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
1092 POSTS
LATEST ITEM

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

Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 15h 20m 21s

Glenn Greenwald 1 hour speech

You have to respect the knowledge that Glenn Greenwald has. He gives this essentially impromptu speech and pulls out quotes off the top of his head. You can also tell that he is someone who is truly strong in his convictions by the elaborate and honest reasoning he gives.



Of course, I'm sure he's not a saint, but if there is any dirt on this man, it will be out there for them to find and broadcast loudly everywhere.

I suspect there isn't any, because Glenn has been good with civil liberties and the 4th amendment for more than a decade. He is reliable where others (I'm looking at you Josh Marshall and Dianne Feinstein) have shown themselves fickle and inconsistent on these matters.


Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 12h 34m 14s

Biden Debates Obama retroactively


Friday, 14 June 2013 at 11h 17m 45s

Hmm ...


Hattip to bartcop

And then what if one of Fox Corporations corporately owned entities uses a government NSA contractor to develop a list of ... hmmm.

How come these lists show up at inopportune times throughout our nations history?


Friday, 14 June 2013 at 5h 44m 3s

Syrian Civil War


Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 15h 54m 12s

Another song thats got me now

Where have I been? Paramore is really good.










And here's a live performance



Hayley Williams has such an incredible, versatile, beautiful voice. She could sing to anything. I'm absolutely stricken with love at first sound. God bless this child. She really has an intrinsic sense at so many levels in so many ways.


Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 14h 3m 9s

Chris Hayes attempts to address the NSA revelations

I like Chris Hayes. He's sincere and he really cares about getting different opinions. He really wants to know how other people think about specifics and different situations. He's also really smart.

No I don't have a man-crush.


Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy


Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 4h 39m 1s

Personality Test results

I just took a personality test, that asked 40 questions and then put you on 5 different scales (or axes).

Here's what it said about my axis of "Abstract to Concrete" :

You are intellectually curious, imaginative, and literary. I do believe the technical term is "artsy fartsy." When reading poetry, the images may move you until you quiver with delight, or perhaps quivering from all of the espresso that you've been drinking. Speaking of caffeine, it would not be a big surprise if you indulged in other substances to heighten your senses. After all, whoever heard of creative geniuses who were sober? Freud was a coke-head, Hemingway was a fall-down drunk, and Robert Johnson supposedly sold his soul to the devil, probably while high on wacky tabacky. You have quite the active fantasy life and are often in la la land, earning you the well-deserved nickname "space cadet" from your loved ones. Mostly, you're a lot of fun to hang out with because you're always game for whatever idea your non-medicated (but should be) friend has in mind. The next time someone suggests that you streak naked in the dead of winter, do think twice, or at least wear some mittens.

And here's my Cooperative to Competitive Axis:

You are such a nice person that people often wonder if there's something darker lurking beneath the surface. Your Eddie Haskell, "Gee, you look really nice today, Mrs. Cleaver" behavior may make some people wonder what it is that you're really after, but then they realize that you're the real deal and they plot to take advantage of your kindness. After all, you also tend to believe that most people are trustworthy and honest so you would fall for just about any ruse. I'll warn you now, don't give away any of your savings to phone psychics or in-laws with big plans to strike it rich. Your tenderness makes you a big sucker for anything that might tug at your heart strings. It would not be surprising if you've sent money off to Ethiopia to save the starving children or at the very least, donated to your local homeless person down the street. In short, you're a sweet, kind person and you should never change.

And here's the Neurotic to Unemotional Axis:

Some people consistently react emotionally to their environment and freak out over little things. You, my friend, are not among those people - at least not usually. Worrying and stressing are not your typical style. Even faced with absurd circumstances, you are calm and may pride yourself in your ability to use logic and reason. As a consequence of your Dalai Lama-like persona, you seldom experience the highs and lows of more emotionally reactive folks. Rather, your moods could be graphed like the flat-line of an ER patient. That analogy may seem grim, but *really*, who is more placid than the person who ceases to be? Anyhoo, if you're annoyed with my analogy right now, it's probably because you only scored medium high in the emotional stability trait and have some tendencies to be easily disturbed and offended.

