Who killed Michael Jackson?

Michael Jackson probably died of medical drugging overdose. But before he started taking medecine to overcome his problems someone or something probably drove him down enough to need to take that route.

In 2003 Michael Jackson allowed Martin Bashir into his ranch, his life and basically everything. He allowed him to film everything, he talked about everything and aside from minimizing the plastic surgery operations, he kept no secrets.

That's a pretty bold move by Michael Jackson - not many stars let a journalist into their lives to such an extent. I mean you probably wouldn't let anyone that close to your life.

If you haven't seen the videos or don't know what I am talking about, I am embedding the first in a series of video interviews that Martin Bashir did entitled Living with Michael Jackson.

There are 10 videos in the series. In these videos Martin Bashir twists facts a la Mad City making great conversations into media spectacle and in the end making Michael Jackson look like a perverted weirdo that would fit with the media line - Wacko Jacko.

How much he twisted these facts comes to life when one watched "Living with Michael Jackson, take two" a follow up documentary made from Michael Jackson's own recordings of the Martin Bashir interviews... a totally different story and a totally different Martin Bashir.

When someone who has been shut off to media for decades, finally opens up and decides to give the media and thus the world, gets stabbed in the back like that, it's a cut that goes deep.

And the audience, who has been dying to get any information about Michael Jackson for year, now is finally given a whole lot of twisted viewpoint making their idol look like pedophile weirdo.

It's no wonder he then secluded himself even further. Following that the drugs became a necessity and a "solution" to avoid the real world and from there it's a matter of very little before he hits the bottom.

It's a misuse of human rights, the right to freedom of speech that give journalists the power to say anything and turn it in any way. But with the internet maybe that right will be taken from them and given to the people that can find out for themselves and separate fact from fiction and truth from opinions.

The financial recession ... en passant

 

Ok so we're being repeatedly reminded by the press that we are in a financial recession. There is probably a bunch of truth in that but I don't understand why the press is so keen to keep spreading the news of the "catastrophe" that is about to happen.

At the end of the day this is their money too!

Which news editor doesn't know that the more one can bring panic to the people the more they will try to take their money out of the banks and the more they do that the worse off the whole situation will go? It is one of the first things we all learned about banks.

Yet they are all too happy to repeat it in the news EVERY DAY and SEVERAL TIMES a day! At the end of the day it is their own savings they are messing up.

If I were an editor I would be slightly worried about my own money - and maybe I would try to find some good news about the financial situation so I could cool the whole thing down a bit.

Sometimes I wonder what really goes on in the mind of a news editor...

Now back to banking. I recently read a simple and excellent text that L. Ron Hubbard wrote about banking to the financial departments of Scientology Churches. It is from September 1982 it's called "AND THAT IS BANKING".

It explains in simple terms what banking is, what inflation is, what the role of a banker is etc. I advise it to anyone who can read.

It is volume 3 of the Management Series by L. Ron Hubbard. In the section called Finance Series. And exists in about 11 languages or more.

Human Rights - also in the west?

I read this blog called "The dark side of The Sun" on the recent media articles on one celebrity. I sometimes wonder how some of these tabloid papers view things like human rights.

I was thinking it over the other day. And figured out how they get away with this sort of stuff.

Journalist Bob thinks up some story that will be sensational. Bob has two email accounts. He sends himself an email from his Yahoo account under the name of Pete. FictionPete claims to be a great friend of a celebrity and says "I have inside information for you such and such" Journalist Bob now has "evidence" on the story and publishes is saving his home-made email in the files as the document.

One takes Bob or the Newspaper to court and they pull up the "evidence" which is an email from FictionPete.

That's my 5-cents - but I bet that's the way it goes.

All in the name of a bit of money these giddy little people happily ruin lives. Cute isn't it.