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

1491 POSTS

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

Saturday, 14 August 2010 at 9h 42m 27s

Net Neutrality on the horizon

Net Neutrality is the most important issue of our lifetime. The Christian Coalition and the Gun Owners of Society want net neutrality. The Tea Party however calls it Gov'ment regulation and Glenn Beck says its a "Marxist takeover of the internet."

What more evidence do we need that the so-called "Tea Party" is just a corporate managed public relations sham. The worst thing for a small, very dispersed population of citizens is to allow large corporate Internet Service Providers to create tiers of internet service and charge for speed. If your small group can't afford the high speed lanes, anyone who goes to your site will have to download your site's contents on the slow lane.

As a business model, this will add extra costs to small businesses who will have to pay for the high speed lanes in order to remain competitive.

For those of you who are ignorant about net neutrality, here is a summary. Right now the speed of the internet is dependent only upon you computer speed and your download mechanism -- whether you use a Cable modem, an old Telephone Modem, or some other type of DSL connection. Customers already pay for broadband service to access the internet, and for an internet connected Server where web-sites files are located. The signals that get sent into wireless domain or onto fiber optics lines bounce off antennae or travel through different parts of the network based on density and speed of availability. The signal speed is the same for all signals that criss-cross this mixture of transportation mediums (wireless, cable, or land-line).

What corporations like Google and Verizon want to do is something else. Basically, they will place a header on all broadband signals emitting from customers on their servers that will determine the speed of the signals, or which lane the signals go. This is something other than Bandwidth, which customers already pay for. Bandwidth is how many MegaBytes or GigaBytes your server will release per month (sometimes even per day) to anyone who accesses your site.

There is no economic reason or greater efficiency benefit which merits creating different speeds of internet signals. This is just another way that corporations redefine the world in order to siphon more money from the citizens of the country where they operate. This is exactly what institutions do when they get large enough to have power over some critical component of the economic infrastructure.

Sunday, 8 August 2010 at 9h 0m 3s

Why I love Rachel Maddow

Rachel: "Fox News ... consistently runs stories it says are news, but that nobody else really covers. Stories that are ginned up, exaggerated, caricatured, in some cases flat-out made-up scare stories designed to make white people feel afraid of black people. Designed to make it seem like black people -- or in some cases immigrants -- are threatening white people and taking what is rightfully theirs. You may not like that diagnosis of what Fox has been up to, but to say there's no evidence -- not 'a shred of evidence,' as he said -- that's bullpucky."

Saturday, 7 August 2010 at 9h 52m 5s

Jon Stewart's take on the First Responders Bill

Some of you might not know why this vote had to go through the 2/3rd's reconciliation process. The reconciliation process is a way to pass legislation through the Senate without Filibuster and streams of Amendments. For a majority vote to happen, Amendments have to be allowed on the floor, and this Amendment process has been used by the Republicans like an automatic machine gun of often superfluous quality in order to delay and slice up the very legislation being voted upon. In years past, this type of political distortion of the majority vote was no where near what the Republicans are now doing.

For example. Say there is pending legislation to doing something important: like build a high-speed railroad from New York to Chicago and then to Seattle. The entire legislation is worked out, including the funding and the complete timeline. The Republicans do not want this at all, and they know they can win a 66% vote, so they torpedo the legislation with a barrage of amendments. For instance:

  1. an amendment that makes the route dependent upon 2/3 rds local county votes for all the counties that the railroad will traverse -- the idea being to increase the costs and perhaps delay the effort long enough so they can point their finger at another example of bad government
  2. an amendment that makes all employees on the train and the construction non-union
  3. an amendment that makes it illegal for local funds to be used for the construction -- which seems innocent enough, until you realize the extra costs and time involved because of the difficulty this entails -- anyway the language can be just vague enough so that some partisan lawyers out there can use the tool of lawsuits, thus adding costs and causing delays
  4. an amendment to prohibit criminals from using the train -- which would be difficult and costly to enforce -- because the language of the term "criminal" is vague and manipulative -- which is of course the idea

Right now, the Republicans have blocked 55% of Obama's lower level judical and bureaucratic appointments. This is the most in the last 5 presidents by far, with the percentage being from 10% to 30% from Carter to GW Bush. They offer nothing but obstruction and obfuscation, and their latest "Save the Deficit" proposal offered by Senator Ryan didn't even ask the CBO to assess the affect of the various tax reduction schemes for corporations and the upper 1% of the wealthy ... because despite the plethora of historical evidence to the contrary, Ryan makes the false assumption that tax decreases pay for themselves -- something that even Alan Greenspan and the oft-cited Republican demi-God Milton Friedman deny.

Tax decreases cannot and do not automatically get directed towards investment. Most of the recent tax cut to the upper 1% went into savings, and was thus outsourced into speculative or foreign markets seeking a high return. That is not the same thing as creating businesses and economic wealth in the communities across the United States.

Krugman is all over this in a recent New York Times Column.

Mr. Ryan’s plan calls for steep cuts in both spending and taxes. He’d have you believe that the combined effect would be much lower budget deficits, and, according to that Washington Post report, he speaks about deficits “in apocalyptic terms.” And The Post also tells us that his plan would, indeed, sharply reduce the flow of red ink: “The Congressional Budget Office has estimated that Rep. Paul Ryan’s plan would cut the budget deficit in half by 2020.”

But the budget office has done no such thing. At Mr. Ryan’s request, it produced an estimate of the budget effects of his proposed spending cuts — period. It didn’t address the revenue losses from his tax cuts.

The nonpartisan Tax Policy Center has, however, stepped into the breach. Its numbers indicate that the Ryan plan would reduce revenue by almost $4 trillion over the next decade. If you add these revenue losses to the numbers The Post cites, you get a much larger deficit in 2020, roughly $1.3 trillion.

You should check out what he also says on his blog.

Here is a link for the Tax Policy Center.

Here is a link about the 5 Myths about the Bush Tax Cut at the Tax Policy Center.

Saturday, 7 August 2010 at 8h 59m 29s

George Carlin rocks

Monday, 2 August 2010 at 16h 37m 17s

Why we have deficit

Yep, that's right, we don't have a deficit because of entitlements and social-spending or loans to foreigners. Nope, it's because of the the 3 colored strata: yellow, golden, and dark blue.

Wars, tax-cuts to the wealthy, and the economic downturn.

And the tax-cuts are more than the other two put together.

Click here for the long version (with footnotes) of the budget analysis by the CBPP (Center on Budget and Policy Priorities).

Friday, 30 July 2010 at 9h 9m 12s

Weiner for President

Here is New York Congressman Anthony Weiner getting upset at Republican hypocrisy. The issue is whether to include 9-11 Emergency Responders under the Government Health-care provisions. Rather than voting outright "no", Weiner watches as Republican after Republican repeatedly whine about the awful procedure, standing that they want to vote "yes" but they have principles and can't do so under the current procedure.

Seriously, I'd be pissed too.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
UPDATE: Oh, I forgot another thing about this incident. Jon Stewart had a piece on it that I will post above, but here is the skinny: in order to pay for this the Democrats were going to rescind tax breaks for any corporation that uses the Cayman Islands as a Post Office location in order to avoid paying income taxes on their revenues and pay-rolls.

The Republicans called this a tax increase. The Republicans said that voting for a tax increase at this time would be bad for the economy and bad for middle class Americans trying to struggle during these hard times. Yes, that's right, these same Republicans who could not vote for 26 more weeks of unemployment for those same struggling middle class Americans only just last month, decided to call taking away tax subsidies from American corporations who are openly breaking the law by using a foreign post office as a means of circumventing taxes.

Wednesday, 10 March 2010 at 19h 2m 55s

Hanging On To the dreams

When you discover that a belief you held has no basis of truth, you can either toss the belief into the trash bin of bad ideas, or you can insist that your beliefs are still true.

However, once you go down the path of believing things without the requirement of logical consistency, the distance between reality and what you perceive to be reality increases. You evolve into something you do not really understand, a creature with a stunted feedback loop, ignoring evidence to the contrary.

If this persists, after a period of time, the distance gets to the breaking point, like a rubber band.

When the breaking point is reached, if you finally let go of the falsity, the energy is released, and everything comes crashing down at once. But if you instead still insist on your own version of truth, the rubber band snaps, and you are broken beyond repair, welded permanently to a frozen paradigm and instinctive delusions that will forever incessantly protect the self without the self even being aware of its own actions.

Thursday, 14 January 2010 at 18h 4m 58s

The trolls of the web-iverse

I'm reading this hilarious take on the trolls out there in internet-land. It's from a blogger who goes by the name of heartless doll. The above pic is from the page where the article is located.

Sunday, 10 January 2010 at 14h 29m 5s

Another picture of the employment situation

The above is what is called the "Employment to Population Ratio." Divide the number of employed persons by the total population and you get a number less than 1, with 0.9 (or 90%) meaning 10% of the population is not in the recorded labor force for whatever reason (students, children, senior citizens, unemployed, immigrant labor, black market citizens). Notice that the ratio drives upward beginning in the mid-1970s. This occurred because more women were continuing to enter into the workforce and less becoming stay at home moms which occurred more often in the the 1950's. Notice that the ratio is now at the same point as the peak in 1972 -- and close to the peak of 1954, when the labor force was more affected by stay at home moms.

I can't say what this means because I don't know. But it does suggest that the employment picture has shifted to a lower level where good jobs will be more difficult to come by for at least another 3 or 4 years, assuming the past swings are any measure of the future. Are we on the precipice of a catastrophic fall in economic well-being? Are we in for a long period of malaise? Or are we on the verge of a dynamic upturn fueled by some driving social or technological change?

I don't think anyone knows for sure. We know that we are or will be approaching resource limitations. In the past the yardsticks of these limitations have moved in response to human ingenuity and luck, so who is to say this will not happen again. But in my humble opinion, I think we are finally up against too tall of an order this time, unless we begin to use less and become more efficient and self-sustaining.

Sunday, 27 December 2009 at 10h 14m 31s

The economy thru the eyes of Wall Street