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

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]


Tuesday, 11 June 2013 at 11h 56m 21s

Subcontractors and Private firms can't eliminate rogue actors

I just called Dianne Feinstein. You should to. (202) 224-3841

I also just sent her an email.

Private contractors can't control what their people do. Lots of recent lessons in Iraq, as you should know. For instance: subconstractors Selling secrets to help private firms that then give contractors a cushy job when you leave.

One subcontracting agent in Seattle hacked into a cell phone of a girl he liked and was stalking.

Others found listening in on soldiers calls to spouses and extra-marital affairs because it was fun.

We have no oversight over this vast amount of private data that can easily get into the wrong hands because it's outsourced to so many private firms who are more about billing the government for profits than they are about anything else.

And we can't prevent abuses when the apparatus is hidden underneath complicated webs of private firms that bill the government. Why can't the government do this itself? Are we so wedded to enriching private firms even when it will cause an unmanageable security risk?

The New York Times and Washington Post have both done plenty of stores about the shadow security state being built out and performed by private contractors. With little oversight. What's to keep someone with security clearance from selling secrets to corporate or foreign groups for personal profit?

Answer: nothing.

Snowden didn't reveal anything that wasn't known about. No secret agents were compromised. The threat of privatization and the bureaucracy of an unaccountable data mining operation is real.

So if the only take you have on this is that Snowden is treasonist and nothing else, shame on you, because it shows how craven you are to the status quo, to the point where you belittle the messenger who tells you the house is on fire and ignore the evidence that it was arson because you wanna believe in magical thinking and ignore history.

Shame. On. You.


It's my understanding that I'll get a letter of response. I'll share it with you if this happens.


Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 17h 36m 42s

My new Love

This song really has my heart strings right now.


Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 5h 41m 34s

A new Map of the US

Using a site that tracks dollar bills, a theoretical physicist noticed that our state boundaries are rather arbitrary, but that money tends to stay within new, more realistic boundaries.

This is cool


Saturday, 8 June 2013 at 5h 21m 58s

What is Water

This 9 minute video blew my freaking mind.


Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 12h 17m 44s

The Fourth 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.

Are we "secure in our persons,..., papers, and effects" when every single telephone communication or text or email you ever make goes into a government database ?

And "probable cause" must be "supported by Oath or affirmation AND" any search warrants issued must in particular describe specifically "the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Collecting data from the citizens under the belief that this keeps us safe from "terrorists" presumes that there is a way to mine the data that will always be independent of potential political partisan witch hunts that can be (and has been in the past) used to blacklist or blackmail individuals who are otherwise obeying the law. Authorities can use this information to have prior knowledge about various groups or networks of individuals who are law abiding citizens by simply analyzing who calls who and how often.

Which is really why this is happening. Tracking real criminals and real terrorists is more difficult, because real criminals and real terrorists have been communicating with satellite telephones and/or laptop computers for a decade.

Every single recent security breech event since the 1990's has been about incompetence ... and some would say willful ignorance. Is this the security state gone rogue?


Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 11h 58m 1s

That crazy new Plant out to destroy the world

It was just growing mysteriously in the backyard.


Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 11h 26m 30s

The Stress Test Optical Illusion


Thursday, 6 June 2013 at 8h 6m 36s

Two questions

Today I was thinking about how whenever someone asks someone else a question, there was actually a first question in their mind that was thought first; and the second question is what gets verbalized. Sometimes these are the same two questions, sometimes they are different questions.

For instance, if someone asks you "Where did you get that jacket?" one day, the first question might be "That looks just like a jacket I used to own, I wonder were that person got his/her jacket?"

Or it could be, "I wonder if that is a leather jacket?"

Or it could be, "That guy looks cute, I wonder if he's interested in me?"

The first question is subconscious, instinctive to the person's unique thought process. Assuming that the two questions are the same is a bad idea, because it depends upon the situation, and the relationship of the two persons or people involved. People's curiosity about strangers are different, and people with strong relationships can tend to anticipate each others' thoughts.

The first question might be also something that can be inferred from the number of inferential questions that are asked in a succession of events. For instance, a woman or man might have "Can I trust you?" in the back of their head while they are on a date with a new someone in their life.

Anyway, that's what I was pondering this morning.


Thursday, 16 May 2013 at 19h 3m 55s

10 gross ingredients you didn't know were in your food

Would you believe Arsenic,Silicone breast implant filler, and rat hair, click the Source.

Stop watching TV an read People.

[SOURCE: Anna Brones | UK Guardian | 13 May 2013]




GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS