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
1662 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, 9 February 2006 at 2h 12m 38s

Mr Crowley

Funny how this song means more to me now, than it did when I heard it first in 1982 as an 8th grader at Barbre Middle School in Kenner, Louisiana.


Mr. Crowley, what went on in your head
(Oh) Mr. Crowley, did you talk to the dead
Your lifestyle to me seemed so tragic
With the thrill of it all
You fooled all the people with magic
(Yea)You waited on Satan's call

Mr. Charming, did you think you were pure
Mr. Alarming, in nocturnal rapport
Uncovering things that were sacred, manifest on this earth
(Ah)Conceived in the eye of a secret
Yeah, they scattered the afterbirth

Solo

Mr. Crowley, won't you ride my white horse?
Mr. Crowley, it's symbolic of course
Approaching a time that is classic
I hear that maidens call
Approaching a time that is drastic
Standing with their backs to the wall

Was it polemically sent
I wanna know what you meant
I wanna know
I wanna know what you meant, yeah!



Thursday, 9 February 2006 at 1h 32m 21s

Lest we forget

Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Peter Pace, yesterday:

“Pace said only one Iraqi army battalion is capable of fighting without U.S. help. That is the same number as in September, when U.S. commanders disclosed that the number of such highly trained battalions had dropped from three to one, prompting criticism from lawmakers.” [AP, 2/7/06]


For those of you who don't know, that "one battalion" consists of 800 men. Yep, after nearly 3 years of Operation Iraqi freedom, the US military effort can only convince 800 Iraqi's to willingly support them.


Thursday, 9 February 2006 at 0h 53m 29s

Heartless, thoughtless bastards

By DAVID ESPO, AP Special Correspondent [SOURCE]

WASHINGTON - President Bush's budget calls for elimination of a $255 lump- sum death payment that has been part of Social Security for more than 50 years and urges Congress to cut off monthly survivor benefits to 16- and 17- year-old high school dropouts.

If approved, the two proposals would save a combined $3.4 billion over the next decade, according to administration estimates....

[T]he benefit is paid in cases in which a surviving spouse was living with the deceased at the time of his or her death. It is also available in some cases for a surviving spouse who lived apart and for some surviving children.

Administration officials said the payment began as a burial benefit in 1939, to assist families with funeral expenses. The amount was set at $255 in 1952 and until 1981, the payment was made directly to funeral homes, they said.

The second change Bush proposed would terminate monthly survivor benefits for 16- and 17-year-olds who do not attend school full time. Current law requires 18-year-olds to remain in school to receive their benefits. Survivor benefits are paid in cases in which a parent has died.



Wednesday, 8 February 2006 at 3h 22m 50s

It's the constitution stupid

except when winning elections are more important than patriotism.

Howie Kurtz manages to put the NSA eavesdropping fiasco in perspective. Go here

The article essentially glosses over all of the items thrown about in the news. I don't usually like Howie, because he has been wishy-washy in the past, and he often chooses the facts to make the point, instead of using all of the facts to figure out the point. Ignoring poignant facts makes me wonder if the author who does so consistently is really a shill of sorts, as if he is quite mindfull of which side his bread is buttered.

But Howie gets why the news-fo-tainment industry can't provide anything but a slanted, inaccurate perspective of all remotely "political" events. Consider this snippet, which comments on how the news networks covered Senate Judiciary hearings with Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez yesterday:


The cable nets all made a great show of 'covering' the Senate Judiciary hearing by carrying the AG's opening statement, then maybe a question or two from Arlen Specter. Then they trotted out their legal analysts to talk about the meaning of the hearing, which by then must have been eight or nine minutes old. The hearing became video wallpaper as the cable talkers talked. They never even got to Pat Leahy, the panel's top Democrat, meaning that only Republican voices were heard. Gonzales essentially got a free ride.

Then everyone moved on to other subjects. MSNBC went back to the hearing for a couple of minutes but thought better of it. We had CNN looking at Fall Fashion Week, Fox ginning up a debate on Ken Mehlman calling Hillary angry, and MS doing a 'Massachusetts Murder Mystery.'

Now I'm not saying the Gonzales session should have been covered wall to wall (though fortunately it was on C-SPAN). America probably got sick of the preening politicians during the Roberts and Alito hearings. And the cable nets did deal with other serious issues. But they couldn't even be bothered with dipping in and out of the first attempt on Capitol Hill to hold the administration accountable for its domestic spying program. Instead, we had the appearance of coverage, and even that didn't last long.


It's important to understand the seriousness of what happened yesterday. The Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzalez, obfuscated every direct question. He could not answer a simple yes or no to the question posed by Senator Leahy: does the United States eavesdrop on American citizens? "I can't answer that with certainty" , "It is my belief that that is not our policy", "I believe that our activities are consistent with the Constitution", and anything else but the one of two words that would have answered the question : yes or no.

Lets not forget that the hearings began with a vote on partisan lines not to put Gonzalez under oath. [see it here] Senator Feingold called for a voice vote, and some of the Republicans uttered "no" while looking down at the table, as if ashamed.


Tuesday, 7 February 2006 at 4h 49m 16s

He who gives a little liberty for safety, will get neither of both

Okay, you say. I'm a good citizen. I'm not ashamed of anything. I have nothing to hide.

But consider the idea at stake. Do we have to have every conversation -- digital or audible -- monitored in order to be safe? Keep in mind that already the entire network of telecommunications within -- and exterior to some extent - - the United States in gathered at the NSA. I repeat. They are already gathering the data. Accessing that data however, or tapping into the instantaneous moment of the network, needs a warrant. If an emergency arises, the executive branch has 72 hours to notify the FISA court with the "probable cause" basis for the action. The FISA court consists of 12 justices appointed by the Chief Justice.

When the government doesn't bother to notify or include the FISA court they are breaking the law.

Nothing is inhibiting the need to protect the public by following the law. The idea that some super-program can filter out the data is ludicrously inefficient. No search query could ever be more than 99.9 % accurate. There are just too many variations. Mind you during the average day, more than 1 billion communications occur. Now lets do the Math. 99.9 % means you have 0.1% error. 0.1% of one billion equates to 0.001 x 1,000,000,000, which equals a minimum of 1,000,000 calls a day.

Okay, now of this 1,000,000,which calls are the actual terrorists. And what of the other "terrorist"-related calls that don't get fished into the net? Since some of the calls will be false positives, what if your listening to these calls gains you incidental information not related to the reason for the monitoring (terrorism?) And what of the false negatives? These will also be missed, and might be more important, so at best, any kind of software is imperfect.

1,000,000 calls a day. How do we filter this residue? Does the administration hire 100,000 people to monitor 10 calls a day? 10,000 people to monitor 100? 1,000 people to monitor 1000? 100 people to monitor 10,000? 10 to monitor 100,000.

Who decides how to resolve the above issues as regards this "monitoring" of NSA communications. You say you've got nothing to hide, but what happens if you wind up in the 0.1% area. Does that mean your name gets put on a list? What is the procedure? Again, incidental information could occur, so what is the systematic approach to the filtering of this "monitoring."

Or would the above information leave us vulnerable to "the enemy" ?

"I can't talk about specifics. Information is obtained. Information is retained. And information is obtained with respect to the rights of all Americans." Alberto Gonzalez, Attorney General of the the Dubya Bush administration. The same Attorney General exclaimed in a recent speech that "reasonable suspicion" was the same as "probable cause" because of the clustered mumbo-jumbo legalese that he gave in the speech. Essentially, the argument boiled down to the proclaimation that "judges have long since agreed," which is not true. Judges have NOT LONG SINCE AGREED because the 4th amendment is absolutely clear on this :


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.

This type of ongoing, surreptitious surveillance leaves us vulnerable to intimidation. Only fools succomb to the idea that the world is not safe and so therefore we must surrender our liberty. The world has never been safe, and no amount of liberty given or surrendered will increase or decrease the world being unsafe.

It's not like we don't have a history. Pinkerton detectives were hired by many industrialists -- examples: Oil magnate John Rockefeller, Henry Ford, big steel manager Ford Frick-- from the 1890s to the 1930s to infiltrate and destroy the union movement. Lynchings were the ante-bellum methods of supressing the slaves and the black sharecroppers of the early 1900's. Start a cooperative to finance a store that undercut the exorbitant prices of the small town "white" store owner, and a few niggahs found themselves hanging by a rope. And equal to the struggle for civil rights, the Union movement itself involved many people getting shot and assassinated before Franklin Roosevelt enshrined the right the form a Union in legislation.

The director of the FBI in the post-World War 2 world, J. Edgar Hoover was known to be a closet homosexual who blackmailed many people in government and political groups. The Cointelpro operation by the FBI involved infiltrating environmental groups, peace groups, and other groups deemed "leftist" in the effort to disrupt them by all means possible. The Nixon administration used the CIA, the FBI, the IRS, and the Secret Service in every effort to destroy the perceived enemies on the enemies list, which was why the breaking into Daniel Ellsberg's home and the Democratic headquarters at Watergate occurred. Go refresh your history on Nixon, people.

The creation of the FISA court in 1978 was the fruition of the Church investigation by Senator Church of Idaho. The investigation revealed to the nation the incredible extent of the activities of the National Security Administration, the CointelPro FBI program, the use of the IRS to intimidate people, and the use of the secret service to form a police force under the direction of the executive branch.

We've been here before.


Wednesday, 1 February 2006 at 3h 39m 54s

Arrested for wearing a tee-shirt

From NBC News and news services Updated: 10:15 p.m. ET Jan. 31, 2006

[SOURCE]


Cindy Sheehan, the mother of a fallen soldier in Iraq who reinvigorated the antiwar movement, was arrested and removed from the House gallery Tuesday night just before President Bush’s State of the Union address, a police spokeswoman said.

Sheehan, who had been invited to attend the speech by Rep. Lynn Woolsey, D- Calif., was charged with unlawful conduct, a misdemeanor, Capitol Police told NBC News. Sheehan was taken in handcuffs to police headquarters a few blocks away and her case was processed as Bush spoke.

Capitol Police Sgt. Kimberly Schneider said Sheehan had worn a T-shirt with an antiwar slogan to the speech and covered it up until she took her seat. Police warned her that such displays were not allowed, but she did not respond, the spokeswoman said.

The T-shirt bore the words “2,245 Dead — How Many More??” in reference to the number of U.S. troops killed in Iraq, protesters told NBC News.

Police handcuffed Sheehan and removed her from the gallery before Bush arrived. Sheehan was to be released on her own recognizance, Schneider said.



Wednesday, 1 February 2006 at 3h 2m 9s

He did it again.and again. and again

A "bi-partisan" commission to offer "bi-partisan" solutions to Social Security. You don't say? Been there done that, people. George Dubya already tried that attempt to destroy Social Security in 2001-2 when he had Daniel Moynihan as the token non-partisan on the commission. The suggested remedy was somehow almost exactly like what Bush promoted last year. Moynihan was reported at the time to be very disatisfied with the operations of the commission and made some snappy quip about how conclusions seemed to exist prior to the investigation.

--- He goes on ---

So there he is acting like there is a problem that "won't go away" that isn't related to his own reckless government spending that is outta control. I repeat. Social Security is not in crisis.

American Competitivenes Initiative. American children get a sound foundation in Math and Science. Alternative Energy sources. A tax credit. Public and Private sectors. Insuring Opportunity for decades to come.

Encourage children to take more math and science. NCLB did what? Did he say bring in 30,000 Math and Science professionals? Okay, specifically how are you going to do this?

He is just now lying about the crime rates, the number of abortions, and the births to teenage mothers. INCREDIBLE. Does anyone read regular newspapers so they catch the stories that would let them know these were lies?

Activist courts that try to redefine marriage?

We have proven the pessimists wrong before, and we will do it again?

Justices must be subserviant to the law and not legislate from the Bench? Whoa, boy, then why did you nominate Alioto, who did exactly that on at least 5 occassions -- in applications of legislative statues to safety regulations, his "theory of the Unitary executive," and his very constant uncommon understandings of the law which on many occasions put him alone as the sole descenting vote on the ruling of the Appeals court.

Of course, whatd'you expect. Vague hyperbole in a cute vernacular or ... or what?


Wednesday, 1 February 2006 at 2h 35m 25s

Bush spits on the Union

Ugh, how he has just exploited that soldiers dying words and his family ? I cannot recall the last time there was this use of American soldiers as a symbolic mythological creation of a failure for a Presidency.

And just minutes before he declares "We are Winning."

Winning what? What is it exactly that is being "won" ? What does "winning" mean? Give us a vision, sir Presidente, that isn't airy declarations that corrupt overlord gang filed Afghanistan is actually a "democracy" because a few thousand woman in Kabul voted on election day, when the rest of Afghanistan is under the umbrella of the Taliban.


Wednesday, 1 February 2006 at 2h 20m 28s

What you should know about Rupurt Murdoch

Thanks to Atrios. .

MURDOCH THE APOLOGIST FOR DICTATORSHIPS: Time Magazine reported that while Murdoch is supposedly "a devout anti-Soviet and anti-communist" he "became bewitched by China in the early '90s." In an effort to persuade Chinese dictators that he would never challenge their behavior, Murdoch "threw the BBC off Star TV" (his satellite network operating in China) after BBC aired reports about Chinese human rights violations. Murdoch argued the BBC "was gratuitously attacking the regime, playing film of the massacre in Tiananmen Square over and over again." In 1998 Chinese President Jiang Zemin praised Murdoch for the "objective" way in which his papers and television covered China. [Source: Time Magazine, 10/25/99]

MURDOCH THE PROPAGANDIST FOR DICTATORS: While Murdoch justifies his global media empire as a threat to "totalitarian regimes everywhere," according to Time Magazine, Murdoch actually pays the salary of a top TV consultant working to improve the Chinese government's communist state-run television CCTV. As Time notes, "nowadays, News Corp. and CCTV International are partners of sorts," exchanging agreements to air each other's content, even though CCTV is "a key propaganda arm of the Communist Party." [Source: Time Magazine, 7/6/04]

MURDOCH THE ENABLER OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATORS: According to the LA Times, Murdoch had his son James, now in charge of News Corp.'s China initiative, attack the Falun Gong, the spiritual movement banned by the Chinese government after 10,000 of its followers protested in Tiananmen Square. With Rupert in attendance, James Murdoch called the movement a "dangerous" and "apocalyptic cult" and lambasted the Western press for its negative portrayal of China's awful human rights record. Murdoch "startled even China's supporters with his zealous defense of that government's harsh crackdown on Falun Gong and criticism of Hong Kong democracy supporters." Murdoch also "said Hong Kong democracy advocates should accept the reality of life under a strong- willed 'absolutist' government." It "appeared to some to be a blatant effort to curry favor" with the China's repressive government. [LA Times, 3/23/01]

...

[ here's a larger snippet of the Time article ]

Murdoch, a devout anti-Soviet and anti-communist, became bewitched by China in the early '90s. The Chinese leadership, while liberalizing in terms of economics, still attempted to control information; satellite broadcasting seemed an obvious threat to its ideological stranglehold.

To try and persuade the Chinese he was not a danger, Murdoch threw the BBC off Star. He argued that it was gratuitously attacking the regime, playing film of the massacre in Tiananmen Square over and over again. He also pointed out that since the BBC broadcasts only in English, almost no Chinese could understand it. In 1998 he ordered his British publishing firm, HarperCollins, to drop the memoirs of Chris Patten, the last governor of Hong Kong and another fierce critic of Beijing. The reward came last December when Chinese President Jiang Zemin praised Murdoch for the "objective" way in which his papers and television covered China.

When I put it to him that he was betraying his anti-communist values to ingratiate himself with Beijing, he said: "I don't think there are many communists left in China. There's a one-party state and there's a communist economy, which they are desperately trying to get out of and change. The real story there is an economic story, tied to the democratic story." He argues that Western entertainment, even without Western news, will help further dilute the regime.


In case you didn't know, Rupurt Murdoch is the owner of all the ancillary branches of the Fox Corporation both in the United States and abroad.


Wednesday, 1 February 2006 at 1h 15m 22s

They just don't care

You have to wonder just how hard George Bush's appointed heads of FEMA and Homeland Security (Michael Brown and Michael Chertoff) tried to deal with Hurricane Katrina. Especially after the following story reported in the New York Times yesterday. [SOURCE .] The story is written by Eric Lipton, someone whom I have found to be consistently fair and reliable.

As Hurricane Katrina passed across the Gulf Coast last August, the federal Interior Department offered hundreds of trucks and flat-bottomed boats, thousands of law enforcement officers and even 11 aircraft to help with the rescue effort. But much of the equipment and personnel were not used as part of the federal response, or at least not used effectively, according to an account prepared by department officials.

"Clearly these assets and skills were precisely relevant in the post-Katrina environment," said the department's assessment, prepared at the request of a Senate committee investigating the government's flawed reaction to the storm. The report focused on the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

The Interior Department, the document says, has a staff of 4,400 law enforcement officers, "many of whom work in harsh environments and are trained in search and rescue, emergency medical services and evacuation," and many of them were in the Gulf Coast area. Yet the report says they were not called to help by FEMA until late September.

The Interior Department was not the only government agency to offer assistance that was not used, or at least not used effectively. Senator Mary L. Landrieu, Democrat of Louisiana, said in September that Amtrak had offered, before the storm, to carry residents out, but that its train had left nearly empty. New Mexico offered National Guard troops, but for days officials waited for formal approval to use them.

But the internal documents note that the Interior Department is formally a part of the January 2005 Southern Louisiana Catastrophic Hurricane Plan, prepared by FEMA, and was supposed to play a support role in the "need for rescue and sheltering of thousands of victims," according to the plan....

Even without an official federal assignment, some Interior Department boats and security squads took part in rescue efforts, but it occurred on an ad hoc basis, ultimately helping about 4,500 people, the department said.


They knew the Hurricane was going to be devastating at least 2 days prior to hitting "Democratic-ly" dense New Orleans, and yet ignored every single agency and public corporation ( Greyhound in addition to Amtrac ) that offered to help rescue people. They even allowed a Naval vessel to lay off the coast of Louisiana waiting to be given an order to send in helicopters for 3 days because, according to the Officer in charge, the president had not given orders to act. When the evacuation finally proceeds they send all the refuges all across the United States, rather than accumulate them in various different places nearby -- like they did when THREE FREAKING Hurricanes tore into Florida during Presidential election year 2004. I guess 2005 was not an election year. Oh yea .... the Governor of Florida is brother Jeb Bush.

They exclaimed that no one predicted the levees would break, but then a report prior to the Hurricane -- and emails -- come out indicating that they themselves were well aware the levees could potentially give way. Rumsfeld and others spoke of newspaper headlines that said New Orleans missed the bullet, only to discover -- oopsie -- there were no newspaper headlines that said any such thing. George Bush himself spent the first 2 days fund-raising in Arizona and Colorado, then joining Senator McCain for his birthday party. And when he finally made his way East on Wednesday, he spent the night in Crawford -- although he did "fly-over" the hurricane affected area for 15 minutes.

And don't forget the plethora of "photo-ops" the President made, where according to German press reporters for Der Speigel, the constructed water bottle dispersal centers were instantly deconstructed when the cameras were turned off. And don't forget the firefighters who were re-routed to Atlanta, Georgia for a couple days so they could be trained in public relations before they could actually help anyone.

The President couldn't take the disaster seriously, but he did find time to suspend the Davis-Bacon provisions of Government Contract Laws AND to a recess appointment of a Department of Justice official that coincidentally happened to oversee the Abrahmoff case. One has to have priorities, you see. The suspension of the Davis-Bacon provisions is exceptionally egregious, since this dropped the wage level for workers involved in the reconstruction from the "prevailing wage" criterea to whatever the contracted corporations decided they wanted to pay. Bush calls it "giving business incentives" when he gets on this topic in his speeches. Really now, and with Karl Rove himself the point man in charge of the Katrina Reconstruction processs, I'm sure the decisions on who gets contracts are very fair and absolutely non-partisan.

Except one thing. It came out in November that -- oopsie -- KNPR ( a branch of Halliburton ) was caught importing workers from Honduras. Instead of hiring workers who actually live ( or lived ) in the area. Now surely, this was never the intention by Bush when he suspended the Davis-Bacon provisions.

In the meantime, Karl and the gang sit back and toss fishes to the sharks, hungry for more power.

This was by design folks, don't fool yourself. They are not incompetent. They purposely allowed Katrina to become a disaster, because they thought they could spin it as the fault of "the local politicians" while they filled the big bowl for the contracting gravy train.

That's the sad, pathetic story of Katrina. Quite frankly, it really pisses me off. My family is from New Orleans. I lived there from age 9 to 27.

And you wonder why I'm so passionate about this corruption and the lies which are used to conceal the fact that these people are monsters.




GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS