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

1655 POSTS

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

Friday, 17 March 2017 at 0h 26m 9s

The Animals know something

From Popular Science: humpback whales are organizing in large numbers and no one knows why.

These whales are pretty interesting too.

They eat everything from krill to plankton to small fish, regardless of whether they speak whale. They even have a specialized way of hunting where they gang up on schools of fish to try to eat them all at once. It’s called bubble net feeding. The humpbacks divide up, some swirling around a group of fish and some blowing air, such that the circling whales can drive their victims into a net made of bubbles. This confuses the fish, trapping them inside, until one whale sounds the call and they all rush in, mouths agape, swimming upwards through the teeming mass of fish.

[SOURCE: Sara Chodosh | Popular Science | 15 March 2017]

Thursday, 16 March 2017 at 1h 20m 25s

Lee Camp is funny as shit

This quote comes from the previous video starting at 18:13.

[You] see White House, when a man really loves a corporate donor, and they get a private moment together, a special moment, some candles lit maybe, a little flowers, lite music, [that's when] you show off the "D". Alright, but not just out on public display.

Wow, I knew there would be a learning curve for the Trump White House to figure out how to be quietly corrupt. But this is ridiculous.

Seriously, you don't put the head of Exxon-Mobil as Secretary of State, okay. You are suppose to put in like a puppet, some dumb sap you [got] out on the street who is gonna do whatever you want, does everything you say ... like George W. Bush, remember him [laughs in mimic of GW Bush's infamous chuckle] ... remember that guy. Yea, he's pulling his nose in. Cover it up a little. Have some class. These guys are going with the full Monte.

This part occurs at 24:20

I know we have grown accustomed to this stuff. Like, we are used to the fact that most American's are struggling. We have grown habituated to it, and we have to fight that feeling that this is normal. America is incredibly rich. Insanely rich ... there is a banana's amount of wealth in this country and [yet] half of all Americans couldn't deal with a $500 emergency, because that money has been sucked to the top one percent. That's not okay. This is not alright. And these assholes have the nerve to go on TeeVee and brag about it. And brag about exploiting us.

I never thought I would ever miss the George W. Bush Republican administration, but good lord, I actually believe Dubya had a few moral principles and is a decent human being at heart when compared to this ruthless, heartless, inhuman gang of thugs that current inhabit the White House and most of the Rethuglican party.

The rest of the video is riotous by the way. I would love to quote the rest. Lee Camp is on fire as usual.

Thursday, 16 March 2017 at 0h 47m 4s

Good discussion with Richard Wolff

Let me suggest to you a way of understanding this. Every technological invention, from time immemorial to the present, justified itself on the grounds that by this new machine, by this new gimmick, we could [get] more done with less effort, with less drudgery, with less drone-like work of people ... and indeed those innovations, all of them, had that potential. But when they are put into a capitalist economic system, here [is] where the problem arises. The people who put the technology in [place] want to make profit out of it. So, for example, if a machine allows the workers to do twice as much as before, they FIRE half of the work force, and the remaining half [of the work force] works with the machine, produces as much as before, but the company realizes a fantastic profit because it doesn't have to pay half the workers wages which they can keep for themselves. Nice story for the company. Nice profit gain. But half the people are unemployed.

Here's an alternative. Let every worker do half as much work as he or she did before. Let's run the working day 4 hours instead of 8. With a machine that does twice as much, 4 hours will get you just as much as the 8 hour day used to, the workers will have [gained] an enormous amount of leisure [and can] pay attention to their development, their families, to their communities. If we use technology that way, we would use it to help the mass of people enjoy a better life RATHER THAN THE SMALL PERCENTAGE OF PEOPLE ENJOYING A GREATER PROFIT. The problem was NEVER with technology. The problem was with the system that decides how to use that technology.

The CAPITAL LETTERS and bold print are mine. The above quotation is from 9:41 to 11:35. Two minutes. This is why you cannot rely on video media for your knowledge or information. Two minutes is barely 2 paragraphs people. You need to READ.

None of the economic gains are passed on to the workers. But that's just because workers are "losers" who just weren't ruthless or smart or savvy enough to be one of the CEO's and financial magnates who were able to suck all this wealth out of these incorporated business entities. In the minds of these self-serving individuals who benefit from this dysfunctional economic system, your lot in life is a sign of strength or weakness, rather than the gene pool lottery or luck.

Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 2h 30m 22s

This is how you do it

My response to a swarmy fool who played the "I'm a conservative" card and used it to justify fascist, ideological stupidity.


Why else are you calling a collection of taxes into a fund that pays out retirement an entitlement? It's no different than a savings account. Why are you saying "blame it on Bush" 9 years after Bush left office? All you have is a bunch of old, moldy talking points and cute analogies about Thomas Paine because you are clueless about how to create functional policy and have to justify the complete takeover of the two party system by self-serving ideological billionaires. Get a clue man.

Notice that I am attacking the statements, not the person. I am not labeling the statements until after I put them in context and bring up their silly irrelevance.

Wednesday, 15 March 2017 at 1h 47m 42s

Econ 101

A comment from a comment section about Health Care economics

I don’t believe there are a significant number of policy makers who really believe that market forces can bring the kind of efficiency to health care, that they can to commodities.

When I took undergrad Econ in college, in the eighties(!), the classes in which the basic concepts of how “free markets” work are taught, always taught about the limited conditions required for the theories to hold. The exceptions to the theories were just as much a part of the curriculum. Namely, the undergrad in Econ 101 learns about “externalities, monopoly and monopsony power, problems of asymetric information, problems with “goods” like health care that have very inelastic demand curves, the problem of public goods.”

This is Econ 101. I suspect the only people who have a simplistic “market fundamentalist” view of healthcare, are unsophisticated persons, with a conservative/libertarian instinct.

Paul Ryan is not such a person, and I believe that when Republicans, like him, speak with apparent fealty to such simple minded notions, they are doing so as a cheap and easy form of Propoganda. To persuade uninformed voters that their proposals have merit. That they are really looking out for the good of the American people.

The reason I think this distinction matters, is that there are very real conflicts, of wealth, power, prestige, that permeate human culture. The complicated systems that determine “who serves, and who eats.”

They will cluelessly destroy something that was working because they are blind ideologues. But as long as their rich donors get tax cuts, then problem solved. You losers should stop buying thousand dollar i-phones and invest in those health care savings accounts instead -- for health insurance that offers meagre coverage and expects you to pay a decent amount out of pocket while not paying for pre-existing conditions.

These people are so stupid. Sean Spicer actually had a press conference where he put the Obamacare bill and this current bill on the table and bragged about how much smaller in size the current bill is. He claimed the larger stack of paper was evidence of government bureaucracy, without mentioning that 6 pages of the smaller stack of paper were devoted to limiting poor people who win the lottery getting health care tax credits. Really? That's what you are worried about? I didn't realize poor people winning the lottery was driving health care costs.

Because they are con artists, and don't really care about trying to actually address the issues and solve the health care problem. They are simply disguising a tax cut to the very wealthy as health care reform. They drape everything in this bullshit mantra of anti-government free-market fundamentalism, when it really is just a costume for the savage incompetent, short-sighted greed of their wealthy donors. They are clueless dopes selling nonsense with a bunk philosophy.

Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 20h 45m 10s

Modern music rocks

This band is one of the best post-2000 bands. Headed by the amazing guitarist Tosin Abasi, Animals As Leaders rocks. A former student named Alex actually introduced me to this band. Thank you Alex. :-)

He's doing this on an 8 string guitar. Wow.

Here is Tosin Abasi on his 8 string electric guitar.

Here is "Wave of Babies"

Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 18h 15m 16s

The Health Care Debate in a nutshell

Paul Krugman explains the difference between Obamacare and the Republican replacement bill. The bolded phrase is mine.

The structure of the Affordable Care Act comes out of a straightforward analysis of the logic of coverage. If you want to make health insurance available and affordable for almost everyone, regardless of income or health status, and you want to do this through private insurers rather than simply have single-payer, you have to do three things.

  1. Regulate insurers so they can’t refuse or charge high premiums to people with preexisting conditions
  2. Impose some penalty on people who don’t buy insurance, to induce healthy people to sign up and provide a workable risk pool
  3. Subsidize premiums so that lower-income households can afford insurance
So that’s Obamacare (and Romneycare before that): regulation, mandates, and subsidies. And the result has been a sharp decline in the number of uninsured, with costs coming in well below expectations. Roughly speaking, 20 million Americans gained coverage at a cost of around 0.6 percent of GDP.

Republicans have nonetheless denounced the law as a monstrosity, and promised to replace it with something totally different and far better. Which makes what they’ve actually come up … interesting.

For the GOP proposal basically accepts the logic of Obamacare. It retains insurer regulation to prevent exclusion of people with preexisting conditions. It imposes a penalty on those who don’t buy insurance while healthy. And it offers tax credits to help people buy insurance. Conservatives calling the plan Obamacare 2.0 definitely have a point.

But a better designation would be Obamacare 0.5, because it’s really about replacing relatively solid pillars with half-measures, severely and probably fatally weakening the whole structure.

First, the individual mandate – already too weak, so that too many healthy people opt out – is replaced by a penalty imposed if and only if the uninsured decide to enter the market later. This wouldn’t do much.

Second, the ACA subsidies, which are linked both to income and to the cost of insurance, are replaced by flat tax credits which would be worth much less to lower-income Americans, the very people most likely to need help buying insurance.

Taken together, these moves would almost surely lead to a death spiral. Healthy individuals, especially low-income households no longer receiving adequate aid, would opt out, worsening the risk pool. Premiums would soar – without the cushion created by the current, price-linked subsidy formula — leading more healthy people to exit. In much of the country, the individual markets would probably collapse.

The House leadership seems to realize all of this; that’s why it reportedly plans to rush the bill through committee before CBO even gets a chance to score it.

[SOURCE: Paul Krugman | New York Times | 7 March 2017]

If you want to make health insurance available and affordable for almost everyone...

Which is exactly the point. They don't want to make health insurance available and affordable for almost everyone. These Rethuglicans like to co-opt their ideology into a surrogate view for all business, economic markets, private enterprise, and entrepreneurial economics. Yet they actually are just zealots for the greedy interests of a few oligarchs, stupidly mangling every attempt at sensible legislation because they are just spokespersons for what their paymasters want.

They are cheerleaders and con artists. Most of them truly do not have a clue about how to govern or create any policy analysis beyond lame bullet-points which are crafted more to manipulate and disguise than to actually explain or delineate choices and ideas.

Sunday, 12 March 2017 at 18h 0m 10s

They are frauds

I love Paul Krugman. He has a way of making his point without offending people. Although all ideologues consider having a different opinion to be offensive, if you can give a reasonable explanation for your viewpoint, then you should be politely respected. Those who castigate with loose adjectives and political labels are children.

[H]as [Paul] Ryan ever put together major legislation with any real chance of passage? Yes, he made a name for himself with big budget proposals that received adoring press coverage. But these were never remotely operational — they were filled not just with magic asterisks — tax loophole closing to be determined later, cost savings to be achieved via means to be determined later — but with elements, like converting Medicare into a voucher system, that would have drawn immense flack if they got anywhere close to actually happening.

...[H]e has never offered real plans for overhauling social insurance, just things that sound like plans but are basically just advertisements for some imaginary plan that might eventually be produced. Actually pulling together a coalition to get stuff done? Has he ever managed that?

What I’d say is that Ryan is not, in fact, a policy entrepreneur. He’s just a self-promoter, someone who has successfully sold a credulous media on a character he plays: Paul Ryan, Serious, Honest Conservative Policy Wonk. This is really his first test at real policymaking, which is a very different process. There’s nothing strange about his inability to pull off the real thing, as opposed to the act...

In other words, maybe this looks like amateur hour because it is. Ryan isn’t a skilled politician inexplicably losing his touch, he’s a con artist who started to believe his own con; Republicans didn’t hammer out a workable plan because there is no such plan, and anyway they have no idea what that would involve.

[SOURCE: Paul Krugman | New York Times | 10 March 2017]

Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 3h 36m 48s

Look who google just suggested

This is Ghosts and Vodka.

Nice stuff.

Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 2h 32m 6s

New Album

The new album "Voids" from Minus the Bear. Just found out right now, and am currently listening to the first song on the album, "Last Kiss". A little too popified but still quality.