There is no negotiating with climate change. You can't outspend it developing space-based lasers (USSR), and you can't fix the problem by shooting at it (1942), so yes, it is more precarious.

I followed my passion and it worked out. Grew up in a bunch of small oil towns in Canada, no where near any big cities in the 80's and 90's(oil is where most of my friends from that time ended up and look where that's gone.) I really liked to draw and had a lofty goal to work in visual effects for film, which was a VERY difficult, niche thing at the time... very unrealistic to get into. People laughed when I was getting a bachelor's degree in fine art in Uni because there was no money in it. Long story short, I'm doing quite well, have worked on many films at several companies including Pixar, and am currently working on the next Starwars at ILM. People from my childhood can't even believe it, but that's the difference between following a passion and "applying passion" to what seems a sensible, realistic choice.

Following a passion may not lead you to where you expected to go like the post above, but there is no right and wrong decisions, just choices that tell the story of your life. All you can do is negotiate the fork your currently at, with some loose idea of where you want to go and you'll go somewhere interesting. Maybe I should have been a fucking motivational speaker...

Many debtees will settle on a portion of your debt if they believe the rest is unlikely to be recoverable, which is functionally the same thing as buying your debt on a discount.

Individually negotiating with each of the debtors is generally more expensive for the debtees than simply selling off the debt in bulk to collection agencies, even if avoids the cut that these agencies take for their services.

There are debt remediation companies dedicated to this although these are generally unnecessary as you can just do it yourself and in countries like Australia (probably NZ too) there are free government advice services for this kind of thing.

Fresh experience from a different healthcare system: a friend of mine gave birth last Saturday and she won't have to pay a single dime for it. It's covered, all of it, the entire procedure, no questions asked. No shopping, no negotiation, no worries.

That's the kind of freedom that makes a difference for your well-being, both physically and psychologically.

Very, very interesting -- thanks for the sift!

I'd love to see more, specifically about the US / Cuba talks and the Pope's involvement. As an atheist, I tend to think of Catholicism / the Pope / organized religion in general as generally having a primarily negative influence on world affairs (Crusades, Inquisition, birth control, anti-condoms, molestation, homophobia, etc.), but negotiating peace and better relations between the US and Cuba is a pretty undeniably positive thing.

I knew Latin American countries were highly Catholic, but I kinda figured that some of the USSR anti-religious stance would have rubbed off on Cuba. I guess maybe it did, but the missile crisis and fall of the Berlin wall / end of the cold war was long enough ago that Cuba has greater freedom to make up their own minds on this sort of thing.

Enough so that perhaps the Pope's involvement was necessary, or at least very helpful, to act as a mediator between the two sides. Props where props are due.

Anyway, all quite interesting.

The GOP has had problems since at least 2008, and they keep building up and up on the same issues.

The problem is the party is sort of stuck, and the split that it desperately needs would hurt it. Fox and the right wing talk radio aren't really on the classic GOP (of the Reagan and prior eras) side. Fox and talk radio and the social media that surround their viewers/listeners has shifted very far to the right. So much so that Reagan would in no way win the nomination today. Today's far right Republican party sees governing, and negotiating with the other side of the isle as a weakness. They don't want a representative democracy, they want a theocratic dictatorship while calling it democracy.

A party split is needed though. They need to split the two elements of the party from one another. Let the Tea Party form on it's own and let Fox and talk radio follow it. They'll find that the mass media is still far more central and closer to them than what they've been led to believe via Fox and talk radio, who accuses it of being far liberal. The party would be hurt for a couple election cycles, but as people start to wise up, they'd come back to the GOP from the Tea Party and the Tea Party would eventually become a footnote. As it stands, leaving the Tea Party elements in it will destroy the party in full.

The GOP keeps trying too hard to appeal to the far right element of it self and abandoning the central core. They are appealing to the hate mongers and bigots rather than the compassionate conservatism that Reagan at least pretended to have (though didn't).

I still think that McCain made two major errors when he ran. First was stepping too far to the right of where his voting record was while running. Had he stuck to what his record showed, he would have stood a semi-decent chance of winning... had he not made a second major fatal error and that was putting a batshit crazy, way far to the right, person as his VP candidate. Even if she wasn't crazy, or had a brain, she was far too the right for most Americans. Now, even if he had stayed true to himself, and used a centrist VP candidate he may have lost as Obama tapped into something... and I don't think anybody saw that coming.

Then the GOP embraced the hatred of Obama too much. Obama could cure cancer and they'd decry it as a bad thing, he can do nothing right so far as they are concerned. They should have toned that down. They also messed up the messaging on Obamacare. They should have embraced it, noting that they invented it, and tried to pass the same thing into federal law 3 times prior, twice under Bush Sr and once under Clinton and each time it was the Democrats who wouldn't take it. Showing how the Democrats embraced your idea would have shown, "look, we were right the whole time. We could have had this ages ago but the Democrats said 'No' and now they realized we were right." Rather than take the high rode though, they rode the crazy train of hate, and pushed more and more to become obstructionist.

Now side note, obstructionism works. Many Republican and non-affiliated voters, blame Obama for the lack of progress, though none of his ideas really got to be tried since they were bound and determined to obstruct everything and have done everything they can to ruin the Nation so they can blame him for the state of affairs, knowing full well most Americans don't know Congress controls the purse and pretty much all things related to it.

Anyhow, then Romney too shifted far to the right of what his record as Governor showed, and again went with somebody who's too far to the right (who oddly enough is now seen as too establishment by the Tea Party element) as a VP candidate... though Obama's popularity, and the popularity of Obamacare would have made it hard to overcome... though again, if the GOP had handled Obamacare properly, as their invention, then Romney would have ridden that strongly as his state used the previous Republican led efforts to create the same program, to do so on the state level. He could have ridden the fact his state had it before anyone else... again they let hatred of Obama override the logical move.

The party in the end is too afraid to do what it needs to do. It's too afraid of the short term losses and doesn't realize that the far goal is obtainable.

American Cops are trained to "keep control of the situation at all times!", which I can understand, however the only tool they're given to do that with is a fascist attitude. Imagine if they were given training for negotiation and communication psychology?

Its not a question of what you deserve, how hard you work, or sex, or even "generated revenue". Its a question of what are you willing to accept. Men are generally under more pressure to ask for more.

You are free to play football (as a job even!), which is cool, many cultures on this planet dont allow women to do that.

You have to negotiate for pay. I feel your pain, I suck at negotiating too.

Moving to Mexico to maintain high levels of product quality? Odd, since quality seems to always lower at least in the short run when factories move, and more so when they move to a neighboring country to save money.
'Strictly a business decision'....so that means he and the board are Trump supporters, right? He is the candidate that advocates doing whatever is good for business, and also the one telling his supporters that America has already gone down the toilet, the logical implications of both are that it's OK to move away to save on taxes and get cheap labor. He's also the one who advocates re-negotiating contracts and agreements after he gets what he wants out of them...meaning if he's president we'll have 4 years of zero international agreements on anything because other countries know full well he can't be trusted to keep them.

It sounds to me like Carrier just killed itself. Anyone thinking about buying a Carrier unit in the next few years should seriously think again. First, they've lost all those customers who buy 'made in America'. Second, those made by these employees may well be sabotaged by disgruntled soon to be ex-employees, and those made at the factory in Mexico will be made by untrained new Mexican employees who don't know what they're doing yet. That means for the next 3+ years, Carrier units will be suspect at best, and more likely dangerously poorly made. It also means getting warranty service is going to get pretty difficult and maybe require sending your unit back to Mexico.

Oh well, bye bye Carrier. You had a nice run.

Military support of Syrian rebels in by the US has by all accounts been minimal, it's primarily been non-arms tactical equipment. Arms support has come largely from the Gulf states / Iran. The idea that the US fomented the Syrian civil war is also largely groundless. If you want to talk about the private military sector, let's not forget that Russia is a major arms exporter.

Meanwhile Russia has armed and provided direct bombing to support Assad directly, a guy who uses chemical weapons and barrel bombs on his people to intimidate them. His Putin's priorities are to protect his only Mediterranean port in the Middle East and to use his war footing to prop up his own domestic support the same way he did in Ukraine.

If he wanted to end the conflict he would have pressured Assad to step down in favor of a traditional government and have the successor negotiate a settlement and eventual elections with moderate rebels. Instead he's poured fuel on the fire. The longer these conflicts last, the more radicalized the opposition becomes. Now that he's let it play out and fanned the flames, he can blame the US for creating the mess.

We have 4 rescue dogs and it's always touching to see how happy they can grow to be. The one abused Shepard we have would flinch if you raised your hand to scratch your head, when she first got here. Now 2 years later you have to negotiate with her for a spot on the couch, she is a whole new dog.

"I didn't think I would ever be in position that I would ever have to take somebody else's life"

That's the opening quote, from somebody in the military flying armed drone strikes. I am gonna call that unrealistic expectations, the army and military are not about negotiating with the enemy, their purpose is the threat of violence and death should negotiations fail. If you don't expect taking a life to be part of military operations, you didn't understand the entire concept of a military.

Then it's compounded, with this gem of a quote:
"I thought we were trying to rebuild their democracy"
Where did there exist a democracy in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Yemen or anywhere else he might have been flying a drone? Violent, repressive military dictatorships and stateless anarchy were the precursors.

Somewhere in between the cries to kill all Muslims and the Chomsky like claims that everything is the fault of the West is a middle ground I wish people would pay attention to and discuss.

There are parts of the world that are completely lawless, and for all intents and purposes have NO government despite the land itself falling within declared national borders. Tribal Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as many African states like Yemen and Somalia are relevant examples. There are powerful non-state organizations waging war from this regions. Al Qaeda and the TTP being only the most popular examples, Al-Shabab and Boko-Haram are others. These non-state entities are pushing ideologies that are not simply counter to western values, but that violate all UN agreed notions for basic human rights.

The question isn't drones good or drones bad. It isn't America good or America bad. It's not even killing good or killing bad. That's all just propaganda.

The real question is when powerful non state actors wage war with the declared goal of revoking many globally upheld human rights, how do we respond? The idea that drones should never be part of that answer seems equally facile to the idea that they always should be.

Varoufakis' Op-Ed in the Guardian closes with a remark that should be featured much more prominently in any discussion about the EU or the EZ:

"Based on months of negotiation, my conviction is that the German finance minister wants Greece to be pushed out of the single currency to put the fear of God into the French and have them accept his model of a disciplinarian eurozone."

It is about the Franco-German dynamic within the EU and whether or not the monetarists in Germany -- the recession cult, as Bill Mitchell put it -- get to keep the rest of the EU in a permanent chokehold.

I just watched Paul Mason's interview with Varoufakis and it's been rather depressing. Most of what he says is perfectly reasonable given the structural confines of the EZ. But it's all based on a belief in "mutual interests", a belief that negotiations can, and will, lead to a "mutually beneficial deal" with the financial inquisition.

Not sure if he's just adhering to his role as FinMin or if he truly believes it. I'd say it's a questionable assumption at best. From over here, it certainly looks like the creditors' position is "pay up, bitch!", end of story. Schäuble is not going to compromise, the majority of parliament is all in on neoliberalism and most of the electorate either doesn't care or even consents. Merkel might agree to a deal, given how she holds no convictions whatsoever except that being in power is better than not being in power. But Schäuble cannot be reined it with half the party being in lockstep with his actions.

No deal worth signing. Either full capitulation or they'll continue this charade with their buddies from PASOK and ND.