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

Thursday, 19 June 2008 at 9h 23m 19s

Show trials are more important than the administration of Justice

According to Lt. Cmdr. William C. Kuebler, a military lawyer for a Guantánamo detainee, in a recent interview by the New York Times,

The Bush administration’s war crimes system “is designed to get criminal convictions” with “no real evidence,” Commander Kuebler says. Or he lets fly that military prosecutors “launder evidence derived from torture.”

“You put the whole package together and it stinks,” he said in an interview.

[...]

The lawyers, trained in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, were selected to defend detainees in a judicial system established especially for terrorism suspects. But many of them share a sense of indignation that Guantánamo makes military justice seem like watered-down justice. Representing detainees, said one of them, Lt. Cmdr. Brian L. Mizer, “is a historic opportunity to defend the rule of law.

[...]

Commander Kuebler (pronounced KEEB-ler) is the latest example of a lawyer in uniform attacking the Pentagon’s legal system.

He is no natural agitator. At 37, he is in some ways deeply conventional. Married to the first girl he ever dated in high school, he is a self-described born-again Christian and conservative who has “never voted for a Democrat.” Tom Fleener, a former Guantánamo military defense lawyer, described Commander Kuebler, saying, “Take the average conservative guy in the street and multiply that by a million.”


[SOURCE: William Glaberson | New York Times | 19 June 2008]

Today's SF Comical front page story?

  1. Cal and Tree-sitters both claim victory
  2. Tiger Woods knee injury
  3. African Penguins welcomed to new SF home

Proof again that the SF Comical isn't worthy of being used to wrap fish.


Thursday, 19 June 2008 at 9h 8m 43s

It was about oil

Oil companies have been running American foreign policy since the 1930's. No surprise's here.

Four Western oil companies are in the final stages of negotiations this month on contracts that will return them to Iraq, 36 years after losing their oil concession to nationalization as Saddam Hussein rose to power.

Exxon Mobil, Shell, Total and BP — the original partners in the Iraq Petroleum Company[which Saddam threw out when he nationalized Iraqi oil] — along with Chevron and a number of smaller oil companies, are in talks with Iraq’s Oil Ministry for no-bid contracts to service Iraq’s largest fields, according to ministry officials, oil company officials and an American diplomat.

[...]

There was suspicion among many in the Arab world and among parts of the American public that the United States had gone to war in Iraq precisely to secure the oil wealth these contracts seek to extract. The Bush administration has said that the war was necessary to combat terrorism. It is not clear what role the United States played in awarding the contracts; there are still American advisers to Iraq’s Oil Ministry.


[SOURCE: Andrew E. Kramer | New York Times | 19 June 2008]

And so now we need 58 permanent military bases in Iraq to protect the investments of the oil companies fragile democracy.


Thursday, 19 June 2008 at 8h 55m 42s

The truth about drilling for oil in Alaska

The spin offered by a few too many ideologues and ignorant individuals is that drilling in Alaska will alleviate our dependence upon Middle East oil, but that tree-hugging environmentalists are stopping that from happening.

The Energy Information Administration is the independent statistical and analytical agency within the Department of Energy. From the Energy Information Administration's own May 2008 report on the ANWR matter:

In all three ANWR resource cases, ANWR crude oil production begins in 2018 and grows during most of the projection period before production begins to decline. In the mean oil resource case, ANWR oil production peaks at 780,000 barrels per day in 2027. The low- resource-case production peaks at 510,000 barrels per day in 2028, while the high- resource-case production peaks at 1,450,000 barrels per day in 2028. Cumulative oil production resulting from the opening of ANWR from 2018 through 2030 amounts to 2.6 billion barrels in the mean resource case, 1.9 billion barrels in the low resource case, and 4.3 billion barrels in the high resource case.

[SOURCE: Energy Information Administration | May 2008]

Peaking at 1,450,000 barrels per day in 2028 is the best-case scenario, and the mean-case scenario is only 780,000 barrels a day by 2027. The total amount of oil that could be extracted (cumulative oil production) is somewhere between 2.6 and 4.3 billion barrels from 2018 to 2030 (2.6 is the average case scenario).

According to Nationmaster.com we use 20,730,000 barrels of oil per day. That is 7,566,450,000 barrels (7.5 billion) for the entire year -- and this number is increasing !!!

In other words, if we drilled in Alaska, the total amount of oil we could extract over a period of 12 years is somewhere between 3 to 6 months of our yearly consumption. With the daily peak of barrels per day somewhere between 2% to 5% of our current daily usage.

How is this difficult to extract oil going to free us from dependence on Middle East Oil?

Answer: it isn't.

But that won't stop spineless liars like Glenn Beck from saying otherwise, and then using his false statements to beat up on liberal tree-hugging politicians.


Thursday, 19 June 2008 at 8h 18m 58s

What the mainstream press won't tell you about Cindy McCain

All this coverage over Michelle Obama -- including front page treatment in the San Francisco Comical -- but very little about McCain's (2nd) wife -- remember he divorced the first one after she was badly mangled in a car accident.

Perhaps that's because Cindy McCain has some legit skeleton's in her own closet.

In 1989, following two back surgeries, Cindy McCain became addicted to the painkillers Vicodin and Percocet. To keep up with her daily need of 10 to 15 pills, she used other people's names for prescriptions and stole drugs from the American Voluntary Medical Team, a mobile surgical unit she'd begun in 1988 to provide emergency medical services around the world. A 1993 DEA audit of the amount of painkillers her charity had obtained quickly uncovered her thefts. She avoided prosecution for those crimes through an agreement with the Justice Department in which she submitted to drug testing, paid a fine, performed community service in a soup kitchen, and joined Narcotics Anonymous. She also closed her medical charity

[SOURCE: Snopes.com |  | April 2008]
If Snopes says it's true, then it is the truth.

Where is the race-baiting press on this issue?


Wednesday, 18 June 2008 at 8h 45m 11s

You are born that way

Funny that the San Francisco Comical which is busy putting the married gay people issue on every single front page this entire week -- at the expense of more relevant breaking news, I mean what's wrong with page 3 or 4.

Yet this story is nowhere in the San Francisco Chronicle:

Scientists investigating human sexuality have found that the brains of homosexuals have structural and functional differences from those of “straight” people.

Lesbians appear to have a lower proportion of grey matter in their brains than straight women, giving their brains a more “male- like” structure.

The brains of gay men appear to have structural similarities to those of heterosexual women. They also exhibit the same powerful response as straight women to the sex hormones released in male sweat.

[...]

Scientists have long thought this meant there should be differences in the brains of homosexuals. Brain scanning equipment has only recently become powerful enough to seek them out, however.


[SOURCE: Jonathan Leake | London Times | 15 June 2008]

Hmm, so writing endlessly about Gay marriages is okay, but writing about scientific research that indicates how homosexuals are different from birth is not relevant. Notice that the Times article is from Sunday. So in 4 days, the Comical can't publish an account of the Science behind homosexuality, but pumps out front page pictures and articles of gay people hugging and getting married.

Sounds like the editors just want to beat a controversial issue that gets people riled up rather than do an actual relevant news story.


Tuesday, 17 June 2008 at 9h 47m 36s

The corruption in Iraq defies the imagination

As quoted from a Sunni parlementarian in Le Monde. Click here for the article in French written by Patrice Claude.

The translation is mine, but I've included the French in italics.

According to Transparency International ... For the first time, a total number is cited this week by the BBC, and it is astronomical: 23 billion dollars (14.8 billion euros) have been "lost, stolen" or at the very least "not justified" during the 5 years from the American Treasury....

[Another] audit -- necessarily partial because the commercial contracts concluded by the military and American diplomats total more than 165,000 documents since march 2003-- has been done by the inspector general of defense. Released in May in Washington, it estimated as 8.2 billion dollars the sum payed to contractors without having any justification. No related invoice or totally inadequate. One American enterprise not-identified was paid 320.8 millions of dollars with a simple mention on the invoice: "Payment for Iraqi salaries." To whom, for what, and why, is a mystery....

The compatibility of public spendng is not less a mystery and cannot see the light since the Commission for public integrity, which had been put in place at the end of 2003, was virtually dismantled in the summer of 2007 by Prime Minister Nouri Al- Maliki, after it's President, the juge Radhi Al-Radhi, was publically disavowed [by Maliki] ...

63 years old, judge Radhi had been imprisoned and tortured by the Baathist dictator [Saddam Hussein]. He has seen 31 of investigating staff assassinated since last year after having poked their noses into certain affairs. In October 2007, he revealed that 18 billion dollars of Iraqi funds have been funneled into corruption...

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Pour la première fois, un chiffre global est cité dans une enquête approfondie diffusée la semaine passée par la BBC, et il est astronomique : 23 milliards de dollars, soit 14,8 milliards d'euros, auraient été "perdus, volés", à tout le moins "non justifiés" depuis cinq ans auprès du Trésor américain....

Un audit, forcément partiel puisque les contrats commerciaux conclus en Irak par les militaires ou les diplomates américains totalisent plus de 165 000 documents depuis mars 2003, a été réalisé par l'Inspection générale de la défense. Diffusé en mai à Washington, il estimait à 8,2 milliards de dollars la somme payée à des contractants sans avoir été régulièrement justifiée. Pas de facture afférente, ou alors totalement inadéquate. Comme cette entreprise américaine non identifiée qui s'est fait verser 320,8 millions de dollars avec une simple mention sur sa facture : "Paiement de salaires irakiens". A qui, pourquoi, comment ? Mystère....

la comptabilité des dépenses publiques est encore plus mystérieuse et nul ne peut plus faire la lumière sur la corruption ambiante puisque la Commission pour l'intégrité publique, qui avait été mise en place fin 2003, a été virtuellement démantelée, l'été 2007, par le premier ministre, Nouri Al-Maliki, après que son président, le juge Radhi Al-Radhi, eût été publiquement désavoué....

Agé de 63 ans, le juge Radhi, qui fut emprisonné et torturé sous la dictature baassiste, a vu 31 de ses enquêteurs assassinés ces dernières années après avoir mis leur nez dans certaines sales affaires. Entendu en octobre 2007 par le Congrès, il estimait alors à 18 milliards de dollars le montant des fonds publics irakiens détournés.


[SOURCE: Patrice Claude | Le Monde | 17 June 2008]

Building democracy is expensive, don't you know. And the Iraqi people are so grateful that the American construction effort over the last 5 years have been so astoundingly successful, that only the green zone construction projects, the military bases, and the huge American embassy have been on schedule.

The priorities of colonialism supersede the public statements of the colonialists.


Monday, 16 June 2008 at 12h 49m 36s

It's called the constitution Newt Gingrich.

Click here to listen to Thom Hartmann's eloquent and irrefutable rebuttal of Newt Gingrich's insane statement that the Supreme Court 5-4 decision in support of Habeas Corpus "will cost us a city."

Why does the corporate media allow this disgraced, scum-bucket who divorced his wife on her death bed in order marry the young secretary he was having an affair with?


Sunday, 15 June 2008 at 8h 35m 9s

Innocent men are held at Guantanamo

This is why Habeas Corpus is written in the constitution.

An eight-month McClatchy investigation in 11 countries on three continents has found that Akhtiar was one of dozens of men — and, according to several officials, perhaps hundreds — whom the U.S. has wrongfully imprisoned in Afghanistan, Cuba and elsewhere on the basis of flimsy or fabricated evidence, old personal scores or bounty payments.

McClatchy interviewed 66 released detainees, more than a dozen local officials — primarily in Afghanistan — and U.S. officials with intimate knowledge of the detention program. The investigation also reviewed thousands of pages of U.S. military tribunal documents and other records.

This unprecedented compilation shows that most of the 66 were low-level Taliban grunts, innocent Afghan villagers or ordinary criminals. At least seven had been working for the U.S.-backed Afghan government and had no ties to militants, according to Afghan local officials. In effect, many of the detainees posed no danger to the United States or its allies.

The investigation also found that despite the uncertainty about whom they were holding, U.S. soldiers beat and abused many prisoners.

[...]

Of the 66 detainees whom McClatchy interviewed, the evidence indicates that 34 of them, about 52 percent, had connections with militant groups or activities. At least 23 of those 34, however, were Taliban foot soldiers, conscripts, low-level volunteers or adventure-seekers who knew nothing about global terrorism.

Only seven of the 66 were in positions to have had any ties to al Qaida's leadership, and it isn't clear that any of them knew any terrorists of consequence.

If the former detainees whom McClatchy interviewed are any indication — and several former high-ranking U.S. administration and defense officials said in interviews that they are — most of the prisoners at Guantanamo weren't terrorist masterminds but men who were of no intelligence value in the war on terrorism.

[...]

"As far as intelligence value from those in Gitmo, I got tired of telling the people writing reports based on their interrogations that their material was essentially worthless," a U.S. intelligence officer said in an e-mail, using the military's slang for Guantanamo.

Guantanamo authorities periodically sent analysts at the U.S. Central Command "rap sheets on various prisoners and asked our assessment whether they merited continued confinement," said the analyst, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the subject. "Over about three years, I assessed around 40 of these individuals, mostly Afghans. ... I only can remember recommending that ONE should be kept at GITMO.

At a Pentagon briefing in the spring of 2002, a senior Army intelligence officer expressed doubt about the entire intelligence- gathering process.

"He said that we're not getting anything, and his thought was that we're not getting anything because there might not be anything to get," said Donald J. Guter, a retired rear admiral who was the head of the Navy's Judge Advocate General's Corps at the time.

Many detainees were "swept up in the pot" by large operations conducted by Afghan troops allied with the Americans, said former Army Secretary White, who's now a partner at DKRW Energy, an energy company in Houston.

One of the Afghan detainees at Guantanamo, White recalled, was more than 80 years old.

Army Spc. Eric Barclais, who was a military intelligence interrogator at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan from September 2002 through January 2003, told military investigators in sworn testimony that "We recommended lots of folks be released from (Bagram), but they were not. I believe some people ended up at (Guantanamo) that had no business being sent there."

"You have to understand some folks were detained because they got turned in by neighbors or family members who were feuding with them," Barclais said. "Yes, they had weapons. Everyone had weapons. Some were Soviet-era and could not even be fired."

[...]

In 2002, a CIA analyst interviewed several dozen detainees at Guantanamo and reported to senior National Security Council officials that many of them didn't belong there, a former White House official said.

Despite the analyst's findings, the administration made no further review of the Guantanamo detainees. The White House had determined that all of them were enemy combatants, the former official said.

Rather than taking a closer look at whom they were holding, a group of five White House, Justice Department and Pentagon lawyers who called themselves the "War Council" devised a legal framework that enabled the administration to detain suspected "enemy combatants" indefinitely with few legal rights.

[...]

In late 2004, Pentagon officials decided to restrict further interrogations at Guantanamo to detainees who were considered "high value" for their suspected knowledge of terrorist groups or their potential of returning to the battlefield, according to Matthew Waxman, who was the deputy assistant secretary of defense for detainee affairs, the Defense Department's head official for detainee matters, from August 2004 to December 2005.

"Maybe three-quarters of the detainees by 2005 were no longer regularly interrogated," said Waxman, who's now a law professor at Columbia University.

At that time, about 500 men were still being held at Guantanamo.

