As far as I know, the Icelandic people are the only ones in history to successfully redirect a lava flow (excluding Tommy Lee Jones). They got this.

[ In January 1973, Eldfell volcano on the island of Heimaey erupted an ‘a‘ā lava flow. Over the next 5 months, billions of gallons of seawater were pumped through an elaborate network of pipes laid out across the lava to cool the flow and slow its advance toward Heimaey's only harbor, the lifeline of the island and a critical economic resource for the entire country. The fragmental nature of the lava flow's surface allowed the seawater to penetrate deep into the flow and cool the lava near its core, and the advance of the flow was slowed as the flow front thickened dramatically.]

Not the *only* thing.

We also don't invade if you don't have anything we want, or if you can't be exploited as a pawn in a proxy war.

N. Korea doesn't have anything we want, so they would generally be safe on that account. On the other hand, the Korean War (particularly support from China, Russia, and the US) was very much tied into early and continuing Capitalism vs Communism proxy wars wherein those major players downplayed direct confrontation (why the Cold War was cold) but were quite happy to ramp things up indirectly.

Things frequently don't go real well for countries tied up in that history. We arm Afghanistan to indirectly prod the USSR, decades later that comes back to bite us and we hit them back with a rather disproportionate degree of destruction. The USSR sets Cuba up as a potential proxy Communist threat to the US, which pushes us pretty close to nuclear war. Fortunately we avoided that, but the fallout for Cuba in trade sanctions etc. persists to this day. And on and on.

So I concur, N. Korea has plenty of reasons to see the US as the bad guys. Personally, I think Obama's strategy of patience was probably the best. Either they are full of hot air and won't ever actually do anything, or they'll eventually do something so provocative that China will have no choice but to withdraw that lifeline. In the meantime, N. Korean people are the ones suffering the most. Not much to be done about that, because the US has an even worse track record when it comes to interfering "to save the people of {wherever} from their terrible leaders"...

Unknown.

If the ECB pulls ELA, the Greek banking system goes belly up. Again, consequences unknown, but Deutsche Bank for instance didn't seem particularly stable during the last months, so the denial of any contagion risk might have been premature. Additionally, Draghi is tasked with maintaining the stability of the Euro and taking away Greece's last lifeline might just be too far out of his mandate, even for him. Keeping ELA up without increasing the limit will achieve the same result within days though.

If Greece fails to make its payment to the IMF tomorrow, it's at the discretion of Lagarde whether she pulls the plug. Info has been somewhat contradictory, but there should be a 30 day window before the board has to call it a default.

If a default is triggered this week, it's up to the ECB and the EC again. They have shown unwillingness to let things go bust, all the recent months of muddling through should be testament to that.

They cannot have a failed state within Europe without feeding right into the anti-European parties on both ends of the spectrum; they cannot throw Greece out of the EZ; they cannot revitalise the Greek economy without doing a 180 against their own ideology; they cannot let Syriza pull Greece out of the shit without encouraging Podemos. It's an impasse alright.

Should the Greek people vote against the proposal, a proposal that is no longer on the table, it'll be back to negotiations. Should they vote in favour of it, and should it still be available to them at that time in the first place, Tsipras might even get a majority for it in parliament, but Syriza will blow apart right then and there. The left wing cannot agree to further enslavement.

If, however, everything goes sour and Greece does indeed exit the EZ, introduce a new Drachma, the whole shebang, then we're in uncharted terrorities. The situation in Greece would deteriorate even further, given how much they rely on imports, especially of fuel. And the EU, already shaky from the tens of thousands of bodies floating in the Med, the falling standard of living for tens of millions and the sustained unemployment of an entire generation; this fecking union cannot turn the cradle of democracy into a failed state and survive. The governments might be ok with it, but the French people would rip this shit to shreds one way or another, and rightfully so.

Little orphans in the snow
With nowhere to call a home
Start their singing, singing
Waiting through the summertime
To thaw your hearts in wintertime
That's why they're singing, singing

Waiting for a sign
To turn blood into wine
The sweet taste in your mouth
Turned bitter in its glass

Israel, in Israel
Israel, in Israel

Shattered fragments of the past
Meet in veins on the stained glass
Like the lifeline in your palm
Red and green reflects the scene
Of a long forgotten dream
There were princes and there were kings

Now hidden in disguise
Cheap wrappings of lies
Keep your heart alive
With a song from inside

Even though we're all alone
We are never on our own
When we're singing, singing

There's a man who's looking in
And he smiles a toothless grin
Because he's singing, singing
See some people shine with glee
But their song is jealousy
Their hate is clanging, maddening

In Israel
Will they sing Happy Noel
In Israel, in Israel
Israel, in Israel
In Israel
Will they sing Happy Noel

@Kofi. It's pretty hard not to horrifically oversimplify Pakistan in only a few paragrahs. Pakistan only enjoys the third government branch of power thanks to very heavy American pressure. The ISI and military have dominated Pakistan's prior history, this years elections mark the first and only time in Pakistan's history that a civilian government there managed to serve it's full term and pass power on to another civilian government. Past governments like Bhuttos were dismissed by the military, and then saw Bhutto executed. Pakistan's road democracy is hardly secure yet either since for all the gains, Bhutto's daughter was assassinated before finishing her bid to run the exiting civilian government.

Kashmir is just the bone of contention between India and Pakistan. Within Pakistani politics the discussion is all about Balochistan and FATA. The internal divisions over those two regions was and still is being manipulated to maximum effect by Pakistan's enemies. Particularly, in FATA you have Saudi dollars building Madrassah's were Pakistan's government either won't or can't do anything about education for the tribal people. So on one hand it's giving a lifeline to a poverty stricken people, and on the other that life line is tied to a brick being thrown into the deep end of jihadist teachings and training. And when I say Saudi charities, I don't mean to suggest it's government backed. It is by all accounts privately donated monies by private Saudi citizens, the ones that give out candy to kids when parade worthy things happen.

"Plus, I can name many muslim nations that did not have spontaneous celebrations. Afghanistan for one"
You've got to be kidding on this, right?
I'd ask you maybe look at my point and counter more closely though. I was speaking to the comment that Al Qaida was wanting for supporters and didn't have peoples support prior to 9/11. I did not declare that all muslim nations were dominated by celebrations, I in fact stated that very few failed to officially condemn the attacks. I just asked how many did not see spontaneous celebrations, and yes even America saw spontaneous celebrations by the likes of Westboro nutters. My point was not paint entire muslim nations as celebrating, but that there existed elements virtually everywhere celebrating. Would you disagree on that, or is that essentially correct. As I see it, that is a clear refutation of the idea that groups like Al Qaida were starved for support prior to 9/11.

"The third point you seem to provide your own refutation. Drones etc do indeed fuel Al Queda."

Maybe read my statement more closely again. My position is that while on one hand Drones help recruitment, and on the other they hurt not only recruitment and retention, but larger scale operational planning as well. Drones have done more than drive some angry youth to join the fight against America. They have also killed a great many of the Taliban's top leadership. More importantly, they have driven a near permanent wedge between the Taliban and Pakistan's military which is a value that is hard to underestimate. IMHO the 100% sole reason for the Afghan war was to either drive that wedge between Pakistan's military and extremists, or failing that to provide a location for waging a ground war with Pakistan. I also believe there was heavy calculations that the Afghan war would prove sufficient threat and deterrent that Pakistan's leadership would make the "right" choice.

I think it's important to make a distinction here. I almost feel like talking about "Al Qaida" as the problem is Bush(jr.) league type stuff. The bigger picture is jihadist terrorism, and who cares what label it wears. The reality after 9/11 was that jihadists terrorists in the form of the Taliban, Al Qaida and many other groups had a strong foothold inside of Pakistan. They were close friends and allies with the highest ranking officials within Pakistan. After the 9/11 attacks were committed, it was decided that a line needed to be drawn between the two and it was no longer acceptable to just let Pakistan hold these jihadist terrorist groups as friends and allies. After all, how emboldened would they be if they got to launch such an attack while still maintaining their alliance with Pakistan's ISI and military. Suddenly Pakistan's military has a pseudo mercenary/spec op force that is capable of organizing attacks on mainland America large enough to kill thousands in one round. The implications of that were deemed bad and in no uncertain terms the decision was made to put an end to it.

