who did not have a brain in the wizard of oz

The Scarecrow's version of the song is sung about getting a brain. The original recording included an extravagant Busby Berkeley-choreographed dance routine, but this was eventually cut for length reasons. A closing vocal stanza was likewise cut. Both pieces still exist and are available for viewing.

If I Only Had a Brain

"If I Only Had a Brain" (also "If I Only Had a Heart" and "If I Only Had the Nerve") is a song by Harold Arlen (music) and E.Y. Harburg (lyrics). The song is sung in the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz by the characters that meet Dorothy. The characters pine about what each wants from the Wizard. It was also sung in Jeremy Sams and Andrew Lloyd Webber's 2011 musical adaptation with an additional reprise called "If We Only Had a Plan" when the characters discuss on how to rescue Dorothy in Act II.

Originally written by Arlen and Harburg as "I'm Hanging On To You" for the 1937 Broadway musical Hooray for What!, the song was ultimately dropped from that show, and when the pair was later hired to do the songs for Oz, Harburg simply wrote new lyrics to the tune.

In the film as officially released, he sings the first and second verses of this song, then falls over comically. In the original cut as well as the 1985 film That's Dancing!, though, he sings the first and second verses, begins to dance, and eventually a crow takes a large portion of his straw. The scarecrow then flies in the air to get it back, which he does. Then, he does some splits (forward and backward), and then a pumpkin rolls down the road. When it goes through the scarecrow's legs, he is thrown high into the air. Now, he comes down, bounces against the fences, sings a third verse of this song, then falls down.

That sequence was eventually used as a segment in the 1985 film That's Dancing!, and Warner Bros. considered restoring it for Oz's 1998 theatrical re-release, but decided against it. The sequence is included as a DVD extra on the 1999, 2005, and 2009 releases.

Ray Bolger's original recording of the song was far more sedate compared to the version heard in the film; it was decided by the producers that a more energetic rendition would better suit Dorothy's initial meeting with the Scarecrow, and was re-recorded as such. Thought to be lost for over seven decades, a recording of this original version was discovered in 2009.[1]

Harry Connick, Jr. recorded "If I Only Had a Brain" for his 1988 album 20. This song was also covered by alternative rock band The Flaming Lips for the soundtrack to the video game Stubbs the Zombie. Dave Matthews Band often interpolates this into the song Bartender, near the end.

Rick DePiro, organist in the 1980s for the Cleveland Indians, used "If I Only Had a Brain" often to poke fun at umpires when they were thought to make a bad call. In 2007, New Orleans songwriter Paul Sanchez recorded the song for the children's album, Funky Kidz. The song is also featured in an ad for GE that first aired during Super Bowl XLIII.

Jackson Browne sang a folk music tempo in the 1995 television special The Wizard of Oz in Concert: Dreams Come True when he performed as the Scarecrow. His rendition opens with verses about having Common sense which were not sung by Ray Bolger in the original film. It also included the deleted final verses. This song features Ry Cooder's guitar and David Sanborn's saxophone in the instrumental background. In the 1998 Album "Wholly Earth" the famed jazz songstress and activist Abbey Lincoln also sang it; the lyrics tell of a scarecrow lamenting to a blackbird about wanting common sense.

Additionally, The Four Freshmen have recorded a version of the song, with Brian Eichenberger, who wrote the arrangement, soloing in the spirit of the Scarecrow. Jeremy Little also recorded an acoustic version of the song, which was featured on the Fox television series Fringe, at the end of the episode "The Firefly."

The song is also included as a kind of Easter Egg on iOS devices with Siri. When asking Siri to "sing me a song", Siri will occasionally sing the first few lines of this song.

The University of Phoenix used a version of the song with different lyrics in a commercial in 2016.[2]

The Tin Man's version of the song, about getting a heart, is sung after he says "No heart. All hollow." In the song, a girl's voice (that of Adriana Caselotti, best known for playing the title role in Disney's Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs) comes in singing, "Wherefore art thou Romeo?"

The song was first recorded by Buddy Ebsen, originally cast as the Tin Man until a makeup-induced illness forced him to withdraw. Although it was re-recorded by his replacement, Jack Haley, Ebsen's original recording survived and can be heard as one of many bonus tracks on the 1995 deluxe soundtrack release, as well as various home video/DVD releases from 1989-onward. Ebsen's version also contains the separately recorded single line recited by Adriana Caselotti.

Ebsen performed his vocals in his natural voice. In his Tin Man portion of the film, Haley eschewed his own natural, somewhat deeper and stronger voice, and both spoke and sang in a softened tone that he said was the tone he typically used when reading stories to his children.

Roger Daltrey sang a rock and roll tempo in the 1995 television special when he performed as the Tin Man while Jewel who performed as Dorothy sang the verse "Wherefore art thou Romeo?" in order for it to have a girl's voice in the background.

The Cowardly Lion's version, about courage, is the shortest of the three, and is connected to "We're Off to See the Wizard" by a bridge saying "Then I'm sure to get a brain; a heart; a home; the nerve" (a longer version was written, but it was shortened in the interest of balance, since Bert Lahr was given a second musical number, "If I Were King of the Forest," later in the film).

Lahr's characteristic regional accent was exploited and emphasized for comic effect in this song, with several words pronounced in a stereotypically "Brooklynese" way: "voive" for "verve", "desoive" for "deserve", and "noive" for "nerve".

The first line was initially recorded as "Yeah, it's sad to be admittin'/When you're vicious as a kitten," but it was eventually changed to "Yeah, it's sad, believe it, missy/When you're born to be a sissy."

The longer version of this song was used in the 1995 television stage performance. It was sung by Nathan Lane in a Broadway tempo. This version includes the bridge verses sung by The Scarecrow (Jackson Browne), Tin Man (Roger Daltrey) and Dorothy (Jewel).


where is the nevado del ruiz volcano located

The Nevado del Ruiz (Spanish pronunciation: [neβaðo ðel ˈrwis]), also known as La Mesa de Herveo[4] (English: Mesa of Herveo, the name of the nearby town), or Kumanday in the language of the local pre-Columbian indigenous people,[5] is a volcano located on the border of the departments of Caldas and Tolima in Colombia, about 129 kilometers (80 mi) west of the capital city Bogotá. It is a stratovolcano, composed of many layers of lava alternating with hardened volcanic ash and other pyroclastic rocks. Nevado del Ruiz has been active for about two million years, since the Early Pleistocene or Late Pliocene, with three major eruptive periods. The current volcanic cone formed during the present eruptive period, which began 150 thousand years ago.

Nevado del Ruiz

The volcano usually generates Plinian eruptions, which produce swift-moving currents of hot gas and rock called pyroclastic flows. These eruptions often cause massive lahars (mud and debris flows), which pose a threat to human life and the environment. The impact of such an eruption is increased as the hot gas and lava melt the mountain's snowcap, adding large quantities of water to the flow. On November 13, 1985, a small eruption produced an enormous lahar that buried and destroyed the town of Armero in Tolima, causing an estimated 25,000 deaths. This event later became known as the Armero tragedyâ€”the deadliest lahar in recorded history. Similar but less deadly incidents occurred in 1595 and 1845, consisting of a small explosive eruption followed by a large lahar.

The volcano is part of Los Nevados National Natural Park, which also contains several other volcanoes. The summit of Nevado del Ruiz is covered by large glaciers. The volcano continues to pose a threat to the nearby towns and villages, and it is estimated that up to 500,000 people could be at risk from lahars from future eruptions.

Nevado del Ruiz, which lies about 129 kilometers (80 mi) west of Bogotá, is part of the Andes mountain range. The volcano is part of the Ruiz–Tolima volcanic massif (or Cordillera Central), a group of five ice-capped volcanoes which includes the Tolima, Santa Isabel, Quindio and Machin volcanoes.[6][7] The massif is located at the intersection of four faults, some of which still are active.[8]

Nevado del Ruiz lies within the Pacific Ring of Fire, a region that encircles the Pacific Ocean and contains some of the world's most active volcanoes. It is the third most northerly of the volcanoes lying in the North Volcanic Zone of the Andean Volcanic Belt, which contains 75 of the 204 Holocene-age volcanoes in South America.[9] The Andean Volcanic Belt is produced by the eastward subduction of the oceanic Nazca Plate beneath the South American continental plate.[10] As is the case for many subduction-zone volcanoes, Nevado del Ruiz can generate explosive Plinian eruptions with associated pyroclastic flows that can melt snow and glaciers near the summit, producing large and sometimes devastating lahars (mud and debris flows).[5]

Like many other Andean volcanoes, Nevado del Ruiz is a stratovolcano: a voluminous, roughly conical volcano consisting of many strata of hardened lava and tephra including volcanic ash.[11] Its lavas are andesitic–dacitic in composition.[12] The modern volcanic cone comprises five lava domes, all constructed within the caldera of an ancestral Ruiz volcano: Nevado El Cisne, Alto de la Laguna, La Olleta, Alto la Pirana, and Alto de Santano.[13] It covers an area of more than 200 square kilometers (77 sq mi), stretching 65 kilometers (40 mi) from east to west.[14] The mountain's broad summit includes the Arenas crater, which is 1 kilometre (0.62 mi) in diameter and 240 meters (790 ft) deep.[12] Nevado del Ruiz, as its neighbours to the southwest Nevado El Cisne and Nevado de Santa Isabel is located over the Palestina Fault that crosscuts the underlying El Bosque Batholith, dated at 49.1 ± 1.7 Ma.[15]

The summit of the volcano has steep slopes inclining from 20 to 30 degrees. At lower elevations, the slopes become less steep; their inclination is about 10 degrees. From there on, foothills stretch almost to the edge of the Magdalena River, north of the volcano and the Cauca River to the west.[16] On the two major sides of the summit, headwalls show where past rock avalanches occurred. At times, ice on the summit has melted, generating devastating lahars, including the continent's deadliest eruption in 1985.[5][12][17] On the volcano's southwest flank is the pyroclastic cone La Olleta, which is not currently active, but may have erupted in historical times.[12]

The summit of Nevado del Ruiz is covered by glaciers (nevado means "snow-covered" in Spanish), which formed over many thousands of years, and have generally retreated since the last glacial maximum. From 28,000 to 21,000 years ago, glaciers occupied about 1,500 square kilometers (600 sq mi) of the Ruiz–Tolima massif. As late as 12,000 years ago, when the ice sheets from the last glacial period were retreating, they still covered 800 square kilometers (300 sq mi). During the Little Ice Age, which lasted from about 1600 to 1900 CE, the ice cap covered approximately 100 square kilometers (40 sq mi).[18]

Since then the glaciers have retreated further because of atmospheric warming.[8] By 1959, the massif's glaciated area had dropped to 34 square kilometers (13 sq mi).[19] Since the 1985 eruption, which destroyed about 10% of the summit ice cover, the area of Nevado del Ruiz covered by glaciers has halved—from 17 to 21 square kilometers (6.6 to 8.1 sq mi) just after the eruption to about 10 square kilometers (3.9 sq mi) in 2003. The glaciers reached altitudes as low as 4,500 meters (14,800 ft) in 1985 but have now retreated to elevations of 4,800–4,900 meters (15,700–16,100 ft).[8]

The ice cap is approximately 50 meters (160 ft) thick on average. It is thickest in parts of the summit plateau and under the Nereides Glacier on the southwestern slopes, where it is as deep as 190 meters (620 ft). Glaciers on the northern and, to a lesser extent, the eastern slopes lost the most ice in the 1985 eruption,[20] and therefore reach only up to 30 meters (100 ft) deep.[21] The deep ice covering the summit plateau may hide a caldera. Five domes ringing the summit plateau have emerged as the ice has retreated.[21]

The meltwater from the glaciers drains primarily to the Cauca River and Magdalena River via the western and eastern flanks of the volcano, respectively.[16] Runoff from these glaciers and those on the surrounding volcanoes is a source of fresh water for forty surrounding towns, and Colombian scientists and government officials are concerned about the towns' water supply should the glaciers melt completely.[22]

Nevado del Ruiz is generally poorly forested because of its high elevation, and its forest cover decreases with increasing elevation. At lower elevations, well-developed mesic forests (20–35 meters / 66–110 ft high) are present. Above these but below the tree line, parts of the volcano are covered with dwarf forests 3–8 meters (10–30 ft) high. Above the tree line, in the Páramo zone, the vegetation is dominated by plants such as bunchgrass and Espeletia.[23] Regional vegetation consists of different families of woody plants, including Rubiaceae, Leguminosae, Melastomataceae, Lauraceae, and Moraceae. Flowers such as Polypodiaceae s.l., Araceae, Poaceae, Asteraceae, Piperaceae, and Orchidaceae are also present in the region.[23]

Animals living on the volcano include the mountain tapir and spectacled bear, both of which are designated as threatened.[23] Other animals inhabiting the surrounding region include the rufous-fronted parakeet, bearded helmetcrest, and Herveo plump toad. The volcano is home to 27 species of birds endemic to Colombia, with 14 of these species confined to the region around the volcano. 15 bird species in the area are considered threatened.[23]

Nevado del Ruiz is one of several stratovolcanoes within Los Nevados National Natural Park, a national park located west of Bogotá in the centre of the Colombian Andes. The park is a popular tourist destination and contains several tourist shelters. The slopes of the volcano are used for winter sports, and nearby Lake Otún offers trout fishing.[23] A number of commercially operated spas can be found nearby.[23] In 1868–1869, German geologists Wilhelm Reiss and Alphons Stübel were the first to attempt to climb Ruiz. In 1936, W. Cunet and Augusto Gansser-Biaggi made the first successful ascent, partly by ski; they repeated the ascent in 1939.[3]

The first eruptions of Nevado del Ruiz occurred about 1.8 million years ago at the beginning of the Pleistocene epoch.[8] Three primary eruption periods in the history of the massif have been identified: ancestral, older and present. During the ancestral period between one million to two million years ago, a complex of large stratovolcanoes was created.[7] Between 1.0 million and 0.8 million years ago, they partially collapsed, forming large (5–10 km wide) calderas. During the older period, which lasted from 0.8 million to 0.2 million years ago, a new complex of large stratovolcanoes developed (including Older Ruiz, Tolima, Quindio, and Santa Isabel). Once again explosive summit calderas formed from 0.2 million to 0.15 million years ago.[7]

The present period began about 150,000 years ago and involved the development of the present volcanic edifice through the emplacement of lava domes made of andesite and dacite (igneous rocks) inside older calderas.[8] During the past 11,000 years, Nevado del Ruiz passed through at least 12 eruption stages, which included multiple slope failures (rock avalanches), pyroclastic flows and lahars leading to partial destruction of the summit domes.[7][8] During the past several thousand years, eruptions of the volcanoes in the Ruiz–Tolima massif have mostly been small, and the pyroclastic flow deposits have been much less voluminous than during the Pleistocene.[7] Since the volcano's earlier eruptions are not recorded, volcanologists have used tephrochronology to date them.[24]

During recorded history, eruptions have consisted primarily of a central vent eruption (in the caldera) followed by an explosive eruption, then lahars. Ruiz's earliest identified Holocene eruption was about 6660 BC, and further eruptions occurred in 1245 BC ± 150 years (dated through radiocarbon dating), about 850 BC, 200 BC ± 100 years, 350 AD ± 300 years, 675 AD ± 50 years, in 1350, 1541 (perhaps),[nb 1] 1570, 1595, 1623, 1805, 1826, 1828 (perhaps),[b] 1829, 1831, 1833 (perhaps),[b] 1845, 1916, December 1984 – March 1985, September 1985 – July 1991, and possibly in April 1994.[b] Many of these eruptions involved a central vent eruption, a flank vent eruption, and a phreatic (steam) explosion.[24] Ruiz is the second-most active volcano in Colombia after Galeras.[17]

On the morning of March 12, 1595, Nevado del Ruiz erupted. The episode consisted of three Plinian eruptions, which were heard up to 100 kilometers (62 mi) from the summit of the volcano. A large amount of ash was ejected, which completely darkened the surrounding area. The volcano also erupted lapilli (a form of tephra) and pumice bombs. In total, the eruption produced 0.16 km3 of tephra.[24] The eruption was preceded by a large precursor earthquake three days before.[26] The eruption caused lahars, which traveled down the valleys of the nearby Gualí and Lagunillas rivers, clogging up the water, killing fish and destroying vegetation. More than 600 people died as a result of the lahar.[27] The 1595 eruption was the last major eruption of Nevado del Ruiz before 1985. The 1595 and 1985 eruptions were similar in many respects, including in the chemical composition of the erupted material.[28]

On the morning of February 19, 1845, a large earthquake resulted in a substantial mudflow.[29] This mudflow flowed down the valley of the Lagunillas River for approximately 70 kilometers (43 mi),[5] spilling out of the river channel and killing much of the local population.[29] After reaching an alluvial fan, the mudflow split into two branches. The larger portion of it joined the Lagunillas River and flowed into the nearby Magdalena River, while the smaller portion was diverted by hills in front of Lagunillas Canyon, turned 90 degrees to the north until it reached the Sabandija River, and then flowed east with the Sabandija River, until it rejoined the other branch of the mudflow at the junction of the Sabandija and the Magdalena. It is estimated that 1000 people were killed in the mudflows.[29]

Beginning November 1984, geologists observed an increasing level of seismic activity near Nevado del Ruiz.[28] Other signs of a forthcoming eruption included increased fumarole activity, deposition of sulfur on the summit of the volcano, and small phreatic eruptions. In the latter, hot magma came in contact with water, resulting in explosions as the water was almost instantly turned into steam. The most notable of these events was an ash ejection on September 11, 1985.[28] The activity of the volcano decreased in October 1985.[28] The most likely explanation of the events is that new magma rose into the volcanic edifice before September 1985.[28]

An Italian volcanological mission analyzed gas samples from fumaroles along the Arenas crater floor and proved them to be a mixture of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide, indicating a direct release of magma into the surface environment. The mission's report, delivered on October 22, 1985, judged the risk of lahars to be very high. The report proposed various simple preparedness techniques to local authorities.[30]

In November 1985, volcanic activity once again increased[28] as magma neared the surface. The volcano began releasing increasing quantities of gases rich in sulfur dioxide and elementary sulfur. The water content of the fumaroles' gases decreased, and water springs in the vicinity of Nevado del Ruiz became enriched in magnesium, calcium and potassium, which were leached from the magma.[28] The thermodynamic equilibration (stationary heat energy) temperatures, corresponding to the chemical composition of the discharged gases, were from 200 °C (400 °F) to 600 °C (1,000 °F). The extensive degassing of the magma caused pressure to build up inside the volcano, which eventually resulted in the explosive eruption.[31]

At 3:06 pm, on November 13, 1985,[32] Nevado del Ruiz began to erupt, ejecting dacitic tephra more than 30 kilometres (19 mi) into the atmosphere.[28] The total mass of the erupted material (including magma) was 35 million tonnes[28]—only 3% of the amount that erupted from Mount St. Helens in 1980.[33] The eruption reached a value of 3 on the Volcanic Explosivity Index.[34] The mass of the ejected sulfur dioxide was about 700,000 tonnes, or about 2% of the mass of the erupted solid material,[28] making the eruption atypically sulfur-rich.[35]

The eruption produced pyroclastic flows that melted summit glaciers and snow, generating four thick lahars that raced down river valleys on the volcano's flanks.[36] It also destroyed a small lake that was observed in Arenas crater several months before the eruption.[28] Water in such volcanic lakes tends to be extremely salty and contain dissolved volcanic gases. The lake's hot, acidic water significantly accelerated the melting of the ice; this effect was confirmed by the large amounts of sulfates and chlorides found in the lahar flow.[28]

The lahars, formed of water, ice, pumice, and other rocks,[36] mixed with clay as they travelled down the volcano's flanks.[37] They ran down the volcano's sides at an average speed of 60 km per hour, eroding soil, dislodging rock, and destroying vegetation. After descending thousands of meters down the side of the volcano, the lahars were directed into all of the six river valleys leading from the volcano. While in the river valleys, the lahars grew to almost 4 times their original volume. In the Gualí River, a lahar reached a maximum width of 50 meters (200 ft).[36]

One of the lahars virtually erased the small town of Armero in Tolima, which lay in the Lagunilla River valley. Only one quarter of its 28,700 inhabitants survived.[36] The second lahar, which descended through the valley of Chinchiná River, killed about 1,800 people and destroyed about 400 homes in the town of Chinchiná, in the department of Caldas.[38] In total, over 23,000 people were killed and approximately 5,000 were injured.[36] More than 5,000 homes were destroyed.[36] The Armero tragedy, as the event came to be known, was the second-deadliest volcanic disaster in the 20th century, being surpassed only by the 1902 eruption of Mount Pelée,[39] and is the fourth-deadliest volcanic eruption in recorded history.[40] It is also the deadliest known lahar,[8] and Colombia's worst natural disaster.[41]

The loss of life during the 1985 eruption was due partly to the fact that scientists did not know precisely when the eruption would occur, and the authorities would not take costly preventative measures without clear warnings of imminent danger.[42] Because the volcano's last substantial eruption occurred 140 years ago, it was also hard for many to accept the danger the volcano presented; locals even called it the "Sleeping Lion".[27] Hazard maps showing Armero would be completely flooded after an eruption were distributed more than a month before the eruption, but the Colombian Congress criticized the scientific and civil defense agencies for scaremongering. Local authorities failed to alert people to the seriousness of the situation, with Armero's mayor and a priest both reassuring the populace after an ash eruption on the afternoon of November 13 and the consequent ashfall early that evening.[43] Another factor was the storm that hit that evening, causing electrical outages and hindering communications. Civil defense officials from four nearby towns tried to warn Armero the lahar was approaching in the hour or so before it reached Armero, but failed to make radio contact.[44]

Scientists later looked back to the hours before the eruption and noticed that several long-period earthquakes, which start out strong and then slowly die out, had occurred in the final hours before the eruption. Volcanologist Bernard Chouet said that, "the volcano was screaming 'I'm about to explode'", but the scientists who were studying the volcano at the time of the eruption were not able to read this signal.[45]

The volcano continues to pose a serious threat to nearby towns and villages. The most likely hazard is small-volume eruptions, which might destabilize glaciers and trigger lahars.[7] Despite the significant retrenchment of the volcano's glaciers, the volume of ice atop Nevado del Ruiz and other volcanoes in the Ruiz–Tolima massif remains large. Melting merely 10% of the ice would produce mudflows with a volume of up to 2,000,000 cubic meters (70,629,333 cu ft)—similar to the mudflow that destroyed Armero in 1985.[8] Such lahars can travel up to 100 kilometers (62 mi) along river valleys in a matter of few hours.[8] Estimates show that up to 500,000 people living in the Combeima, Chinchiná, Coello-Toche, and Guali valleys are in danger, and 100,000 of these are considered to be at high risk.[7][nb 2] Lahars poses a threat to nearby towns of Honda, Mariquita, Ambalema, Chinchiná, Herveo, Villa Hermosa, Salgar and La Dorada.[47] Although small eruptions are more likely, the two million-year eruptive history of the Ruiz–Tolima massif includes numerous large eruptions, indicating that the threat of a large eruption cannot be ignored.[7] A large eruption would have more widespread effects, including the potential closure of Bogotá's airport due to ashfall.[46]

As the Armero tragedy was exacerbated by the lack of early warnings,[42] unwise land use,[48] and the unpreparedness of nearby communities,[42] the government of Colombia created a special program (Oficina Nacional para la Atencion de Desastres, 1987) to prevent such incidents in the future. All Colombian cities were directed to promote prevention planning in order to mitigate the consequences of natural disasters,[48] and evacuations due to volcanic hazards have been carried out. About 2,300 people living along five nearby rivers were evacuated when Nevado del Ruiz erupted again in 1989.[49] When another Colombian volcano, the Nevado del Huila, erupted in April 2008, thousands of people were evacuated because volcanologists worried that the eruption could be another "Nevado del Ruiz".[50]

In 2006, heavy rains on Ruiz sent a mudslide down the Chinchiná River, killing nine youths aged 12–19 on a scouting expedition near the volcano.[51]

During September and October 2010, INGEOMINAS (Colombian Institute of Mining and Geology) noted gradual increases in seismic activity near the Arenas crater. Sulfurous odors and phreatic eruptions reported at Nevado del Ruiz prompted an alert level of Yellow on October 1.[nb 3] Chemical analysis of the volcano demonstrated deformative changes and geochemical alterations.[53] Over the next four months a smattering of long-period earthquakes, considered pseudo-Tornillo events, raised worries that the volcano might erupt.[52] In 2010, tilt increased, and on average 890 volcanic tremors were recorded monthly, roughly eight times as many as had been recorded from 2009â€“2010.[52] 2010 marked the beginning of increases in sulfur dioxide emissions accompanying small eruptions at the volcano, which both peaked in February 2012 correspondent to a dramatic increase in earthquakes.

Scientists flying over the volcano on March 8, 2012 noted fresh ash deposits on the east flank of the volcano near the crater, likely from an phreatic eruption on February 22.[52] Later that day, a small ash plume erupted from the crater; by March 13, scientists detected ash deposits at the head of the Gualí River.[53] After seismicity continued to increase, the alert level was raised to Orange, and in April Nevados National Natural Park authority closed the reserve, fearing lahars and ashfall hazards.[52] The sudden activity peak in March did not culminate in a major eruption, and activity declined enough that the alert level was lowered to Yellow on May 3.[52][nb 4] On May 29, seismicity rapidly increased, and the alert level was restored to Orange because ash fell into more than 20 nearby communities. Over the next few months ash fell frequently until earthquakes increased again in June. Because of the severity of these tremors, evacuations were ordered by the Emergency Committee of Caldas on news media for 300–1500 people near the volcano. The alert level was raised to Red, indicating an imminent major volcanic event, and an eruption 7.5 kilometers (4.7 mi) in diameter took place on July 2, 2012, continuing intermittently until the end of August.[52] Ash plumes and sulfur dioxide emissions recurred until January 2013.[53]

This volcano is monitored by the Deep Earth Carbon Degassing Project.


what was the russian policy enacted during the 1980s that meant for greater openness

Perestroika (Russian: перестро́йка; IPA: [pʲɪrʲɪˈstrojkə] ( listen))[1] was a political movement for reformation within the Communist Party of the Soviet Union during the 1980s until 1991 widely associated with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev and his glasnost (meaning "openness") policy reform. The literal meaning of perestroika is "restructuring", referring to the restructuring of the Soviet political and economic system.

Perestroika

Perestroika is sometimes argued to be a cause of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the revolutions of 1989 in Eastern Europe, and the end of the Cold War.[2]

Perestroika allowed more independent actions from various ministries and introduced some market-like reforms. The goal of the perestroika, however, was not to end the command economy but rather to make socialism work more efficiently to better meet the needs of Soviet citizens.[3] The process of implementing perestroika arguably exacerbated already existing political, social, and economic tensions within the Soviet Union and no doubt[citation needed] helped to further nationalism in the constituent republics. Perestroika and resistance to it are often cited[by whom?] as major catalysts leading to the dissolution of the Soviet Union.

In May 1985, Gorbachev gave a speech in Leningrad in which he admitted the slowing-down of the economic development and inadequate living standards. This was the first time in Soviet history that a Soviet leader had done so.

The program was furthered at the 27th Congress of the Communist Party in Gorbachev's report to the congress, in which he spoke about "perestroika", "uskoreniye", "human factor", "glasnost", and "expansion of the khozraschyot" (commercialization).

During the initial period (1985â€“87) of Mikhail Gorbachev's time in power, he talked about modifying central planning but did not make any truly fundamental changes (uskoreniye; "acceleration"). Gorbachev and his team of economic advisors then introduced more fundamental reforms, which became known as perestroika (economic restructuring).

At the June 1987 plenary session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU), Gorbachev presented his "basic theses", which laid the political foundation of economic reform for the remainder of the existence of the Soviet Union.

In July 1987, the Supreme Soviet of the Soviet Union passed the Law on State Enterprise.[4] The law stipulated that state enterprises were free to determine output levels based on demand from consumers and other enterprises. Enterprises had to fulfill state orders, but they could dispose of the remaining output as they saw fit. However, at the same time the state still held control over the means of production for these enterprises, thus limiting their ability to enact full-cost accountability. Enterprises bought input from suppliers at negotiated contract prices. Under the law, enterprises became self-financing; that is, they had to cover expenses (wages, taxes, supplies, and debt service) through revenues. No longer was the government to rescue unprofitable enterprises that could face bankruptcy. Finally, the law shifted control over the enterprise operations from ministries to elected workers' collectives. Gosplan's (Russian: Госуда́рственный комите́т по планированию; Gosudarstvenniy komitet po planirovaniyu; "State Committee for Planning") responsibilities were to supply general guidelines and national investment priorities, not to formulate detailed production plans.

The Law on Cooperatives, enacted in May 1988,[5] was perhaps the most radical of the economic reforms during the early part of the Gorbachev era.[citation needed] For the first time since Vladimir Lenin's New Economic Policy was abolished in 1928, the law permitted private ownership of businesses in the services, manufacturing, and foreign-trade sectors. The law initially imposed high taxes and employment restrictions, but it later revised these to avoid discouraging private-sector activity. Under this provision, cooperative restaurants, shops, and manufacturers became part of the Soviet scene.

Gorbachev brought perestroika to the Soviet Union's foreign economic sector with measures that Soviet economists considered bold at that time.[citation needed] His program virtually eliminated the monopoly that the Ministry of Foreign Trade had once held on most trade operations. It permitted the ministries of the various industrial and agricultural branches to conduct foreign trade in sectors under their responsibility rather than having to operate indirectly through the bureaucracy of trade ministry organizations. In addition, regional and local organizations and individual state enterprises were permitted to conduct foreign trade. This change was an attempt to redress a major imperfection in the Soviet foreign trade regime: the lack of contact between Soviet end users and suppliers and their foreign partners.

The most significant of Gorbachev's reforms in the foreign economic sector allowed foreigners to invest in the Soviet Union in the form of joint ventures with Soviet ministries, state enterprises, and cooperatives. The original version of the Soviet Joint Venture Law, which went into effect in June 1987, limited foreign shares of a Soviet venture to 49 percent and required that Soviet citizens occupy the positions of chairman and general manager. After potential Western partners complained, the government revised the regulations to allow majority foreign ownership and control. Under the terms of the Joint Venture Law, the Soviet partner supplied labor, infrastructure, and a potentially large domestic market. The foreign partner supplied capital, technology, entrepreneurial expertise, and in many cases, products and services of world competitive quality.

Gorbachev's economic changes did not do much to restart the country's sluggish economy in the late 1980s. The reforms decentralised things to some extent, although price controls remained, as did the ruble's inconvertibility and most government controls over the means of production.

By 1990 the government had virtually lost control over economic conditions. Government spending increased sharply as an increasing number of unprofitable enterprises required state support and consumer price subsidies continued. Tax revenues declined because republic and local governments withheld tax revenues from the central government under the growing spirit of regional autonomy. The elimination of central control over production decisions, especially in the consumer goods sector, led to the breakdown in traditional supply-demand relationships without contributing to the formation of new ones. Thus, instead of streamlining the system, Gorbachev's decentralisation caused new production bottlenecks.[citation needed]

Perestroika and Deng Xiaoping's economic reforms have similar origins but very different effects on their respective countries' economies. Both efforts occurred in large communist countries attempting to modernize their economies, but while China's GDP has grown consistently since the late 1980s (albeit from a much lower level), national GDP in the USSR and in many of its successor states fell precipitously throughout the 1990s.[6] Gorbachev's reforms were gradualist and maintained many of the macroeconomic aspects of the command economy (including price controls, inconvertibility of the ruble, exclusion of private property ownership, and the government monopoly over most means of production).[citation needed]

Reform was largely focused on industry and on cooperatives, and a limited role was given to the development of foreign investment and international trade. Factory managers were expected to meet state demands for goods, but to find their own funding. Perestroika reforms went far enough to create new bottlenecks in the Soviet economy but arguably did not go far enough to effectively streamline it.[citation needed]

Chinese economic reform was, by contrast, a bottom-up attempt at reform, focusing on light industry and agriculture (namely allowing peasants to sell produce grown on private holdings at market prices).[citation needed] Economic reforms were fostered through the development of "Special Economic Zones", designed for export and to attract foreign investment, municipally managed Township and Village Enterprises and a "dual pricing" system leading to the steady phasing out of state-dictated prices.[7] Greater latitude was given to managers of state-owned factories, while capital was made available to them through a reformed banking system and through fiscal policies (in contrast to the fiscal anarchy and fall in revenue experienced by the Soviet government during perestroika). Perestroika was expected to lead to results such as market pricing and privately sold produce, but the Union dissolved before advanced stages were reached.[citation needed]

Another fundamental difference is that where perestroika was accompanied by greater political freedoms under Gorbachev's glasnost policies, Chinese economic reform has been accompanied by continued authoritarian rule and a suppression of political dissidents, most notably at Tiananmen Square. Gorbachev acknowledges this difference but has always maintained that it was unavoidable and that perestroika would have been doomed to defeat and revanchism by the nomenklatura without glasnost, because conditions in the Soviet Union were not identical to those in China.[8] Gorbachev had lived through the era in which the attempted reforms by Khrushchev, limited as they were, were rolled back under Brezhnev and other pro-totalitarian conservatives, and he could clearly see that the same could happen again without glasnost to allow broad oppositional pressure against the nomenklatura. Gorbachev cited a line from a 1986 newspaper article that he felt encapsulated this reality: "The apparatus broke Khrushchev's neck and the same thing will happen now."[9]

Another difference is that Soviet Union faced strong secession threats from its ethnic regions and a primacy challenge by the RSFSR. Gorbachev's extension of regional autonomy removed the suppression from existing ethnic-regional tension, while Deng's reforms did not alter the tight grip of the central government on any of their so-called autonomous regions. The Soviet Union's dual nature, part supranational union of republics and part unitary state, played a part in the difficulty of controlling the pace of restructuring, especially once the new Russian Communist Party was formed and posed a challenge to the primacy of the CPSU. Gorbachev described this process as a "parade of sovereignties" and identified it as the factor that most undermined the gradualism of restructuring and the preservation of the Soviet Union. This caused a situation in the USSR whose closest analog would be if English sovereignty undermined that of the United Kingdom at a time when the entire UK society and economy was under significant stress and reform, or if North China had a party and state emerge as a challenge to the CCP and PRC during Deng's reforms.

On 27 January 1987 a meeting of the central committee members occurred. The CPSU had Gorbachev present his criticism that justifying his policies of perestroika and glasnost are the only solutions to the problems of the Soviet Union.[citation needed]

Over Gorbachev's time in power, perestroika and glasnost were his most important goals. Economic, social, and political aspects of the Soviet Union have been partly implemented due to these two elements which heighten his seriousness of pushing towards his current objective. Also, Gorbachev's vigorous campaign for perestroika and glasnost motivated him to move from Moscow to Vladivostok in order to propose his revolutionary changes in the Soviet society.[citation needed]

One of the final important measures taken on the continuation of the movement was a report that was at the central committee meeting of the CPSU titled "On Reorganization and the Party's Personnel Policy".[10] This report was in such high demand in Prague and Berlin that many people could not get a copy. One effect was the sudden demand for Russian dictionaries in order to understand the content of Gorbachev's report.

Women in the USSR were considerably knowledgeable.[citation needed] Women's activism, due to the prominent position of women in Soviet society, played a key part in the speed at which perestroika affected the USSR.[citation needed]

Sex equality was granted as early as 1918. In the later years, organizations focused on the implementation of women into public life. They were allowed to teach, work and manage boarding schools and orphan homes for abandoned children.[11] In the following years, the Soviet Women's Committee was established and broadened its network across the country. This committee focused upon assisting women to find employment and defending the Soviet Union. During the first years of perestroika, the women's councils were granted independence and varying levels of political significance. Not all the women's councils survived the post-perestroika years, but others managed to pull through, independently leading themselves forward â€“ which signifies the success of the council.

The activism of women may be broken down into two general sections: during perestroika (1985–1991) and after perestroika (1991–1993). During the first stage, the number or councils expanded in numbers rapidly, such that by the end of the event, there were 300 registered women's organizations in Russia. Until this day,[when?] five of these organizations have international status, two of them have a national status and as many as fourteen have a republican status.

Throughout these different councils, many activities were established to enhance the amount and types of information a woman could learn in the Soviet Union. For example, the activities ranged from economic focus like providing services, running small businesses and training, to more general employment jobs like political lobbying and raising women's advocacy[citation needed]. Some female political leaders like Larisa Bogoraz, Valeria Novodvorskaya and Elena Bonner all established their power with the assistance of these organizations(even though they were the leaders of these dissident organizations in the Soviet times).

During the 1980s and 1990s the United States President George H. Bush pledged solidarity with Gorbachev, but never brought his administration into supporting Gorbachev's reform. In fact, "no bailout for Gorbachev" was a consistent policy line of the Bush Administration, further demonstrating the lack of true support from the West. President Bush had a financial policy to aid perestroika that was shaped by a minimalist approach, foreign-policy convictions that set Bush up against other U.S. internal affairs, and a frugal attitude, all influencing his unwillingness to aid Gorbachev. Other factors influenced the West's lack of aid as well like "the in-house Gorbi-skeptics" advocacy, the expert community's consensus about the undesirability of rushing U.S. aid to Gorbachev, and strong opposition to any bailout at many levels, including foreign-policy conservatives, the U.S. Congress, and the American public at large. The West seemed to miss an opportunity to help reform the Soviet regime into a more democracy-like society. The Soviets aided in the expansion of Western capitalism to allow for an inflow of Western investments, but the perestroika managers failed. President Bush had the opportunity to aid the Soviet Union in a chance to improve their government, like Harry S. Truman did for Western Europe.

Early on, as perestroika was getting under way, I felt like the West might come along and find it a sensible thing to do—easing Russia's difficult transition from totalitarianism to democracy. What I had in mind in the Preface iv first place, was the participation [of the West] in conversion of defense industries, the modernization of light and food industries, and Russia's inclusion on an equal-member footing in the frameworks of the international economic relations…[U]nlike some democrats, I did not expect "manna from Heaven," but counted on the Western statesmen to use their common sense.[12]

President George H. Bush continued to dodge helping the Russians and the President of Czechoslovakia, Vaclav Havel, laid bare the linkage for the Americans in his address to a joint session of Congress on February 21, 1990:

…I often hear the question: How can the United States of America help us today? My reply is as paradoxical as the whole of my life has been: You can help us most of all if you help the Soviet Union on its irreversible, but immensely complicated road to democracy....[T]he sooner, the more quickly, and the more peacefully the Soviet Union begins to move along the road toward genuine political pluralism, respect for the rights of nations to their own integrity and to a working—that is a market—economy, the better it will be, not just for Czechs and Slovaks, but for the whole world.

When the United States needed help with Germany's reunification, Gorbachev proved to be instrumental in bringing solutions to the "German problem" and Bush acknowledged that "Gorbachev was moving the USSR in the right direction...". Bush, in his own words, even gave praise to Gorbachev "to salute the man" in acknowledgment of the Soviet leader's role as "the architect of perestroika…[who had] conducted the affairs of the Soviet Union with great restraint as Poland and Czechoslovakia and GDR … and other countries [that had] achieved their independence," and who "[was] under extraordinary pressure at home, particularly on the economy."