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

Loyalty without truth
is a trail to tyranny.

a middle-aged
George Washington

1482 POSTS

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

Wednesday, 19 June 2013 at 18h 3m 16s

What should be asked at the NSA hearings

This is what we all need to realize. Power can metastasize from even the most well intentioned ideas. Given that the government has basically become the plaything of the corporate elite and the plutocracy, the omnipotent surveillance state can be used for outside groups and interests. Someone appointed to a position could get information, and then resign a year later, becoming rewarded by the interest groups that benefited.

The current congressional hearing has already revealed the FBI is using drones on a "limited" basis. Click here for the Guardian story.

I don't know about you, but Mueller looks creepy to me.

What this means is more feds sitting in air-conditioned bunkers looking at various LCD screens of video feeds from the drones they are using in a continuously increasing "limited" basis.

Anyway, I got the blockquote below from a fellow who lives in San Francisco named Marc Perkel, and it was posted on bartcop.

Congress is asking the wrong questions. I think if they really want to know what’s going on they would give Snowden immunity and bring him back and get him to tell Congress what’s really going on. But short of that, here’s what I would be asking if I were on the committee.

We now know you are getting information for the cell phone companies and major IT companies like Microsoft, Apple, and Google. Are you also getting information from the banks? And if you are, are you accumulating a database of credit card purchases? Do you have the ability to include NSA code into operating system updates that would create a back door for the NSA to collect keystrokes, activate the microphone or cameras, read the file system, or modify the operating systems of Windows and mac computers or Windows, iPhones and Android phones?

If you have an NSA back door into our computers and cell phones, what do you have in place to prevent China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Anonymous, or Al Quada from discovering the back door? If the NSA databases were hacked by China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, Anonymous, or Al Quada, what would the security implications be?

Since Edward Snowden had the access he had, what is the security implications for an evil Snowden who was selling this information on the black market rather that trying to protect America (rightly or wrongly) from itself? With an operation this large did you have any reasonable expectation it would remain secret? If not Snowden wasn’t it just a matter of time before we found out for someone else? Wouldn’t it be better to give Snowden immunity and bring him back here rather than risk that he be captured by an enemy and forced to reveal what he knows to an enemy?

Because the NSA has extracted this data and is keeping it outside the source companies, doesn’t that increase the security risks and exposure of sensitive information? Isn’t our position that there are 2 kinds of people in the world, Americans and foreigners, and insult to 96% of the world’s population? Does this not cause them to respect us less and have no respect for our privacy when we have no respect for theirs?

Does our spying set a world wide precedent whereby other countries will have the green light to spy on us because we spy on them? Doesn’t this put the whole world at risk? Assuming it was inevitable that this spying would eventually become public, doesn’t it put America in greater danger by alienating the rest of the world because we are spying on them? Isn’t this just the same argument as the torture argument, that we increase the number of enemies more than we prevent attacks? Isn’t this just going to be another terrorist recruiting tool?

When you tell us that you are lying to us for our own good then why should we believe anything you say? Don’t laws that undermine and nullify the constitution, even if it’s for our own safety, make us a nation that is no longer under the rule of law? That secret courts and secret warrants making secret law make us no longer America? The secret NSA court orders require companies to lie to the public about what information they are giving to the NSA. If these companies tell the truth they are punished. What the government requires its citizens to lie and punishes the truth, how is that not an Orwellian society?

What America lies to the world and we have secret courts that require citizens and corporations to lie, doesn’t that weaken America as a world power? Doesn’t that send a message to the world that we are not to be trusted? Doesn’t the appearance that we are taking the same kind of steps that one would take towards becoming an Orwellian society create at least an apparent threat to the world and undermine our international relations?

With this kind of information is there not an opportunity for criminals, companies, or our enemies to blackmail our elected officials?

For example, Senator Vitter is tracked using his smart phone GPS to 5 hotels. One could search for all smart phones in his vicinity to determine what women were with him at the same time and cross reference them based on how often these women frequent hotels in these areas to determine if he is seeing prostitutes again. And that this won’t be revealed as long as he supports some cause – such as NSA spying? How do we know this isn’t already happening?

Doesn’t the NSA already effectively have a gun owner’s database? For example, if someone joins the NRA with their credit card online, buys ammo at Walmart with a debit card, and has his smart phone with GPS in his pocket while going to a gun club or firing range, don’t we know that are a gun owner? And because of their GPS phone, don’t we also know where they are so we can pick them up at any time?

If we see government misconduct, like we find a CIA torture camp, and we want to report it to th press, doesn’t the fact that the NSA has the news media’s phones and email tapped discourage whistle blowers from reporting things that need to get out into the press to protect democracy? Doesn’t this threaten free speech?

Since this kind of technology can be used to create an Orwellian society, what safeguards do you have to make sure that doesn’t happen? Have you considered this possibility and fully explored the ramifications?

Taking all of the above questions into consideration, how do you repair the trust we should have in our government and how to we assure the “foreigners” that we are going to respect their rights as citizens of the planet?

[SOURCE: Mark Perkel | | 19 June 2013]

Wednesday, 19 June 2013 at 17h 46m 2s

Medical Bankruptcy

Ah, but someone made a bundle of money, got to become super rich, have a lotsa toys, and own scenic acres of land with huge gated mansions and a swimming pool.

Only to get cancer and have to sell everything because the insurance company decided to screw you with litigation and better lawyers than you can afford.

Saturday, 15 June 2013 at 16h 10m 10s

Why you should care about the NSA et al Surveillance

Because there are a lot of false positives. They make mistakes.

For example, when a computer programmer named David Mery entered a tube station wearing a jacket in warm weather, an algorithm monitoring the CCTV brought him to the attention of a human operator as someone suspicious. When Mery let a train go by without boarding, the operator decided it was alarming behaviour. The police arrested him, searched him, asked him to explain every scrap of paper in his flat. A doodle consisting of random scribbles was characterised as a map of the tube station. Though he was never convicted of a crime, Mery is still on file as a potential terrorist eight years later, and can't get a visa to travel abroad. Once a computer ascribes suspiciousness to someone, everything else in that person's life becomes sinister and inexplicable.

[SOURCE: Cory Doctorow | |14 June 2013 ]

How many David Mery's are out there? How many innocent people do we improperly tag? How effective is this procedure? What is the ratio of intercepted events to non-intercepted events? How insulated is this from potential abuse?

There's a short video with examples of false positives that have life changing repercussions. Click here to see the short video

I do a lesson with my statistics students involving a test that is inaccurate ONLY one percent of the time for a rare disease. Because the disease is rare however, the one percent error rate of the huge number of non-diseased people will produce a large amount of false positives.

Say a test has a 1 percent error rate for a disease that occurs in 0.1 percent of the population. This means that out of 1,000 people, 1 person has the disease but one percent (the error rate) of the 999 who don't will get a positive test result nonetheless, which is 9.99 or 10 people. One percent of the diseased 1 person out of 1,000 will also get a negative test result because of the error rate, so only 0.99 of the 1 gets a positive (1 minus .01 times 1) test result. Adding the 9.99 false positives to the 0.99 true positives and you get the total number of positive test results, 10.98 out of 1,000. Notice that 9.99 out of 10.98 positive results is the percentage of false positives.

90 percent of the positive results are false.

Even if the error rate was 0.1% (99.9 percent accurate) the false positives would still be 50%. You can't rely on data mining to find suspects. You have to use search warrants after the proper police work, which is how almost every single terrorist was ever found or initially identified. Data mining isn't useful for finding terrorists.

But the number one problem with the data mining aspect of the Surveillance programs is too many false positives. How many lives will be ruined while we believe the illusion of security?

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 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

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.