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
1088 POSTS
LATEST ITEM

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

Tuesday, 26 September 2006 at 18h 6m 30s

Top down management

The television media is all top down. That is the entire televised experience is controlled or overseen by a small group of managers and producers. The opposite of top down management is bottom up management; that is, all information comes from a multiplicity of sources, and decisions by the group are based upon the free awareness of these multiple sources. A top down management system would inherently filter the sources and would also "dress up" the presentation because the information which becomes televised always pass through the oversight by the small group of managers and producers.

So when newspapers and television stations become owned by the same company, whose interest is served? Currently media companies can control 40 percent of any local market. Why should they control that much? How come there isn't a law that mandates every media company must be independent and not conglomerated into hundreds and thousands under the management system of a larger corporation? The television station in San Francisco should not be under the same management system of the one in Oakland, or Los Angeles or Sacramento --- or New York or Seattle or Boston or .... Media companies do not have to conglomerate to become profitable, they only do so because the profits can become astronomical at the same time that the content can be micro-managed.

This micro-management is however not beneficial for a democracy, which only flourishes under a bottom-up type of management system. In my opinion, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act should be enacted upon all these media conglomerates. They should all be broken apart and sold, just like what was done to Standard Oil in the early 1900's and AT&T in the latter 1970's and early 80's.

This is actually a conservative -- not a liberal or radical -- position. The point is to conserve our democracy, and the only way to do so is to break apart the anti-democratic forces in our society. Don't let the talking heads hi-jack the true meaning of the word conservative. Conserve means to preserve, or to believe that changes to the original principle are not always beneficial to the principle at all.

And in this case, in order to preserve our democracy, we must ensure that everyone has a way to express their viewpoint, and that all news is presented equally. With the top down management system, this is an inherently impossible result. So we are forced to conclude that in order to preserve our democracy, we must therefore take the action of breaking up and selling the media conglomerates.


Monday, 25 September 2006 at 17h 12m 5s

Napsters is the 2006 Yahoo baseball champion


Monday, 25 September 2006 at 14h 26m 17s

The Gold and Silver myth

Gold, Silver are not inherently valuable. They are valuable because people buy gold and silver. When paper money was backed by gold and silver, the paper was not any less or more valuable, nor any less or more secure. The only difference was that there was a 2nd layer to the exchange rates between currency.

Currency is valuable when the world economy uses currency in the market exchange. Your money is not valuable in the world economy because your nation doesn't produce or sell valuable commodities. Making the currency backed by Gold and Silver does not make a currency more or less valuable in and of itself.

For instance, the US Dollar is the currency used on the Petroleum oil exchange, and so any nation that wants oil has to buy dollars in order to place bids on the Petroleum market. This demand for dollars creates a need for dollars which gives dollars value. If the petroleum markets were denominated in Euro's or Yen, then the demand for dollars would decrease, and the exchange rates would plummet. This would still occur if dollars were backed by Gold and Silver, and in fact, would be much worse, because then US Treasury would be further obliged to buy Gold and Silver in order to sustain the changing exchange rates.

This is why the world went off the gold standard -- it was too damn costly, and too subject to speculative bubbles, because drops or rises in currency involved mandatory purchases of gold and silver which are measured in other markets.


Sunday, 24 September 2006 at 15h 5m 46s

Having a good attitude

Most of life is sheer attitude. You find yourself in situations you can't change, you happen upon a streak of bad luck, but nevertheless no matter what you do the events will still occur as they did occur. But your attitude, your will, does not have to change, because who and what you are does not change unless you permit yourself to change.

Now if you decide upon a course of action and then suffer the consequences, your decision does have the power of change, because you will forever have to acknowledge the choice and the consequences. This is different from external events, or matters that do not originate from your own decisions. When events result from the consequences of our own decisions we do not have the option of attitude, because we are forever tied to the linkages that led to the events and so therefore we must always reflect or protect against these realizations. Sometimes this leads us to blame others or form some rigid moral paradigm through which everything must be judged.

Events that are random do not engender this type of psychology. Which makes me wonder, is all of human irrationality really just based upon the evolution of some decision or set of decisions made in response to certain events?


Sunday, 24 September 2006 at 14h 46m 51s

It's looking good


Saturday, 23 September 2006 at 16h 42m 43s

They knowingly broke the law.

Day one : put into 40 degree Fahrenheit room, walk in room once every two hours and throw cold ice onto prisoner

Day two: put bag over head of prisoner and hog-tie prisoner, than leave out in hot sun all day.

Day three: put a plastic bag over the prisoner, tie the prisoner to the board,lift the board so prisoner is upside down, and then pour water over the plastic or dunk into tub of water so that prisoner can feel like drowning

Day four: shackle prisoners hands upward against the wall so that the prisoner cannot sit down without pain

Day five: hook wires up to the testicles of the prisoner, and than have them stand on a box for a couple of hours at a time

Day six: put collars on prisoners necks and drag them around a court yard, throw them down and let dogs nip at them to tear their flesh, then beat them with billy sticks, and even violate their anus with sticks

repeat.

Now, who is it that doesn't know the difference between torture and coerced interrogation ?

All of these events have been documented as not just random acts, but, even according to the military's own investigation, as part of a systematic design.

THE SUPREME COURT, ELITIST AS IT IS, AGREED. It really isn't too hard to understand.

Bush broke the law, and allowed Rumsfeld and the gang to violate the Geneva conventions. Bush's own lawyer (now Attorney General) Alberto Gonzales even warned them they were breaking the law to the point that he advised them to prepare to be indicted.

They knowingly broke the law. Don't people go to jail for that?


Tuesday, 19 September 2006 at 19h 1m 48s

The human food chain

We as a people need to communicate. The species has developed sounds and visual symbols representing the sounds, both of which inately represent ideas and specifics of the human experience. At a macro-level, each nation is tied into itself via a panorama of multiple networks. Some of these are the media : television, radio, newspapers, books, and magazines. Some of these are institutional : churches, schools, governments, buildings and businesses. Some of these are physical : family, friends, the president, the store clerk, the police officer, the fireman, and whatever genre, race, or stereotype we care to cast the human species into.

All of these "tie-ins" to the culture are just a larger version of our species ability to communicate in complex, abstract ways. Birds have their songs, cats their meows, and dogs their barks, but these all convey merely a small number of basic emotions without much depth or elaboration. Nothing can be comparable to the human vocabularies, of which there are more than 250 basic grammatical structures across the entire planet. Humans even celebrate the differences through art, where there are various card playing pets seated around a card table, or fishes able to talk and organize complicated excursions with many different ocean species. Being the dominant Earth species, we are just walking apes who have colonized all the land masses. And now, as we stare at stereotyped roles on the television sitcoms, as we collectively sift through the hysterical and the inane in the ether of the communication food chain, we are really no different than fish living in some 12th dimensional beings aquarium, waiting for the small flakes that get put in the water twice a day.


Monday, 18 September 2006 at 17h 25m 12s

The Championship game

The 2006 Nawlins battle will be determined this week. My team is the nawlins napsters.

Already today, my 3rd Baseman, Aramis Ramirez of the Chicago Cubs, is 2 for 2, with a home run and 4 rbi's. I hope this trend continues. You never know. Aramis might get only 2 more singles the rest of the week. That's baseball.

Not like anyone else cares but me. I'll post the winner next week.


Saturday, 16 September 2006 at 13h 43m 48s

We can do what we want


Friday, 15 September 2006 at 10h 41m 15s

You are what you eat

You know what television entertainment programming really is ... manufactured populism, because rather than stimulating people to occupy their time with something that is self-initiated, the television is meant to merely pacify its victims while it feeds your mind with fantasies and illusions. Take a panoply of gender stereotypes, cast them into a few predetermined roles, and then pack weeks, months, even years of time into a single hour. And what you see is a suggested reality, created by the vision of individuals because the camera cannot convey the exactitude of the moment. This can be a highly brilliant, insightful depiction of life, but instead the vast machine of Hollywood manufactures a daily ether world of heroes, villainy, and everyday people.

Which reminds me of that stupid contemporary commercial of a family with glowing TV ratings on their head that is currently shown in between the baseball games I stream on broadband. How ridiculous is the premise that TV is something we have to "protect" our kids from, because they might get exposed to the raunchy, sexist real world. Certainly those magazines on the rack at the Supermarket check-out line don't have barely clothed women advertizing their cleavage. Certainly the average commercial isn't skirting the edge between blatant promiscuity and overt pornography. So from what exactly are the children being saved?

To me, this is just another PR campaign by the cable companies. You know the one's that preach the high tone of higher standards, but have yet to actually act like they bother to enforce or ensure them. Just like McDonald's trying to convince everyone that their food is a great experience for the kiddies, or that their stale coffee is exotically fresh. Fresh. I love that word. As if the very notion that something being "fresh" makes it better or different than the norm, rather than something you should actually take for granted.

Ah ... Nothing like fresh bad coffee from a smiling uniformed and underpaid maiden who started work at 4 O'Clock in the morning so that lazy, indolent people can drive thru and pick up some phosphate enhanced processed food product.

Which is exactly what I generally think of 99.9999% of Hollywood : fresh bad coffee and really unhealthy food. Every year the tube networks pump out the shows, even changing them frequently to keep the content "fresh", but it's like a ride at the amusement park where you remain seated the entire time absorbing the content. Gradually this content becomes the everyday background noise, since all that is absorbed by the mind becomes one with that mind by the very essence of the contact. We cannot separate our self from what we experience with the senses. The notion of being able to "control" this experience is ridiculous, because you cannot separate yourself from your experience. If the phenomenom goes into your eyes and ears, your mind has registered a recognition, and your thoughts have to interact with that which has been recognized. We are, we become, what we choose to imbibe.




GOTO THE NEXT 10 COLUMNS