And the Casual to Disciplined Axis:

Conscientiousness is not one of your defining traits, meaning that you are neither anal retentive nor anal expulsive. What does that mean? In a nutshell, you keep it together fairly well, but you do not suffer too much if you let things fall through the cracks every once in a while. If you make plans with a friend, chances are good that you will show up at the designated time. Then again, something better may come up or you just might forget. Either way, you're good. Another possibility is that you are very conscientious about some things, but more relaxed about other things. For example, you might demand the utmost rigor and discipline in your scholarly/work life, but keep your home looking like a garage sale gone terribly awry, with various articles of clothing and personal belonging strewn about. Where's Fido? Hopefully he hasn't been eaten by the alien life that has developed since the last cleaning.

Ya see mom, it's not my fault. It's in my genes.

If you want to do this yourself, it's at a site called youjustgetme.com

The thing about these tests, as with all tests absent the addition of human interaction, is that they are prone to projection errors. People will respond based upon how they believe about themselves, so you have to be careful with how you mix the questions, and be clever about using the differences between pairs of questions to mitigate the projection effect.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
UPDATE : 15 June 2013
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I took the test again this morning, just to see if there would be any variability. Everything was exactly the same except a slight difference in the "extroverted to introverted" axis and the "cooperative to competitive" axis.

About that "Cooperative" bubble... Your scores would suggest that you tend to be more agreeable than you are competitive. What does that mean? For starters, it means that you have a fairly strong tendency to believe in social harmony and cooperation. You are a nice person. You want people to get along and do the right thing - for each other, for the greater humanity. That's not to say that you are a total pushover, but that you believe in the niceties of life. This is probably why you are very popular with people and have many friends. The difference between you and someone who is very high in agreeableness is that you have a bit of an edge. Maybe you laugh when people fall down and hurt themselves, maybe you secretly occasionally think people suck. Whatever it is that's holding you back from winning Ms. or Mr. Congeniality, that's also what makes you more interesting.

About that "Extraverted" bubble... I have a friend who can strike up a conversation with anyone: Nobel Peace prize nominees and winners, muppets, sanitation workers, perfect strangers, my crazy uncle Harry. My friend is a bona-fide extravert. Your scores indicate that while you tend to be extraverted, you also have some degree of reserve. Perhaps in some situations, you prefer to say less or maybe you have duct tape over your mouth. Either way, you may save your high energy for the situations when you have a need or desire to be "on" and your quiet moments for those with whom you feel most comfortable.


I think the second time I took the test is more accurate, but I'm amazed at the authenticity of this personality test.

I wonder what personality would result from answering the questions at the extreme? Hmm.


Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 11h 52m 34s

BTW

Did you hear the story about how the Chechnyan operatives who were coaxed by their commanders into showing up at a marathon where they got blamed for explosives?

Yes, it's probably just another conspiracy theory. But what about Lee Harvey Oswald? Oswald goes to Russia working with CIA posing as a socialist, then returns to the United States and poses as a Free Cuban Socialist on the streets of New Orleans. Next thing you know he is in the Library of downtown Dallas and you know the rest of the story.


Wednesday, 12 June 2013 at 11h 39m 46s

More reasons to be skeptical

The use of data mining wasn't how they foiled prior terrorist plots. The data mining wasn't even necessary.


Lawyers and intelligence experts with direct knowledge of two intercepted terrorist plots that the Obama administration says confirm the value of the NSA's vast data-mining activities have questioned whether the surveillance sweeps played a significant role, if any, in foiling the attacks.

SKIP

... court documents lodged in the US and UK, as well as interviews with involved parties, suggest that data-mining through Prism and other NSA programmes played a relatively minor role in the interception of the two plots. Conventional surveillance techniques, in both cases including old-fashioned tip-offs from intelligence services in Britain, appear to have initiated the investigations.

In the case of Zazi, an Afghan American who planned to attack the New York subway, the breakthrough appears to have come from Operation Pathway, a British investigation into a suspected terrorism cell in the north-west of England in 2009. That investigation discovered that one of the members of the cell had been in contact with an al-Qaida associate in Pakistan via the email address sana_pakhtana@yahoo.com.

British newspaper reports at the time of Zazi's arrest said that UK intelligence passed on the email address to the US. The same email address, as Buzzfeed has pointed out, was cited in Zazi's 2011 trial as a crucial piece of evidence. Zazi, the court heard, wrote to sana_pakhtana@yahoo.com asking in coded language for the precise quantities to use to make up a bomb.

Eric Jurgenson, an FBI agent involved in investigating Zazi once the link to the Pakistani email address was made, told the court: "My office was in receipt I was notified, I should say. My office was in receipt of several email messages, email communications. Those email communications, several of them resolved to an individual living in Colorado."

Michael Dowling, a Denver-based attorney who acted as Zazi's defence counsel, said the full picture remained unclear as Zazi pleaded guilty before all details of the investigation were made public. But the lawyer said he was sceptical that mass data sweeps could explain what led law enforcement to Zazi.

"The government says that it does not monitor content of these communications in its data collection. So I find it hard to believe that this would have uncovered Zazi's contacts with a known terrorist in Pakistan," Dowling said.

Further scepticism has been expressed by David Davis, a former British foreign office minister who described the citing of the Zazi case as an example of the merits of data-mining as "misleading" and "an illusion". Davis pointed out that Operation Pathway was prematurely aborted in April 2009 after Bob Quick, then the UK's most senior counter-terrorism police officer, was pictured walking into Downing Street with top secret documents containing details of the operation in full view of cameras.

The collapse of the operation, and arrests of suspects that hurriedly followed, came five months before Zazi was arrested in September 2009. "That was the operation that led to the initial data links to Zazi they put the clues in the database which gave them the connections," Davis said.

Davis said that the discovery of the sana_pakhtana@yahoo.com email and in turn the link to Zazi had been made by traditional investigative work in the UK. He said the clue-driven nature of the inquiry was significant, as it was propelled by detectives operating on the basis of court-issued warrants.

"You can't make this grand sweeping [data collection] stuff subject to warrants. What judge would give you a warrant if you say you want to comb through vast quantities of data?"

SKIP

[Some defenders] have also pointed to the case of David Headley, who in January was sentenced to 35 years in jail for having made multiple scouting missions to Mumbai ahead of the 2008 terrorist attacks that killed 168 people. Yet the evidence in his case also points towards a British tip-off as the inspiration behind the US interception of him.

In July 2009, British intelligence began tracking Headley, a Pakistani American from Chicago, who was then plotting to attack Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten in retaliation for its publication of cartoons of the prophet Mohammed. Information was passed to the FBI and he was thereafter, until his arrest that October, kept under targeted US surveillance.

An intelligence expert and former CIA operative, who asked to remain anonymous because he had been directly involved in the Headley case, was derisive about the claim that data-mining sweeps by the NSA were key to the investigation. "That's nonsense. It played no role at all in the Headley case. That's not the way it happened at all," he said.


[SOURCE: Ed Pilkington and Nicholas Watt |Guardian.co.uk|12 June 2013]

And it didn't help with the Boston bombers despite their 6 month trip to Chechnya and despite the warning given to the United States by the Russians. The FBI were supposedly following them.

Ah ha. It's because they didn't get a hit on the search term "terrorists who want to bomb" and decided their work was done.

Nothing to see here. Move along to the next officially manufactured crisis please.


Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 11h 40m 45s

Of Course they won't target disident groups

They already have.

Could the sprawling surveillance state enable government or its legion of private contractors to abuse their technology and spy upon domestic political targets or judges?

This is not a far off possibility. Two years ago, a batch of stolen e-mails revealed a plot by a set of three defense contractors (Palantir Technologies, Berico Technologies, and HBGary Federal) to target activists, reporters, labor unions, and political organizations. The plans -- one concocted in concert with lawyers for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to sabotage left-leaning critics, like the Center for American Progress and the SEIU, and a separate proposal to "combat" WikiLeaks and its supporters, including Glenn Greenwald, on behalf of Bank of America -- fell apart after reports of their existence were published online. But the episode serves as a reminder that the expanding spy industry could use its government-backed cyber tools to harm ordinary Americans and political dissident groups.

The episode also shows that Greenwald, who helped Snowden expose massive spying efforts in the U.S., had been targetted by spy agency contractors in the past for supporting whistleblowers and WikiLeaks.


[SOURCE:Lee Fang|The Nation|12 June 2013]




GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS