Thursday, September 28, 2006

Threat Against Olbermann Exposed

Rob Kall is the Executive Editor and Publisher of possibly the internet’s most “fair and balanced” source of news and commentary,

Any side of any story is accepted at OpEdNews. It may be an imagination’s figment, but it seems that the more truly open a news source is, the more it attracts progressives. This is the case with

OpEdNews sends out several editions during the course of a day. In today’s early edition, Kall writes a commentary entitled “Keith Olbermann Terrorized and Gov Tries to Hide It”.

As most people know, Olbermann has been the strongest, if not the only voice in the mainstream media to expose and comment on The Regime’s less than ethical behavior. Kall’s commentary goes a long way in explaining why members of the mainstream media aren’t anxious to take the courageous path that Olbermann has dared to take.

I urge you to read Kall’s commentary, follow through on the action items which he proposes and, finally, write words of encouragement in the comment section on his exposé of this horrific threat to freedom and democracy.

To friendship,

“War is the tool of small-minded scoundrels who worship the death of others on the altar of their greed.”

The Mind Of Michael
“Soldiers Of Peace”

Monday, September 25, 2006

We Need A Paradigm

I wrote this essay a few years ago, but never published it. Some of the less important specifics have changed, but the message is still the same, if not worse.

I am angry. Recently, a company which is in the top 20% of Fortune 500 corporations laid me off after 25 years of service. If they waited three years, I would have been old enough, 50, to take "early retirement." I did get a severance package.

Now, this same company is going to lay off 900 information services employees globally. One of those employees is a friend of mine. He is in his thirtieth year of loyal service. He is 49. He will not be eligible for an "early retirement" either.

However, the company is not giving these people a severance package. Their rationale is that they have outsourced the work these people do. They have "provided" these people an "opportunity" to sign on with the contract company for far less than what they make now and to stay put where they are and do the same work.

The CEO of this company "raked in" almost $13 million in salary last year and cashed out $672,624 in stock options. He's sitting on another $2,399,807 of unexercised company stock.

I'm not linking the specific numbers because people close to me still work for this private sector government director. After all, this corporation still pays its American workers, of which there are becoming fewer all time, above average salaries. However, I can tell you that I retrieved the information from The Executive Paywatch Database web site.

The fact is that The US has the most unbalanced CEO to worker income ratio in the world. The ratio is 475 to 1. In Hong Kong, it is 38 to 1 and in Britain it's 25 to 1.

Have we gone too far? Is this still just plain old free enterprise, fair capitalism or is it becoming more like Bourgeoisie vs. Proletariat.

Despite the euphemisms we've used in reference to the former USSR, China, Cuba and some other nations, Communism, in its true form, has never been in place and never will be. The reason isn't because giving what you can and taking what you need is a terrible idea. The reason-people! People will always think it's fair to own far more than they'll ever need and give far less than they're able to give. It's their right, they say. They've earned it. What they don't say is that putting people who are far less fortunate out on the street and giving their jobs to people who live in squalor in third world countries is one of the ways in which they've "earned it".

What perpetuates this situation is that we "elect" presidents, Clinton, Bush, Gore, Kerry, McCain (yes, McCain) it doesn't matter, who owe The Corporacracy big time for the $$$$ they receive during so called election campaigns. So, our vote doesn't count because we are not voting for the liar who is running, we are voting for the special interests to which they are bound.

But, I digress. My question is have we gone too far? Can you still call what is happening free enterprise/capitalism or is it just plain greed? Are we shooting ourselves in the foot for a select few? And, if so, how do we get the word to the American people that the Democratic and Republican parties are owned by The Corporacracy? And, if we get them to understand that, how do we the people, the working class, change it?

The only way that I can come up with at this time is to totally ignore the Democrats and Republicans in 2008, if not sooner.

I'm open to suggestions.

Ultimately, CEO compensation has to be reigned in, those CEOs have to rehire American workers and share some of that obscene salary with those American workers.

To friendship,

“Who knows why the hell we do it,
but we always get right to it.
No one knows or even wants to see.” – Michael Bonanno

The Mind Of Michael
“Casey’s Song”

Sunday, September 24, 2006


Somehow, this eerily seems not as humorous as the originator, whoever he or she is, intended it to be.

George Bush goes to a primary school to talk to the kids, to get a
little boost in his PR. After his talk he offers question time. One
little boy puts up his hand and George asks him his name.

"Stanley," responds the little boy.

"And what is your question, Stanley?"

"I have 4 questions: First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the
support of the UN? Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more
votes? Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?" Fourth, why are we so
worried about gay-marriage when 1/2 of all Americans don't even have
health insurance?

Just then, the bell rings for recess. George Bush informs the kiddies
that they will continue after recess.

When they resume George says, "OK, where were we? Oh, that's right:
question time. Who has a question?"

Another little boy puts up his hand. George points him out and asks him
his name.

"Steve," he responds.

"And what is your question, Steve?"

"Actually, I have 6 questions.
First, why did the USA invade Iraq without the support of the UN?
Second, why are you President when Al Gore got more votes?
Third, whatever happened to Osama Bin Laden?
Fourth, why are we so worried about gay marriage when 1/2 of all
Americans don't have health insurance?
Fifth, why did the recess bell go off 20 minutes early?
And sixth, what the hell happened to Stanley?"

To friendship,

“The real problem is not whether machines think but whether men do.” - B. F. Skinner

The Mind Of Michael
“Casey’s Song”

Thursday, September 14, 2006

The Downside of the Growing Popularity of Alternate 9/11 Theories

Originally published at OpEdNews

As of late, possibilities of what might have happened on September 11, 2001 that I’ve presented on this blog have been presented in articles published elsewhere.

For example, the fact that there’s an alliance between The Regime and Osama bin Laden shouldn’t be so shocking. The very large bin Laden family and the Bush family have been friends for years. I think this is why The Regime chose W to front for them in the 2000 presidential selection.

In his article “Interrogating 9/11: No Theory, Just Facts”, Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed gives more good reasons why Osama bin Laden may have worked with The Regime in carrying out the 9/11 attacks.

As of late, it’s clear that alternate 9/11 theories have been becoming more popular and taken more seriously.

An example of this is the guest appearance of Dave vonKleist, the producer of “In Plane Site”, on CNN Headline News with Glenn Beck. Although Beck tried his best to present vonKleist as a loon, vonKleist held his ground admirably and, at times, Glenn appeared to be lost for proof.

Members of The Left, some of my favorite people in the world, have taken to trying to debunk the “crazy conspiracy theories”.

Ed Schultz, whose radio show I listen to almost every weekday, claims to have watched a group which calls itself 9/11 Scholars for Truth on C-Span, but could only watch “two minutes” of it because of what Schultz thought was a spurious reference to flying. I express disappointment in Schultz’s close mindedness in my article “The 9/11 Two Minute Study”.

“How the 9/11 Truth Movement Ignores Reality” by Joshua Frank, an article attempting to refute the “conspiracy theorists”, was recently published at OpEdNews. This article received a number of comments, none of which Mr. Frank has answered to date. Mr. Frank didn’t use a great deal of factual information in his article.

It’s not so bothersome that members of The Left are writing articles disputing alternate 9/11 theories. What is bothersome, however, is when Left leaning writers not only try to dispute those theories, but tell those of us who put stock in them to basically stop talking and writing about them. It’s obvious that Matthew Rothschild wants to silence us in his article “Enough of the 9/11 Conspiracies, Already” published by The Progressive.

One of the first points which Rothschild makes is that “Osama bin Laden has already claimed responsibility for the attack several times”. Rothschild asks us to take Osama bin Laden at his word.

That may be easy to do for those who don’t entertain the possibility that bin Laden worked with The Regime to perpetrate the acts of 9/11. There’s been so much deception about and since 9/11 that anyone who is believed to have been involved could never be taken at his or her word.

Rothschild calls David Ray Griffin “the guru of the 9/11 conspiracy movement” and reminds us that Griffith is “an emeritus professor not of engineering but of philosophy and theology at the Claremont School of Theology.”

Griffin was not the first to look at what happened on 9/11 and note that The Regime’s explanation was full of holes. Others “peddled” these alternate theories before Griffin wrote his books. In fact, in his books, Griffin uses the research and explanations of those who had already “peddled” the theories. I’m not sure if Mr. Rothschild has a degree in structural engineering or any other kind of engineering for that matter. If he does not, he does exactly what Griffin does. He uses the research and explanations of others to back up his argument. Rothschild sites his own experts to prove that the alternate theories about 9/11 are “outlandish”.

The lowest point of Rothschild’s article is when he references Griffin’s allegation that World Trade Center landlord Larry Silverstein purposely allowed World Trade Center building #7 to collapse. Rothschild makes the repugnant statement that Griffin’s allegation could be called “The Jew Cashed In”. Rothschild can believe that the theories are over the top, but it is insulting and irrelevant to the debate to imply that those of us who place credence in those theories are anti-Semitic.

Rothschild closes by stating that “It is more than passing strange that progressives, who so revere science on such issues as tobacco, stem cells, evolution, and global warming, are so willing to abandon science and give in to fantasy on the subject of 9/11.”

It is equally strange, and rather disturbing, that progressives such as Schultz, Frank and, above all, Rothschild should mirror the right wing tactic of claiming to believe in the first amendment but not in this case.

What I believe we "conspiracy theorists" want more than anything else, as should Schultz, Frank and Rothschild, is to have an investigation during which the anomalies put forth by people like David Ray Griffith could be answered, in which the investigators are truly non biased and have never had a relationship, professional or otherwise, with any member of The Regime, every and any member of The Regime must testify if subpoenaed and testify under oath and that no part of the questioning can be suppressed because of "national security" reasons.

Unlike the two bogus investigations that have taken place, we want an investigation which begins with the most obvious question, “Who did it?”

To friendship

“Truth exists, only falsehood has to be invented.” - Georges Braque

The Mind Of Michael

Monday, September 11, 2006

“The Power of Nightmares” – A Real Documentary

As time has passed since the horrors of September 11, 2001, we have learned, little by little, about the inner workings of the neoconservatives and also the mindset and inner workings of Islamic fundamentalists.

I have, through the suggestion of a friend, begun watching the BBC limited series “The Power of Nightmares”. This documentary has removed the “little by little” from my own learning curve. It can be watched at YouTube.

“The Power of Nightmares” exposes the almost eerie parallel growth of the neoconservatives and radical Islamists.

Probably the most shocking evidence in this series of half hour presentations is the parallel goals of each group. The neoconservatives and radical Islam were born at about the same time, went through similar metamorphoses and actually share the same goals.

If you haven’t seen “The Power of Nightmares”, I urge you to begin watching it. For me, at least, it’s like the proverbial book that can’t be put down.

To friendship,

“Our ‘neoconservatives’ are neither new nor conservative, but old as Bablyon and evil as Hell.” – Edward Abbey

The Mind Of Michael