Related:
Bank of England: Money creation in the modern economy
Bank of England: Banks are not intermediaries of loanable funds — and why this matters
Deutsche Bundesbank: How money is created
Deutsche Bundesbank: The Role of Banks, Non-Banks and the Central Bank in the Money-Creation Process (German only, remove the automatically added space near the end of the link)

I intentionally did not list any of the UMKC material nor any of Mosler's work, because people seem to ignore this stuff unless it comes from people/institutions they consider to be authorities in the field. Ergo two of the most important central banks.

Or if you prefer a short video, here's Greenspan taking Paul Ryan to school: There is nothing to prevent the government from creating as much money as it wants and paying it to somebody."

Not iffen yer tryin' to avoid the CENTRAL SCRUTINIZER!

Looks like each robot act individually and only detects others at short distances - instead of having a central system which coordinates all of the robots paths ahead of time.

Gerrymandering is totally undemocratic. It's insanity that legislators can draw their own districts, and I don't think any other country allows this. it's simply stupidity to allow such clear, undeniable conflict of interests that are so easily and consistently abused, particularly with something so central to how democracy works.
At this point, there's little chance of change, seeing as the only people with the power to effect change are the same people benefiting from the broken system.

*length=3:05

Because you're talking to me as a person, maybe?

I would counter, the constant and continuing barrage against the center and left didn't erode support for the right or numb them, it built it and constantly reenergized them. I'll take America as my example, thanks, they represent America MUCH better than anywhere else.

Edit: I do find it a bit funny being lectured on American politics by a non American who thinks they know Americans better than we know ourselves and uses foreign examples to make points about our culture.

The non far right is not so lacking in attention that something important like illiteracy is somehow a meaningless red herring, or that it's exposure would be wasteful and numbing.

Not being able to read well is not the same as ridiculous meaningless missteps or insanity, although they matter too, it's a basic requirement and absolutely central to any ability to lead or govern. The implications are staggering, not laughable.

Um....so you think the right didn't make sinister sounding documentaries about Clinton? Where have you been living the last 25 years, a cave in the Peruvian alps?

I think perhaps the "glass houses" complaints are being made by people living in a paper thin crystal snow globe who wish to distract from that fact.

Recall, Trump ran on the lie that he paid for his entire campaign and was beholding to no one, it was absolutely central to his candidacy, and was just another pack of obvious bold faced lies he sold the right, like draining the swamp, releasing his taxes, hiring the "best and brightest people", and putting his assets in a blind trust....all of which were total lies.

@transmorpher
so when i point out the historical implications,i am somehow automatically disregarding the inherent problems within islam itself?

and your counter is to not only NOT counter,but refuse to acknowledge the historical ramifications,because that is some political,agenda driven-drivel.

that the ONLY acceptable argument is to focus on the religion itself,and ignore all other considerations,because,again..just tools to be used and abused by the left to fuel the far right.

am i getting this right so far?

that to include history is actually the path that stops that path to move forward?

and here i was still hanging on to that tired old adage "those who refuse to recognize history,are doomed to repeat it".

i am glad that you found those authors so respectful and admired their analysis and dedication to research,but you didn't even bother to use one of THEIR arguments.you simply made claims and then told us you read some books.

dude..now i am just kinda...sad for you.

i am sorry that you are oblivious to your own myopia,and that you are coming across as condescending.yet really haven't posted anything of value that you have to contribute.

you are just pointing the finger and accusing people of their arguments being dishonest,when it appears to me that everyone here has taken the time to try to talk to you,and your replies have been fairly static.

hitchens tried to make the case,and failed in my opinion(i am not the only one),but a case i suspect you are referencing.that even if we took the history of neoliberalism,colonialism and empire building OFF the table.islam would STILL be a gaggle of extremist radicals seeking a one world caliphate.

which is why i referenced dearborn michigan.
it is why i mentioned kabul afghanistan.

we are talking about the radicalization of muslims.
why are they growing?
where do they come from?
why do they seem to be getting more and more extreme?

which many here have attempted to answer,including myself.

but YOU are addressing and entirely different question:
'what is wrong with islam as a religion"

well,a LOT in fact and i already mentioned islams dire need for a reformation,but it goes further than that.you see the epistemology of both judiaism and christianity have been thoroughly argued over and over....and over..that what you find today is a pretty succinct refinement of their respective theologies.

agree/disagree..maybe you are atheist or agnostic,that is not the point.the point is that the so-called "finished' product has pretty clear philosophies,that adherents can easily follow.

for judaism this is in large part to the talmud,which is a living document,where even to this day rabbis debate and argue the finer details.not to be confused with holy scripture the torah.

christianity was forced to acknowledge its failings and flaws,because the theology was weak,and was becoming more and more an amalgamation of other religious beliefs,but most of all,and i think most importantly,the in-fighting with the vatican and the church of england had exposed this weakness,and christianity was on the brink of collapse due to its own hubris and arrogance.

they had no central authority.no leadership that the people could come to in order to clarify scripture.

so thanks to the bravery of martin luther,who risked being labeled a heretic,challenged the political power,which in those days was religious,and so began the process of reformation.

and also ended the dark ages,and western civilization stepped into the "age of enlightenment".

islam has had no such reformation,though is in desperate need of one.they had no council of nicea to decide what was holy canon and what was not,which is why you have more gospels of jesus in the quran than you do in the actual bible.

the king james bible has over 38,000 mis-translations in the old testament alone,whereas the quran has....well...we don't know,because nobody challenges the veracity of the quran.

am i winning you over to my side yet?
still think i am leftist "stooge' and "useful idiot"?

look man,
words are inert.
they are simply symbols.
they are meaningless until we lay eyes on them and GIVE them meaning.

so if you are a violent,war-loving person-------your religion will be violent,and warmongering.

if you are a peaceful and loving person----then your religion will be peaceful and loving.

the problem is NOT religion itself,and i know my atheists really don't want to hear that,but it's true.religion is going nowhere.

the problem is fundamentalist thinking.
the problem is viewing holy scripture as the unerring word of god.
which is why you see creationists attempt,in vain,to convince the rest of us that the earth is only 6,000 yrs old,and their only proof or evidence is a book.

so we all point and laugh.....how silly..6,000yrs old.crazy talk.

but WHY is the creationist so adamant in his attempts to defend his holy text?
because to accept the reality that the earth is not 6,000 yrs old but 14 billion yrs old,is to go against the word of god,and god is unerring,and if the bible is the word of god....and god is unerring.........

now lets go back to dearborn michigan.
if hitchens and harris are RIGHT,then that relatively stable community of muslims are really just extremists waiting for the angels to blow their horn and announce the time for JIHAD!!!

and,to be fair,that is a possibility,but a small one.

why?
because of something the majority of christians experience here in the states,canada,europe,australia...they experience pushback.

does this mean that america does not have radical christians in our midst?

oh lawdy do we ever.

ok ok..i am doing it again.
me and my pedantic self.

suffice to say:
islam IS a problem,even taken as a singular dynamic,that religion has serious issues.
but they are not the ONLY problem,which is what many of here have been trying to talk about.

ALL religions have a problem,and that problem is fundamentalism.which for christianity is a fairly new phenom (less than 100 yrs old) whereas islam has suffered from this mental malady pretty much since its inception.

ok..thats it..im done.pooped,whipped and in need of sleep.

hope i clarified some things with ya mate,but i swear to god if you respond with a reiteration of all your comments.i am going to hunt you down,and BEAT you with a bible,and not that wimpy king james either!
the hefty scofield study bible!

He was on the verge of making a point about the radicalization of US Muslims. Remember Anwar al-Awlaki, US citizen killed by drone? Guess which other country he lived in? The countries on the list, with the exception of Iran, all have weak central governments that are unable to prevent large groups of terrorists operating in their country and spreading radical islamic beliefs. I think Egypt and Saudi Arabia should probably be there too just based on their history, but maybe diplomatic considerations were made. Obviously Trump had no concern over diplomatic relaions with Iran.

meh. thats a weak bonfire. They didnt have a central support so it leaned and fell over way early. They didnt ignite it properly so it only burned on one side making it fall over prematurely. The materials used was weak also which weaken the structure.

it was pretty lame actually. I wouldnt even call it a bonfire.

This is what a bonfire should look like.
https://youtu.be/GQTa-qeqHUM?t=23m28s

Yeah, I'll admit that I don't quite get the love for that one. I definitely liked it -- I loved the world they created, and it had some pretty great moments -- but I found the central mystery a bit dull. To be fair, though, I watch a ton of TV, so I might just be a bit burned out on watching people solve crimes.

Not sure if they have it set up like they do elsewhere and the way other companies do it (like Time Warner/Spectrum did here in Austin), but most of these workers will likely be contractors and the only relation to Comcast they will have is the name on the trucks.

The modus operandi was, and maybe still is, issue an apology, fire the specific contractor, and hire another. When these people go to sue Comcast, their lawyers will tell them that the people were not directly employed by Comcast and therefore are culpable separately. Then you get into the whole hassle of trying to track down the contractor, who usually disappears and reappears under a different name.

I remember getting pissed at Time Warner (pre-sellout) because one of their people trespassed on my property and left my gates open. Fortunately my dogs didn't leave, but they could have. He had right of way to cross one gate because their pole is considered part of the 'easement' to the utility company's equipment. The second gate was padlocked and he cut it off because he didn't have a proper ladder to reach the pole, I assume. I called them and they first tried to BS me that the easement covered both gates, but I told them I had the surveyors confirm it didn't when I redid the fence the year before. Then they said that they weren't the direct employer and the guy was a contractor. I asked for info and they gave me his company name only after I complained to a supervisor. His company had a web page, but none of the numbers worked and the 'business address' is basically a knife sharpening shop in central Austin. Time Warner apologized when I called back, but the most they could do was give me a couple of free months service.

That made me realize how the nudity in the show is central to understanding what it is like to be a 'host'.

To the guests they're sex dolls. To the engineers and programmers, they are robots with no sexuality or shame, more like sculptures than people, so having them wear clothes while doing diagnostics is silly.

And then we saw in the last couple episodes that to the repair technicians they're more like cadavers than they are like robots, since they're always a powered down mess by the time they get to them.

So if you look at the experience of Maeve she gets to be a whore part of the day, a lab experiment part of the day, and a dead person at night.

Bring on the robot uprising, kill all humans.

As a (slightly retired) fencer I love this, but I'd say a couple of things about the description.

The 'whap on the back' needs to apply 500g of pressure for 15ms in order to count. The time rule came in a while back to discourage 'flicking' - that exact problem.

The idea of dropping someone 'before he strikes back' is central to the roots of foil (fleuret in the video) and sabre. Essentially, if your opponent is attacking you have to parry them as a priority. The foil was traditionally the practice weapon which prioritised blows to vital areas, and defence over attack. Unfortunately, this also makes them very hard to follow if you don't know what you're watching.

Great video though. Makes me want to pick up a weapon again. Feel free to imagine some tragedy that made me swear never to fence again.

I drove right under the core of this thing going home. I could actually see a tornado being made and I checked all the weather and News outlets and there was nothing, except that NOAA decided to throw a Severe Thunderstorm Warning 10 minutes up AFTER IT PASSED...

It was so crazy to see a tornadic supercell in West Valley City (Salty Lake City, for most Sifters). It was following 2700 West for a bit and then I-215 (nearing the airport) was moving super fast to the NNE, straight to Washington Terrace and Riverdale. The winds were wild and the cloud formations were awesome, they were moving fast enough that I thought a partial nub might be visible where I was at, but I never did see it.

All that I saw was the main vortex with the amazing sight of all the cold air being sucked into the vortex at the SSW corner of the leading edge. Which was twisting more than fast enough to be a "horizontal twister". It was rotating so fast it was amazing; since you could see that sight you knew all it needed was a bit of air to push against it from underneath and stand up some of those vortices around the central core and then, walla, you'd get the tornado (I actually did believe that Ogden or Bountiful would get one since that was where it was heading).

All it needed was to get a little closer to the mountains and you'd have the right ingredients.

Thus, this is what you see happen right here in this video. North of my house, out in the middle of the Great Salt Lake, sits Antelope Island. It got hit by the raining part of this tornadic system but look at this wonderful storm video from it:

https://twitter.com/AntelopeSP/status/779078436568518656

It even had some golf ball hail in it.

The argument of "defensive measures" sounds quite different if you take into account:
1) Operation Mongoose, 2) the history of US-led terror campaigns and regime changes in Central America (Guatemala, anyone?), 3) the killing of Soviet technicians on Cuba by Cuban exiles, armed and trained by the US, 4) the century-long almost pathological need by the US to control Cuba. Not to mention of the Soviets had knowledge of the secret deployment of missiles to Okinawa just months earlier.

Don't make JFK out to be a man of peace. He signed National Security Memorandum No 181 in August of '62, which detailed regime change followed by an invasion of Cuba. He put into place a terror campaign against Cuba to bring them back into line. A terror campaign that was resumed a mere week after the crisis by blowing up a factory, causing the death of 400+ on November 8th.

Also, the offer came from Khrushchev, not the other way around, if I remember correctly. And while the Soviets didn't wage a terror campaign against Turkey or Italy once the outdated Jupiter missiles had been removed, we all know what has been done to Cuba over the following decades.