100 troops for fear of snipers.

Mrs. Bush’s visit was a demonstration of support for Mr. Karzai and his government as it prepared to beg ask for about $50 billion in pledges of assistance from international donors at the conference this week. Mrs. Bush said she would attend the conference.

In Kabul she met with Mr. Karzai as well as Afghan teachers in training and students in yet another staged public relations campaign for this reporter to write about, and she announced $80 million but did not guarantee because the program and the funds might just be terminated for two American government programs in education. The United States Agency for International Development will spend $40 million on scholarships and on bribing the government officials developing the campus of the American University of Afghanistan (the money barely got to the University), and it will spend $40 million on a national literacy program over the next five years that will dissappear into the bank accounts of various corrupt officials, she said at a brief appearance with Mr. Karzai in the gardens of the presidential palace.

Western donors are expected to meet Afghanistan’s most urgent priorities in agriculture, energy, security and education, but a number of them are demanding that the conference also be used for a critical review of the government’s performance, in particular its failure to curb rampant corruption.My very point is thus proven, you see how this works.

Mr. Karzai promised that his government would flee go to Paris when the inevitable government falls apart with a “very rehearsed realistic evaluation of the last six years, of our achievements, of our progress and our problems,” especially including corruption.

He added that he was confident of continued international willingness to fund his secret bank accounts for his dutiful role pretending to be President during the American occupation support. “We’ll come back with some significant tangible assets assistance from the international community irregardless of the plight of to the Afghan people,” he said.

Sunday, 8 June 2008 at 16h 9m 52s

Spying on Americans is unconstitutional

Here is the reason we have FISA laws, and the reason why ATT and the other Telecoms should not get immunity for breaking the FISA laws;

Reuters: "A spate of chilling snooping scandals involving some of their country's biggest corporations has unsettled Germans who have not forgotten the dark days of the Cold War. Revelations by Deutsche Telekom, Europe's biggest telecommunications firm, that it illegally monitored phone records in 2005 have reawakened memories of communist East Germany's Stasi secret police and even Hitler's Gestapo. [...] The Telekom scandal, based on a report that the firm had spied on journalists and directors to find out who was leaking information to the press, is the dominant case but others have also made headlines. Discount retailer Lidl was investigated after accusations it was monitoring staff activity -- from toilet breaks to suspected love affairs. Rail operator Deutsche Bahn this week denied illegal snooping despite using the same firm as Telekom. These incidents may be seen as ordinary business practice in some countries. But not in Germany. ..."

The telecoms were invited to break the law by the Bush administration as soon as they took over in February 2001. All data (from telephones, cell phones, and emails) was sent to government servers, without any oversight by a FISA judge. And the government did not notify the FISA court 72 hours after the surveillance was being conducted either.

This was never about terrorism. It was about political and press intimidation so they could run their agenda over the american people without anyone contradicting their lies and propaganda. And just look how incompetently the administration handled that agenda.

This has been a case history about why we have a system of checks and balances, why we have government and media oversight, and why the consolidation of media into large holding companies is a very bad thing for our democracy. The result is group think and government run by the selfish interests of political insiders, whose morbid stupidity does not get analyzed or contradicted - - and now millions have died, the economy is in shambles, and we are going to have a much more difficult time getting our foreign policy and economy in order.

You can read about the perfidy here and here.

Here is the pdf of phase Two of the Congressional investigation on how the Bush administration purposely misrepresented and distorted the actual intelligence on Iraq to justify the agenda. This should have been the major story in the press this last week. But alas, our media doesn't tell the American people the important news stories. Instead, CNN promotes "Alabama drummer lawsuit", "Earthquakes in Greece", "What will Hillary do next?", "5 of 6 missing sailors rescued in Gulf", and "Troops are on anti-depressants".

CNN did one story on Thursday, 5 June 2008. Here is that story. Naturally, the CNN story actually misrepresents the Senate report by including choice quotations from Republican partisans and the liberal use of qualifiers and secondary phrases to render the truth ambiguous.

Absolutely pathetic. The media that couldn't tell the truth in 2002-2003, still can't tell the truth in 2008.

The gung-ho mindless patriots need to shut the f**k up, because they are anything but patriotic. They are slavish followers of a small group of arrogant political nincompops who have used the bumper sticker patriots to pursue their own self-serving ends, and will leave them holding the debts and the debacle while they flee to their mansions in Switzerland and South America on their yachts and jet planes.

Saturday, 31 May 2008 at 16h 15m 52s

Richard Clarke speaks ... again

Will anyone listen this time? Or watch American idol instead?

Click here for the podcast

Clarke talks about his recent book "Your Government Failed You." He was the counter-terrorism chief from Reagan to Dubya Bush, and resigned in disgust in March 2003 because he is a patriotic american. He talks about how bin laden was allowed to escape at Tora Bora by direct intervention from Centcom. He talks about how General Franks and Rumsfeld refused to allowed government oversight into their military operations. He talks about how purposely bungled the department of Homeland Security has become, and how it is just a cash cow for political operators and government contractors that get paid even though their projects don't get completed.

This won't be on the history channel.

Saturday, 31 May 2008 at 15h 58m 6s

Hillary is trying to strip Texas delegates

Here is yet another reason why I have become disgusted with Hillary Clinton. I quote from John Aravosis, because he says what I feel.

Hillary Clinton, champion of the blue collar, Jack Daniels' drinking woman is now trying to unseat delegates in Texas. You see, you can't claim that the only reason you're still in the race, after you lost, is because you want to see every vote counted, and then repeatedly try to stop people from having their vote count in Texas and Nevada, for starters. That makes you a hypocrite. It makes you an opportunist. And it makes you a liar. It makes you every nasty thing that the Republicans have said about you for years. Please stop proving them right.

[SOURCE:  | | 29 May 2008]
[SOURCE:  | | 30 May 2008]