...And Bush 'sold' it to his demographic by giving a cowboy speech declaring your either with us or against us. I'm confident though that in the most bizarre of ways, that speech was carefully phrased diplomacy giving Pakistan a flashing red message without the public embarrassment of actually naming them in the process.(or Bush stumbled onto something in blind ignorance too, I'd flip a coin on it).

Since we're all in such serious fact-mode, tell me, how is Obamacare's new heavy tax burden on the middle class going to help the middle class?

There's three trillion dollars in the hands of the people--also known as capital--waiting out this 4-year nightmare. The lack of job creation and investment indicate the people do not trust this administration. Nor should they.


>> ^KnivesOut:

I like how you keep trotting out this "Obamaphone" bullshit like its something new. The Lifeline program has existed since Reagan (1984).>> ^quantumushroom:
And HOW! Chicagoan dead people who vote three times are more are still bitter about not being alive to get their free Obamaphones, but they won't be voting for that damned Romney, 'specailly now that Obama has promised free health care extending to beyond-the-grave.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^BoneRemake:
I for one will not be voting for this smug lipsmacker.

QM says we can vote for Obama in Illinois, though.

I like how you keep trotting out this "Obamaphone" bullshit like its something new. The Lifeline program has existed since Reagan (1984).>> ^quantumushroom:

And HOW! Chicagoan dead people who vote three times are more are still bitter about not being alive to get their free Obamaphones, but they won't be voting for that damned Romney, 'specailly now that Obama has promised free health care extending to beyond-the-grave.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^BoneRemake:
I for one will not be voting for this smug lipsmacker.

QM says we can vote for Obama in Illinois, though.

Are you at all sympathetic to the view that there is too much concentration of capital in the financial sector, and not enough in the real economy? I think the compensation has gotten way out of whack in relation to the services they perform. I also think the securitization of debt was a horrible idea. What was wrong with glass steagall you know? What I'd like to see is a return to bankers loaning out deposits, and investors seeking out entrepreneurs. Instead, we have investors seeking to leverage systemic risk knowing full well they have a lifeline because the government can't go ahead and flush our life savings down the toilet now can it?

>> ^kevingrr:

What we are going to see shortly is traditional banks close up shop in low to low-mid income areas.
The banks offered "Free Checking" with the knowledge that people would overdraft and they would make fees on those overdrafts. There is no such thing as a free lunch or free banking. This was always part of every banks business plan. Caveat Emptor.
Those fees are now being restricted by Dodd-Frank. Therefore the banks can no longer turn a profit in many low/mid income neighborhoods. Banks are in business to make a profit and when they cannot make a profit they will close or downsize.
The solution is fairly simple. Banks will close and currency exchanges and payday loan shops will open. I don't think these businesses are preferable to banks. It an unintended consequence of the bill. It will hurt people it was meant to help.
I have free checking. I maintain a four to five figure balance and I have never been charged. I don't have everything I want, but I have more "things" in my life than I will ever need.
Chase lost $2 Billion dollars? Yea that's a bad call, but they have $2.26 Trillion in assets, $90 Billion in revenue, and $19 Billion in net income. I think they can absorb the loss.

Tow the line Ted - Society doesn't like a dissident.
Society will hold your hand and keep you safe. Just do what we tell you and how to do it and your life will be a miracle of plenitude. Don't over-think it and don't have your own opinion, just let it happen....

On the flip side, yes Phil has a big ego that throws around a lot of weight and he can be heavy handed. But, I do believe his heart is in the right place and he genuinely wants to help people. People in distress sometime need a heavy hand to make the decisions easy for them because they can't cross the line and make the decision for themselves.

People living in trauma, not only need the lifeline, they need someone to hold it for them as well. It's unfortunate, but it's true. If you haven't been there, you can't understand.

I'm not a Dr. Phil lover but If I had to have someone on my side fighting for me or in defense for me, I think I'd welcome him in and allow him to pave-the-way to healing whatever it was I couldn't get past. He may not always be right in the observation (who is) but he is genuine in the fight.

That biological imperative to reproduce may be abhorrent, but it still lives pretty strong in some men and women. Monogamy isn't natural for everyone. Some folks just can't do it. To pretend otherwise leads to heartbreak. Let's be honest about it.

http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2012/01/20/the-gingrich-question-cheating-vs-open-marriage/voters-prefer-newt-gingrichs-adultery-to-open-marriage

Not sure why you find a disconnect between anything I have said, so I don't know how to clarify. Perhaps we can discuss this on our profile page? If you can be more specific about what doesn't add up? I think I am logically consistent.



>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^bareboards2:
Cool. So move on, right? To argue against biology so stridently is tiresome.
AND keep on fighting to keep religion out of the laws.
AND keep on educating the general public that religion is a choice -- I often thought that the most strident anti-religion atheists are those who were most scarred by the worst aspects of it. That theirs is an emotional battle on behalf of those trapped in households where religion is presented as THE ONLY CHOICE. And if you aren't someone who has that "religion gene", that can be crazy making.
I love all the billboards that atheists are starting to put up. I see them as lifelines to children and adults who don't believe and feel shame. Like being homosexual -- if you are gay in a fundamentalist household, stay in the closet until you are an adult and then MOVE AWAY. It is the only rational choice.
First I don't believe to argue against religion is to argue against biology. Religion is an evolved sociological trait, rather than a strictly biological one. But even if that weren't true, there are any number of biological traits that, while potentially advantageous in a strictly evolutionary fashion, we regard as abhorrent. Males are genetically predisposed to copulate with as many females as they can, and to fight off rivals. Neither of these traits are well regarded in modern society.
I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, so apologies if I am misinterpreting you, but the first part of your post seems to contradict the second part. Could you clarify?

>> ^bareboards2:

Cool. So move on, right? To argue against biology so stridently is tiresome.
AND keep on fighting to keep religion out of the laws.
AND keep on educating the general public that religion is a choice -- I often thought that the most strident anti-religion atheists are those who were most scarred by the worst aspects of it. That theirs is an emotional battle on behalf of those trapped in households where religion is presented as THE ONLY CHOICE. And if you aren't someone who has that "religion gene", that can be crazy making.
I love all the billboards that atheists are starting to put up. I see them as lifelines to children and adults who don't believe and feel shame. Like being homosexual -- if you are gay in a fundamentalist household, stay in the closet until you are an adult and then MOVE AWAY. It is the only rational choice.

First I don't believe to argue against religion is to argue against biology. Religion is an evolved sociological trait, rather than a strictly biological one. But even if that weren't true, there are any number of biological traits that, while potentially advantageous in a strictly evolutionary fashion, we regard as abhorrent. Males are genetically predisposed to copulate with as many females as they can, and to fight off rivals. Neither of these traits are well regarded in modern society.

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here, so apologies if I am misinterpreting you, but the first part of your post seems to contradict the second part. Could you clarify?

Cool. So move on, right? To argue against biology so stridently is tiresome.

AND keep on fighting to keep religion out of the laws.

AND keep on educating the general public that religion is a choice -- I often thought that the most strident anti-religion atheists are those who were most scarred by the worst aspects of it. That theirs is an emotional battle on behalf of those trapped in households where religion is presented as THE ONLY CHOICE. And if you aren't someone who has that "religion gene", that can be crazy making.

I love all the billboards that atheists are starting to put up. I see them as lifelines to children and adults who don't believe and feel shame. Like being homosexual -- if you are gay in a fundamentalist household, stay in the closet until you are an adult and then MOVE AWAY. It is the only rational choice.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^

I used Dawkins as an example simply because he has the reputation of being the "most strident fundamentalist atheist" (whatever that is). In fact, he actually attempts to answer your question in the God Delusion. You'll have to read it for the full explanation but (paraphrasing here) it boils down to the idea that religion evolved as a combination of a few evolutionary traits, such as believing your parents and ascribing intent to occurrences. There's a whole chapter on the roots of religion there (from an evolutionary point of view), and it is explained far better than I could here.

"You always thought it was a leash. Or a noose. Only now, too late, do you realize it was a lifeline."

Looks a little dangerous but not THAT dangerous; especially since they were traveling in a group (could rescue unconscious or struggling people). Doing something like this by yourself though would be quite dangerous, I imagine (nasty situation with no lifelines )

>> ^budzos:

Am I missing something? The lifeline said "XLI" (41) and that's what she said FTW. How is that not listening?


The guy on the lifeline said XLIX. She misheard him and said XLI.