THRIVE: What On Earth Will It Take

THRIVE: What On Earth Will It Take

Thrive Movie   An unconventional documentary that lifts the veil on what’s REALLY going on in our world by following the money upstream — uncovering the global consolidation of power in nearly every aspect of our lives.

newest twist in the “excuse-Our-Rulers-for-any-and-all-atrocities” comes in the claim that “many members of Congress seem to be unaware

They Knew EXACTLY What

They Were Doing. (Geez, How

Naive Can You Be?)

 

Posted by Becky Akers on March 12, 2012 08:21 AM …http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/107302.html

The newest twist in the “excuse-Our-Rulers-for-any-and-all-atrocities” comes in the claim that “many members of Congress seem to be unaware of what they were actually voting for” with respect to the NDAA and its provisions for kidnapping us because “the language in the bill appears to be deliberately vague and confusing.” And this from critics of the legislation!

Could we dispense with such prattle, please? First of all, thanks to Senator Lindsey Graham and his infamous, “Shut up, you don’t get a lawyer!”,absolutely none of the Senators who support this final descent into totalitarianism have any excuse — including those who are trying to backtrackand save their sorry rear ends now that the sleeping American giant has awakened to this evil.

Second were the warnings from Senator Rand Paul and, in the House, that weird but occasionally heroic socialist, Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), and Alcee Hastings (D-FL). Their clear and precise denunciations leave no one who championed this destruction of the fundamental right of habeas corpus any wiggle room whatever.

But let’s overlook all that for a moment and pretend these sociopaths were indeed “unaware of what they were actually voting for.” Yo, apologists: Isn’t that the height of irresponsibility and incompetence? Wouldn’t you agree that understanding the measure under consideration is one of the job’s most basic duties? Now, obviously, your average tyrant is many cards short of a full deck, and likely illiterate too. But for pity’s sake, let’s boot them out of their posh offices and abolish DC’s whole federal, fetid swamp instead of overlooking such gross malfeasance.

history is most often written by the victor

… Remember history is most often written by the victor … history is not necessary truth … and it is doubtful Scalia would ever tell the truth about this court debacle …

 

Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision ‘Wasn’t Even Close’

clip_image001During a speech at Wesleyan University last night, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia offered a strange revision of the time hejoined with four of his conservative colleagues to make George W. Bush president:

 

At the end of the speech, Scalia took questions from the audience. One person asked about the Bush-Gore case, where the Supreme Court had to determine the winner of the election.

 

“Get over it,” Scalia said of the controversy surrounding it, to laughter from the audience.“

 

Scalia reminded the audience it was Gore who took the election to court, and the election was going to be decided in a court anyway—either the Florida Supreme Court or the U.S. Supreme Court.

It was a long time ago, people forget…It was a 7-2 decision. It wasn’t even close,” he said.

 

Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 decision — and indeed, Scalia could tell this is true by counting all four of the dissenting opinions in that case. Although it is true that the four dissenters divided on how the Florida recount should proceed — two believed there should be a statewide recount of all Florida voters while two others believed a narrower recount would be acceptable — not one of the Court’s four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States

 

hardly seems the least bit

… This hardly seems the least bit surprising as corporate owned media has made MUSLIM synonymous with “terrorist” … evil doer …

 

 

Legal or not, New Yorkers happy with police surveillance of Muslim

03-14-2012  •  http://rt.com 

A new poll shows that New Yorkers support an NYPD anti-terror campaign, despite growing concerns over the legality of the surveillance methods involved.

Might that same question be asked

… Might that same question be asked of Billy “boy” Gates(Microsoft) … and Phil Knight (NIKE) …. Warrren Buffet … and a host of others…?

 

Does Mark Zuckerberg Really Deserve All That Money…?

 

Facebook’s founder is about to be worth $21 billion — thanks to the American public. Shouldn’t we get our share, too

READ COMPLETE ARTICLE HERE … AlterNet / By Gar Alperovitzhttp://www.alternet.org/story/154500/does_mark_zuckerberg_really_deserve_all_that_money?akid=8405.23062.ybPWyN&rd=1&t=24

 

On Monday, Bloomberg News estimated that Mark Zuckerberg, Facebook’s 27-year-old founder, will be worth about $21 billion based on his company’s forthcoming initial public offering. Although he won’t qualify (yet) for a slot among the planet’s richest 20 people in the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, Zuckerberg will still enjoy iconic status as an entrepreneur of mythic proportions. Indeed, the Wall Street Journal creditedFacebook with creating "a new way of living," and hailed the company—thought to be worth $100 billion—as a "prototypical American success story, complete with technological brilliance and a fair amount of drama." Bill Keller of the New York Times similarly "marveled" at Mark Zuckerberg’s "imagination and industry."

But does Zuckerberg deserve all this money? To what degree does his shrewd business idea—rather than the conditions that allowed it to happen—“deserve” credit for creating this enormous bounty? Some obvious questions: Where would he be without the Internet? Or the computer? Or all the many other publicly financed technologies that made Facebook possible? Certainly, he “deserves” something, but how do we gain perspective on the bounty created, on the one hand, by public investment; and on the other, by smart entrepreneurs who run off with the lion’s share of the benefits of such investments?

Take the Internet itself: The first large-scale computer network, the ARPANET, was launched in the late 1960s by the Department of Defense. Between the mid-1980s and the mid-1990s the National Science Foundation spent $200 million to build and operate a network of regional supercomputing hubs called the NSFNET. Connected to the ARPANET, this network established Internet access for nearly all U.S. universities, making it a civilian network in all but name. The rest was history.

would not lie

And of course the privately owned Federal Reserve System would not lie … just as they did not lie, cheat, steal, before, during and after the Crash of 1929…?

 

 

Federal Reserve Says Most Major U.S. Banks Would Survive Severe Recession

03-14-2012  •  http://www.npr.org, by Eyder Peralta

The Federal Reserve says 15 of the country’s top 19 banks have enough capital to survive a "severe recession," which it defined as "peak unemployment rate of 13 percent, a 50 percent drop in equity prices, and a 21 percent decline 

This is classic

 

clip_image002

 

 

… This is classic … Mark Twain … “figures don’t lie, liars figure”…

 

U.S. is net energy exporter! (Psych!)

 

Jonathan Thompson | Mar 12, 2012 03:45 AM …http://www.hcn.org/blogs/goat/us-is-net-energy-exporter-psych?utm_source=wcn1&utm_medium=email

 

By now you’ve surely read the headlines that proclaim, “US Nears Milestone: Net Fuel Exporter” or “US Becomes Net Oil-Product Exporter” or, the most ambitious and egregious, “U.S. Becomes Net Energy Exporter.” The stories affixed to the headlines certainly have a triumphant air to them, and why shouldn’t they? After four decades of our leaders pining for energy independence and “no more foreign oil” we’ve finally reached our goal. Right?

Not quite. In fact, we are not anywhere near weaning ourselves from foreign oil.   It’s not that the headlines are lying, exactly. The US is, in fact, exporting more products made from crude oil than it imports. Distillate fuel oil is our number one seller, and “finished motor gasoline” is another healthy export. So, overall, our refineries are shipping about 800,000 to 1 million barrels per day more of these refined fuels than the U.S. is shipping in.

While this sounds great, it’s overshadowed by what is left out of the equation: Crude oil. Each day, the U.S. buys nearly 9 million barrels of crude from foreign countries, and we export almost nothing. Throw those numbers in, and the equation gets tilted pretty heavily towards the net importer side: We import 7-8 million barrels of crude oil and crude oil products per day more than we export, and that’s on a good day. In other words, we have nearly 3 billion barrels of imported oil and oil products per year standing between our current state and petroleum independence*.

But that sure as heck isn’t what you’d get out of reading the aforementioned headlines and dozens others like them. The stories below the headlines most often clear things up, but not until half the readers have tweeted or Facebooked or otherwise disseminated the somewhat distorted ideas contained in the headlines. As a result, there’s a growing number of folks out there who think that all that drilling in North Dakota, Colorado and Wyoming is actually doing what the politicians said it would do: Break us of our foreign oil addiction.

That, of course, is not the case. Not only that, but the fact that we are exporting quite a bit of refined fuel may actually be helping to increase prices at the pump (which is part of the reason we want to get off foreign oil, right?) National Public Radio recently gave an interesting explanation for rising gasoline prices: We are able to refine petroleum more cheaply than other places, therefore other countries want to buy refined products from us (which is why we’re not a net exporter), which increases overall demand on our refineries, which results in higher prices for us at home. Confusing, sure, but it kind of makes sense.

And the reason our refineries can operate more cheaply these days is because we have a glut of methane, a.k.a. natural gas, which is at record low prices right now. And natural gas is used to do the major work — heating up the crude — in the refining process.

So, it turns out that “Drill baby, drill” doesn’t get us to energy independence. It doesn’t lower gas prices. It may even cause them, in an indirect way, to go up.

*The U.S. is actually somewhat closer to being a net energy exporter thanks to the 100 million or so tons of coal we shipped to other countries last year. Nevertheless, we’re not there yet. The BTUs in that coal don’t make up for those in the oil that we import — we’re still more than 6 million barrels (or 1.4 million tons of coal) per day short. 

Jonathan Thompson is a contributing editor at High Country News and a 2011-2012 Ted Scripps Fellow in Environmental Journalism at the University of Colorado Boulder.