The article even makes a reference to CityTime 2 and this involves Northrup Grumman.
Just by coincidence I happen to find out -- and I am telling you this as an artist blogger and I don't have a way of getting a 2nd or 3rd source but like my SAIC CityTime exclusive I urge newspaper reporters to look in to this...
I heard Northrup Grumman is already very much involved pre-the 911 deal they are attempting brokering.... or should I say "SAIC CityTime" involved - meaning that these big companies get huge salaries, amazingly lucrative contracts and than use tech as a smoke screen to keep NYC gov staff who do not understand tech out of the loop. The more ignorant and the less tech savvy the better because they want their lucrative contracts and bonuses + perks I can't even imagine.
It was something when The New York Daily News came out with the front page cover photo and all slamming Mike Bloomberg....than a week or so later The NY Post ever so gently did something similiar -- no photo but a note to Mike about impending snow storm which was by the way 2 inches and tomorrows is suppose to be 6, hardly a 20 inch plus Blizzard that we got that finally got people angry!
Now The NY Times finally jumps on the bandwagon.
Does this mean The NY eminent domain Times might start publishing my letters again after years of blacking me out during the Bloomberg Reign? Post Mike's reign I had 9 letters published.
Mike has all kinds of GPS tracking for NYC workers but to date he refuses to tell us where he was during the Blizzard and therefore we have no idea who was actually in charge of NYC. Is that legal?
When NYers sue the City of NY especially over wrongful deaths due to Bloomberg's Blizzard of 2011, maybe than Mike will be forced to answer where he was.
For now, just like Steve Rattner, his disgraced best friend who shunted some Bloomberg investments over to the Cayman Islands or 62 emails Mike sent Haggerty that Cy Vance has no interest in reading --where Mike was during the Blizzard are like Cayman Island dealings --- subpoena proof.