So far, the military commissions have publicly charged only six detainees — less than 1 percent of the more than 770 who've been at Guantanamo — with direct involvement in the 9-11 terrorist attacks; they dropped the charges in one case. Those few cases are now in question after the high court's ruling Thursday.

About 500 detainees — nearly two out of three — have been released.


[SOURCE: Tom Lasseter | McClatchy News Services | 15 June 2008]

The writ of Habeas Corpus is in Article One Section 9 of the US constitution:

The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.

The Supreme Court has upheld Habeas Corpus 3 god damn times during the Bush administration, with the 4 corrupt judges the only one's to dissent (Roberts, Thomas, Scalia, Alito). In his dissent this week, Scalia said that protections were included and that our freedom is in jeopardy.

Are you kidding me? What more proof can there be of the absolute abdication of principle and willingness to mangle the words of the United States constitution by a Supreme Court justice. This is worse than the Dred Scott Case of the 1850's when a freed slave was forced back into bondage when he traversed into a slave state. Read the sentence in the constituion which says habeas corpus shall NOT be suspended. We are not being invaded and there is no rebellion.

CNN -- the "Comedy News Network" -- is however more interested in puffing up McCain's credentials, discussing how Obama can lose, and giving press-time to the whores who make hundreds of thousands of dollars saying Bill Clinton slept with them, but couldn't prove it in a court of law.


Sunday, 15 June 2008 at 8h 8m 32s

It's an invasion stupid

The Boston Globe just issued an editorial which rips the notion that we invaded Iraq to install democracy and create a sovereign nation of free people.

Bush and Maliki agreed in November on principles for a "status of forces agreement," which will be needed as a legal basis for American troops to remain in Iraq after the United Nations' mandate for them expires Dec. 31. The agreement would set rules for US forces in Iraq. Since March, Iraqis and Americans have also been negotiating a "strategic framework agreement" to define more broadly the long-term political and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

The two agreements have been reopened for negotiation. Though Bush speaks of Iraq as a free, democratic ally, the original versions gave the United States privileges in Iraq more suitable to the relationship between a colonial power and its protectorate.

The contents of the agreements were not cast in the form of a treaty because a treaty would have to be ratified by the US Senate. Bush plainly does not want senators asking troublesome questions about the implications of an open-ended Iraqi approval for 58 American military bases on Iraqi soil.

Five of the 58 are sprawling megabases that replicate the amenities of an American town. Balad Air Base, north of Baghdad, has air traffic comparable to Chicago's O'Hare Airport. No wonder some Iraqis see these bases as proof that Bush invaded Iraq to gain control of its vast oil reserves and to establish a new permanent military presence in the heart of the Middle East.


[SOURCE: Editorial | Boston Globe | 14 June 2008]


Thursday, 12 June 2008 at 8h 36m 1s

The difference between McCain and Obama (part one): tax plans

According to a report by the Tax Policy Center,

Families making between $37,595 and $66,354 of annual income with Obama would get an average tax cut of $1,042 per family while McCain’s tax cut for this group would be $319, the report states.
[SOURCE:  | Think Progress | 12 June 2008  ]

Click here for an easy to follow side-by-side comparison of the 2 tax plans proposed by the candidates.

The Tax Policy Center is a think tank related to the Urban Institute and Brookings Institute. Certain newspapers will call it "left- leaning" because it's substantive, non-partisan conclusions run counter to the political views of the editors in charge of those newspapers. The editors and CEO's of the corporate press insert the phrase "left-leaning", just like they insert the phrase "alledged" every time another one of their pet politicians gets caught in a corruption scandal.

Because I firmly believe everyone should always be aware of the potential bias of one's sources,here is a Wikipedia on the Tax Policy Center. Accordingly, "Based in Washington, D.C., the Tax Policy Center is a joint venture of the Urban Institute and Brookings Institution. The Center is comprised of nationally recognized experts in tax, budget, and social policy who have served at the highest levels of government."




GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS