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
1664 POSTS
LATEST ITEM

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
April 2023
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, 14 December 2006 at 1h 1m 41s

My modus operandi

I often engage in blog commentary with a few political blogs. I suppose I'm something of a political junkie. It is an extension of my thirst for knowledge. I just have to know. I've always been this way.

Anyway, I made this fly-by statement in an evisceration of a troll who hangs out and makes stupid statements.


I only believe what is true. I can always prove that what I believe is true. If I am not sure about something, I will say so. If I am speculating (watch out, big word) I will say so.

And most importantly, on the odd occasion when I am wrong (it does happen) I will admit I am wrong, because the truth might be hard to accept, but it is far better to accept the truth than to lie to yourself and live in morbid denial of what is inescapably true.


The pursuit of truth and knowledge is neverending. We are on this Earth to achieve time to learn and understand, keeping the mantle of humanity burning. There is and never will become a point at which you can finally stop and say that you have achieved complete understanding. A so-called "expert" is really only a person who knows more than almost everyone else, or (in the case of math or sciences) makes the least amount of mistakes. Keep in mind that some people are amazingly encyclopedic in one or a few areas, but have scant details about much else.

It is impossible to learn everything, but you must still try.


Thursday, 14 December 2006 at 2h 32m 27s

A primer about Salvadore Allende, Augustin Pinochet, and Chile

  1. Salvadore Allende
  2. School of the Americas ties with Pinochet
  3. more of the same
  4. School of the Americas
  5. A timeline of the Chilean coup d'etat

Chile is a long, thin country on the West side of the South American Andes mountains. It rises up more than half of the North-south distance of South America, and is actually the nation with the largest North-south distance in the world. Notice how the top of Chile is above Paraguay and Argentina.


Wednesday, 13 December 2006 at 1h 3m 57s

Rummy, the Donald, AKA hypocrite

This is from thinkprogress.org, a site you must visit EVERYDAY. -----

In a new interview posted on Townhall.com, conservative columnist Cal Thomas asks outgoing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, “With what you know now, what might you have done differently in Iraq?” Rumsfeld offers a remarkable response:

I don’t think I would have called it the war on terror. I don’t mean to be critical of those who have. Certainly, I have used the phrase frequently. Why do I say that? Because the word ‘war’ conjures up World War II more than it does the Cold War. It creates a level of expectation of victory and an ending within 30 or 60 minutes of a soap opera. It isn’t going to happen that way. Furthermore, it is not a ‘war on terror.’ Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control.

Leaving aside the fact that Rumsfeld himself used the phrase "war on terror" a number of times (follow the link): remember, these people describe themselves everytime they describe the "enemy."

Here is the poignant quote : "Terror is a weapon of choice for extremists who are trying to destabilize regimes and (through) a small group of clerics, impose their dark vision on all the people they can control."

Ah ha. The corporate fascist clique uses false flag operations as a "weapon of choice" in order to "destabilize" the democracy of the United States, all of this done by the "small group" of neo-con "clerics" who impose their strategic plans "on all the people they can control."

Amazing. Isn't it.

Read Wayne Madsen in the blog list on the right side. He is an ex-Naval Officer ex-NSA government bureaucrat who blew the whistle on the Navy's colussion with the NSA via spy ships back in the early 1980's. When you have to read this site, you have to keep in mind that this is a government insider with contacts inside the government. He should be considered the honest version of the report.


Wednesday, 13 December 2006 at 2h 22m 25s

Did you hear this in the news?

Did you hear this in the news today?

[translated from the French, in Le Monde]


On Sunday , 10th December, the Iraqi President, Jalal Talabani, strongly rejected the compromise with Iraq mentioned in the report put out by Baker- Hamilton commission, and considered that "it undermines the sovereignty of Iraq."

Mr. Talabani judged the text injust. "It contains dangerous articles which undermine the sovereignty of Iraq. I reject the report in it's entirety," he affirmed. Mr. Talabani notably denounced the proposal to imply that the fall of the Baathist regime of Saddam Hussein had something to do with the current political process in Iraq, which according to him, "asserts itself against the long history of the Iraqi people rising up against the dictator."


Le Monde is the Corporate paper in France. You have to read it with care because the story quite often gets craftily edited and blemished with non-quoted attributions to amorphous persons like "some people" or "according to some" , for example.


Wednesday, 13 December 2006 at 1h 42m 32s

Today's word is ...

cogent (adj.) : forcefully convincing. Pertaining to making a sequence of statements in such a manner that anyone listening would have no choice but to agree.

Examples :

  1. A cogent point.
  2. He cogently decimated his philosophy like a watchmaker dismantling a clock.


Saturday, 9 December 2006 at 19h 28m 58s

Bush listens to no one

except those voices in his head that he calls God.

After rejecting the Baker Iraq War Commission's suggestions, President Bush appears to have created his own commission within the military lead by General Pace, in which ... (hold on tight) ... they actually suggest an increase in order to attempt a final complete take-over of Baghdad.

"Bush listens to nobody. If he is not listening to James Baker, he is listening to nobody. This is a lesson for everyone. If you can't learn this lesson watching this, you are not paying attention. He listens to nobody."

--Sidney Blumenthal, on Sam Seder Show | 8 December 2006.


Good God almighty. The son rejects everyone in the status quo foreign policy establishment. What is next.


Saturday, 9 December 2006 at 19h 9m 49s

Absolute corruption

Thanks Bartcop.


In case you don't know who is in the bottle.
The guy on the top is Jack Abramoff, the one man who connected all of the dispersed money rings.

In the next layer, left to right : ex-Senator Majority Leader Bill Frist and Dubya Bush.

The next ... ex House Majority Leader bag man from Texas Tom Delay & Michael Brown, Bush's Arabian horse appointee to FEMA.

The next ... ex K-street House Republican consigliori from Pennsylvania Rick Santorum and Darth Cheney.

Karl Rove is at the bottom.


Saturday, 9 December 2006 at 4h 40m 19s

Mayor Nagin of New Orleans

From the USA Today :


New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin accused the federal government Wednesday of abandoning its legal obligation to help his city recover from the devastation of Hurricane Katrina.

In an interview with USA TODAY's editorial board, Nagin insisted that even the city's most flood-prone areas should be rebuilt — albeit "smarter and safer." He said that can't happen unless promised federal aid begins to flow.

"I'm planning and building for a city that's as large, if not larger, than pre- Katrina levels," he said. "There is (federal) money out in cyberspace, there is money in the mail … but very little of that money has made it to our local governments and our citizens."

Under federal law, he added, the government is obliged to help restore vital infrastructure decimated by the storm, which struck the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29, 2005. Nagin said the federal government has approved more than $900 million to rebuild New Orleans' infrastructure, but local officials have not been able to access most of it.

"We're here to say to the federal government: 'Honor the law,' " said Nagin, in Washington to see lawmakers and federal officials.

. . . .

Nagin said local officials are caught in a bureaucratic Catch-22: They can't get the money until projects are underway, but they're unable to issue contracts until they have money in hand to pay for them. So the city hasn't been able to begin critical repairs to roads, public buildings, power systems or other damaged infrastructure



Saturday, 9 December 2006 at 4h 19m 55s

The majority wants out in 6 months

The recent Zogby Poll has Dubya's approval rating at 30%. The AP-Ipsos poll found that "just 27 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of Iraq, down from his previous low of 31 percent in November."

Furthermore, in the Herald Tribune article ...


Even so, Americans are not necessarily intent on getting all U.S. troops out right away, the poll indicated. The survey found strong support for a two-year timetable if that's what it took to get U.S. troops out. Seventy-one percent said they would favor a two-year timeline from now until sometime in 2008, but when people are asked instead about a six-month timeline for withdrawal that number drops to 60 percent.

You see how much that first sentence tries to stretch the truth : Americans are not necessarily intent on getting all ... out right away. Not necessarily? 71 minus 60 is only an 11 percent jump from what is already a signifigant majority. That first sentence is misleading, and also completely unnecessary, unless the intent is to create cognitive dissonance. Starting with the second sentence ("The survey found...") would have been more appropriate. Was an uber-editor involved?

As far as two more years. To do what? Train more security forces, so they can go fight for the militias when they graduate. The Iraqi's do not want us there. What are we gonna be able to do in 2 years, unless in 2 years we actually do reconstruction instead of securing, fortifying, and helping construct the 14 permanent military bases -- primeveal castles of the modern world, conquering the savages just like the Romans and the Lords throughout Europe during the early middle ages.

Watch as the media rats start jumping off the ship, one after despicable one.


Saturday, 9 December 2006 at 3h 40m 14s

Elaborating on the point

Yesterday, I made this statement, without further explanation :

The point being that one course of action is no different morally than any other course of action.

People don't choose to do things from moral reasons. We do them because they make sense. If some things that make sense are also considered moral acts, then people who act "morally" have a better understanding of what makes sense. Some persons are confused and act "immorally." Sometimes, in the immediate moment, there are things that seem to make a lot of sense, but later after the deed is done, we have second thoughts about whether what happened makes sense.

Nevertheless attaching life to a scale of extremes (between good and bad) is a misperception that becomes a blind spot. since the world and all the people inevitably become categorized (judged) before they are perceived. This paradigm through which to view the cosmos is not standardized however, because where someone or something gets placed on the scale is completely dependent upon the individual's perception. Hence, we have selective morality.

Some examples :

    it's okay to send some hapless D.W.I. punk to the prison system, but not your daughter or your friend's son, that's family

    it's okay to kill arabs and contaminate their land, but don't you even think about touching the unborn fetus, and don't you dare blow up our spy ships that are half-way around the world but within 1 mile of your coastline

    it's okay to go to church on Sunday, and then act like a jerk all week -- and sometimes even on Sunday too

    it's okay to get mad at someone else when they do something thing that is disrespecful, but if you do the same thing, the other person most certainly deserved it

    you want everyone else to experience what you would never want for yourself, but oh well, get to the top of the food chain, ya whining baby.

    It's okay to bitch about paying taxes, and then complain about the schools or the police or government incompetence. Man, it's not like we have to pay for these things.

All of the above are the penultimate results of attaching life to a scale of extremes. Afterwards comes the blindness.

We all have our scales of perception, however things are really neither good nor bad. They just are. Things either make sense, or they don't. They are either beneficial, or they are foolish. In this way, that which becomes considered beneficial or foolish is determined from a rational process. Granted it is true that people can confuse themselves about what is beneficial and what is foolish -- haven't we all -- but these are still fairly objective matters that permit the possibility of negotiation. There is, however, no compromise with those attached to their mental calibration of good and bad. Compromise is only possible when all persons put aside their scales and try to look with fresh eyes.




GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS