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

1350 POSTS

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, 5 November 2008 at 18h 56m 1s

Nader is a poser

He may have done some good in the 1970's and 1980's when he was younger, but he's not the same person now. Makes me wonder if someone has something on Nader (blackmail) because otherwise, WTF (what the f**k) is he talking about in this Fox segment?

Really. It is quite pathetic.

Notice how Ralph's left eye ( on the right side of the screen) is droppy whenever he talks. Could this be cognitive dissonance from the right side of his brain?

You tell me.

Ralph has now become a puppet, squawking about the duplicity of so-called reformers in order to avoid his own duplicity.

Wednesday, 5 November 2008 at 18h 34m 54s

The Palin spending spree

NEWSWEEK has also learned that Palin's shopping spree at high-end department stores was more extensive than previously reported. While publicly supporting Palin, McCain's top advisers privately fumed at what they regarded as her outrageous profligacy. One senior aide said that Nicolle Wallace had told Palin to buy three suits for the convention and hire a stylist. But instead, the vice presidential nominee began buying for herself and her family—clothes and accessories from top stores such as Saks Fifth Avenue and Neiman Marcus. According to two knowledgeable sources, a vast majority of the clothes were bought by a wealthy donor, who was shocked when he got the bill. Palin also used low-level staffers to buy some of the clothes on their credit cards. The McCain campaign found out last week when the aides sought reimbursement. One aide estimated that she spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $150,000, and that $20,000 to $40,000 went to buy clothes for her husband. Some articles of clothing have apparently been lost. An angry aide characterized the shopping spree as "Wasilla hillbillies looting Neiman Marcus from coast to coast," and said the truth will eventually come out when the Republican Party audits its books.

A Palin aide said: "Governor Palin was not directing staffers to put anything on their personal credit cards, and anything that staffers put on their credit cards has been reimbursed, like an expense. Nasty and false accusations following a defeat say more about the person who made them than they do about Governor Palin."

McCain himself rarely spoke to Palin during the campaign, and aides kept him in the dark about the details of her spending on clothes because they were sure he would be offended. Palin asked to speak along with McCain at his Arizona concession speech Tuesday night, but campaign strategist Steve Schmidt vetoed the request.

[SOURCE: Newsweek | 5 November 2008]

Wednesday, 5 November 2008 at 18h 32m 22s

Obama is da man, because he really understands

If you click the link, the following is on page 2 at the very bottom of the bullet list.

When he was preparing for them during the Democratic primaries, Obama was recorded saying, "I don't consider this to be a good format for me, which makes me more cautious. I often find myself trapped by the questions and thinking to myself, 'You know, this is a stupid question, but let me … answer it.' So when Brian Williams is asking me about what's a personal thing that you've done [that's green], and I say, you know, 'Well, I planted a bunch of trees.' And he says, 'I'm talking about personal.' What I'm thinking in my head is, 'Well, the truth is, Brian, we can't solve global warming because I f---ing changed light bulbs in my house. It's because of something collective'."

[SOURCE:  | Newsweek | 5 November 2008]

Yeh, like Brian Williams knows something about "personal".

Systematic problems cannot be effectively managed if the method is dependent upon voluntary behavior.

We can't just advertise actors or real people who show us "the way" on the television. Some people will respond, but many others will not. Yet the impression of the effect is still the same, because everyone will "see" the same advertisements. This is not how you solve systemic problems.

If you want to improve the entire system, you can't think that a small percentage of the elements that create the system will change the system if the remaining elements don't change. When you clean the house, you don't clean a small percentage of the house and actually call it clean.

The only way to treat a systematic problem is to involve 100% of the elements that make up the system in the collective solution to the systematic problem. The necessary functions of the government need to be paid for? Solution: assess taxes on every single citizen, maybe even while taking into account income. Want to make sure everyone has access to sanitation and water? Make a law that mandates every abode has to have running water and needs to get inspected by a government official.

I've spoken about this many times. The idea that we can run a government based on voluntary compliant with the law is ridiculous.

Joe "the plumber" says its a matter of "principles" whenever he was asked why people making more than $250,000 (less than 2% of the entire population) shouldn't pay more taxes. He'll talk about how people who "work hard" shouldn't be penalized in order to help others who don't work. "Why should my hard earned money pay for someone else?" is the typical rhetorical question this line of argument will use to unhinge the notion of collective responsibility. This is the selfish position. I makes my money and I owns my property.

But it is also the most dysfunctional, because we are all connected and interdependent whether we like it or not. The right-wing conservative belief in "liberty" and "freedom" from government presumes otherwise, and here is the important point: their linking to those words are through the filter of this presumption. The idea that the roads they drive on, the toilets they flush, and the telephone systems they use have anything to do with government and collective responsibility is vanished from these "principles".

Self-flattery will always use the most elated words as justification for selfishness.

Sunday, 2 November 2008 at 10h 32m 40s

Palin falls for prank phone call from French President

This is hella funny. She actually thinks President Sarkozy is calling her.

Friday, 31 October 2008 at 17h 9m 43s

Just another good ole boy

Village Voice::14 May 2002

''[The Wall Street Journal's John Fund] was supposed to spend Thanksgiving with me and didn't,'' she recalls. ''I questioned him when he got home and he beat me up. I was cowering in the corner. He was screaming. He said, 'Get out, bitch,' and he left, and I called the police. He came back and beat me up again. When the police arrived, I was shaking and crying and very upset. He was very calm. A lady officer walked in and asked me if I was on drugs. John told me that none of the charges would stick.'' In mid January, the mainstream media first reported on Fund's alleged abuse.

Around that time, Pillbury says, she moved out and Fund agreed to give her money to help pay her bills. He watched her write checks from his account and deposit them in her account. Soon after, she says, ''I found out that my accounts were frozen and he told me that they were going to stay frozen until I contacted these members of the media and gave them papers saying that I had lied about the abuse.'' She says the bank did not return her calls. Says Pillsbury-Foster, ''This is obviously part of a pattern of abuse and attempted control, and yet the D.A. refused to listen to her.''

SF Chronicle::5 February 2003

The California Federation of Republican Women holds its big two-day conference down in Ontario (San Bernardino County) over the weekend -- but the private buzz isn't about President Bush, it's about John Fund. If the name escapes you, he's the Wall Street Journal's online columnist who -- after taking aim at Bill Clinton's sexual exploits -- wound up with his own tabloid troubles. Fund's fun in the sun began with an affair with Melinda Pillsbury-Foster some two decades ago. It ended in 1998 when Fund took up with Pillsbury-Foster's grown daughter, who accused him of getting her pregnant and then asking her to have an abortion -- all of which he's denied. Fund was later charged with domestic abuse, but a judge dismissed the case in December.

Bradblog (with video):18 May 2007
John Fund is an evil, unrepentant liar who despises democracy and the very American values that it represents.

[SOURCE: Cynthia Cotts | Village Voice | 14 May 2002]
[SOURCE: Phillip Matier, Andrew Ross | SF Chronicle | 5 February 2003]
[SOURCE: Brad Friedmann | | 19 May 2007]

Video: [SOURCE: interview with John Fund | Bill Maher Show | 18 May 2007]

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

John Fund wrote a book called "Stealing Elections: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy" that is filled with lies and completely fraudulent selective details. Look at his eyes when you watch the above video. Turn the sound off and just look at his eyes.

You see what I mean.

His eyes get tight and very deep with the darkness of deception. Funny how he resurfaces in 2007 with all the turmoil of 2002- 2003 behind him. But of course.

Friday, 31 October 2008 at 16h 5m 57s

They call her Digby

This writer is always dead onto something interesting. I have personally never read anything from her that is not relevant and profoundly interesting. Digby is a sweet additive to our cultural heritage.

We live in a world where the right wing ruthlessly and without mercy degrades and attacks by any means necessary what they perceive as the enemy, and then uses the great principles of democracy and fair play when the same is done to them. They leave the rest of us standing on the sidelines looking like fools for ever caring about anything but winning.

[SOURCE: |  | ]

Friday, 31 October 2008 at 15h 40m 18s

The empty campaign

Click here and read about how the McCain campaign volunteer base consists of 1,000 national volunteers and Barack Obama has 5 million.

Makes you wonder how it is possible the McCain campaign can win. The volunteers of Obama dwarf the Republicans. The voter turnout in the primaries and in the early voting is polling more than 2 to 1. Even the McCain campaign itself is showing signs of acknowledging the coming event.

I don't want to jinx anything. We will find out in 5 days.

Thursday, 30 October 2008 at 19h 1m 42s

Small samples and the cluster effect

From the Houston Chronicle: UT poll ... finds 23% of Texans think Obama is Muslim.

Definitely these 23% are ignorant -- which is completely due to the pathetic Texas School system : the void filled in by 24-7 commercial television. If you got your ed'ucation from TV, imagine the boundaries of your global and historical understanding.

But here is what is potentially wrong with this poll.

For starters, the "poll" of 550 votes itself doesn't really tell us much, because it's statewide, and with that small a sample, it would be tough to correlate the ignorance with the location or type. It is very possible that the percent of those who believe could be higher in different parts of the state. This poll is really limited to a macro-perspective.

It would also be interesting to know how the poll samples were collected. "A statewise survey of 550 registered voters" means what? Did they make phone calls? Did they interview voters? Did they have the voters fill out forms? All we know is that the poll was conducted from Oct 15 to 22. Did they make phone calls at specific time intervals, or during specific times? Were the phone numbers from land-lines or were the calls random numbers? How many non-responses were there?

Most importantly: Did they do a stratified organizing of the sample to ensure the ratios of the various groups are correctly proportional? If the percentages in the poll increase or decrease in certain ares, care must be taken that the ratio of the samples are as close as possible to what they are in the larger population. All sample gathering and analysis techniques must use a known proportion from the larger population (called a parameter) to base the sample analysis on.

You can't just take the first 550 people who respond to your call and call it a day because Clustering is quite possible and potentially influential with such a small sample. Anything less than 1% has the potential to be affected by clusters sort of like the first 500 flips of a coin : it is more probable that you will not have exactly 250 heads and 250 tails, and there will be runs of 5 to 6 similar tosses and maybe 10 straight (or more) during the 500 tosses. The problem of clusters in a small sample is that you might get 10 such events that aren't balanced because the nature of chance the order of events can never be guaranteed.

In order to decrease the potential bias due to the cluster effect all good statisticians must pair the samples to actual ratios that exist in the larger population. If 20% of Texas live in the panhandle, 60% live in East Texas, and 30% live in the south by Galveston, then the ratios of location should exist in the survey. So if you want a sample size of 600, you take 60%, 20%, and 30% of the 600 to get the numbers you need from each region (360, 120, & 180).

There are two ways to do a survey that wants to mitigate the cluster effect:

1) Know what the numbers you have to have and keep doing the survey until all the numbers you need are reached. You will probably have more than you need in some of the categories, so randomly remove samples until you reach the correct number.

2) Make calls to each region and stop when you get the required count. In this method the entire region is put into groups and a certain number of random calls go to each region until the number from each group is reached.


It is not clear whether the University of Texas poll did any of these things.

By the way, the so-called margin of error is just 3 times some number called the standard error. Divide the 4.2 by 3 and you get 1.4. This is the average distance from the mean for all of the samples. Squaring 1.4 equals 1.96, which is the average sum of squares of the differences between the average and the samples. Multiplying by 550 is 1078, and now taking the square root you finally get the important number : 32.83. (Trust me if you don't understand).

32.83% (or .3283) is the sample standard deviation. Notice that 3 times this number is damn close to one. This essentially means that anything between 0 and 1 is possible. The average of the numbers between 1 (yes) and 0 (no) is 0.23, with the average distance from 1 and 0 (representing all the people who answered yes or no) being represented by the important number .3283.

Now, since the two numbers subtracted from 0.23 are either one (yes) or zero(no), we are actually just adding a bunch of squared 0.23 and 0.77 values. The square root of this sum after being divided by 549 is .3283. The ratios here are 18% and 82% (.3283- .23 divided by .77-.23).

This means that we should expect clustering within the population anywhere between 18% and 82%, with the average being 32.83% not 23%.

Most of these surveys really aren't worth their namesakes. Did you realize "a margin of error of 4.2%" actually means the sample has a high potential for bias due to clustering?

Tuesday, 28 October 2008 at 18h 41m 12s

Marxism? Socialism?

a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Central to Marxist theory is an explanation of social change in terms of economic factors, according to which the means of production provide the economic base, which influences or determines the political and ideological superstructure. Marx and Engels predicted the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism by the proletariat and the eventual attainment of a classless communist society.

a political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs.

Obama's tax adjustment policy
giving the middle class a tax break.

Rearranging the manner in which government tax revenues is collected is not socialist, marxism, communism, or any other speculative far leftist-extremist conjecture by the idiots that tout this nonsense. The method by which the tax is collected is a legitimate basis for discussion and exchange of ideas. Businesses don't get owned by the government just because the tax rates are readjusted to give a tax break to those who earn less than $250,000 a year. Asking multimillionaires to cough up an extra 50 thousand is as much of a burden as asking someone who makes $30,000 a year an extra $30. Get real. Less than two per cent of the nation makes more than $250,000.

This is the last pathetic attempt by elitists and corporatist lackeys to distinguish themselves from modern discerning adults who know the difference between adjusting the tax codes and public ownership of all economic enterprises. This rhetoric is ridiculous and so narrow-minded, it is damn near insulting to have to hear it by others who claim to be authentic and without a hidden agenda. Ah, me, the foxes and wolves always protest to have the best intentions.

The Republican campaign strategy is to bring out fake pretenders named Joe-American while using the scare tactics of old-world red scare nonsense, because they have no governing principle other than win at all cost. If they somehow win, they will install their lobbyist friends network all throughout the government, rather than pick the best, most knowledgeable, and most qualified for the positions.

It would be an extension of the Bush Disaster, only worse.

Tuesday, 28 October 2008 at 19h 8m 2s

Economics in 14 words

les investissements d'aujourd'hui sont les profits de demain et les emplois d'après-demain -- Christian Schmidt

"The investments of today are the profits of yesterday and the employment of tomorrow."