Austerity Measures coming for the U.S.A.

       Before we examine what that might entail we need to realize a few things.  First, Spain and Greece are not alone in owing more than their GDP annually.  Second, At least they had the good sense not to borrow the bulk of their cash from their primary trade partner.
       See here in the U.S.A. we have borrowed heavily from Chinese banks.  While a bad move for many reasons it is especially stupid when you consider we are borrowing now, to pay the interest on past loans.  Mostly also from China.  We now owe more than we can pay.  So how can we fix this?
       The solution we have been using is to keep borrowing, which undermines American manufacturing so it outsources to China.  Then buying goods that used to be domestic, but are now imported.  But then we all knew that.  Essentially it's like having your home mortgaged through Wal-Mart bank, where you also buy your food, clothes etc.  Then realizing you can't pay for your groceries, so you borrow more from them.
       What I'm driving at here is that we joke about the collapse of the Spanish, and the Greek economy.  We laugh about the Austerity measures they must now endure just to pay back a loan they should never have taken out.  We make fun of the people there for allowing their own government to run the country into the dirt so bad they had to borrow more than their entire countries production, in the first place.
       What makes us different?  By all means, keep on laughing.  It isn't going to be funny in a few more years when China wants its money back, and we can't pay.  We will be at the same point sooner than you could imagine.  Or maybe not.  See, I learned a trick or two in my negotiations class.  Sometimes the weak position is stronger than the strong position.  Like here.  And please, any aspiring presidential candidates take note, this will work.
       Explain to our good friends the Chinese that we have no ability to pay them back as long as we keep buying their goods.  We need to either have our debt absolved, and we in turn would forgive the debts owed us by other sovereign nations; or we will need to heavily tariff or outright embargo all goods originating in their country, in order to generate the revenue to pay them back.  We are very sorry.  You have been very kind to us, but you had to have seen this coming as much as we did.  
       Then step back and let them make the decision.  It's their money, after all.  Or solution no one wants to hear.  We form a trade federation.  A super-national organization like the E.U.  This one though would be just us and China, maybe Brazil, if they care to play nice for a change.  Put aside our differences and realize exactly how much of the planet's GDP is represented by just those three countries.  Add in Japan and Germany and we would then have a world government.
       Option three is simple enough: learn Mandarin or Cantonese.  You'll need it if we keep doing what we've been doing.

Not By Enough

       You, no doubt, will have heard of the killings in Libya of an ambassador and others over a movie.  That's right a movie that made "the prophet" look bad.  Take the time to google the movie "Innocence of Muslims".  I can't really link to it because it keeps being taken down.
       Five seconds tells you this is not a big-budget film.  This is basement quality, maybe.  But apparently, despite the majority of Americans never having heard of it, represents everyone's views.  So much so we are all held accountable for it.  Seriously, its getting old being the good guy.
       Is it time to hold an entire nation accountable for the actions of a few idiots?  I think there are a few people here who would be OK with turning the entire Middle-East into a green sheet of glass right now.  Frankly, its hard to argue against it.  (or so I've heard, I generally argue in favor of it)
       If we retaliate for this however; would we be any better than them?  In the words of Lrrr, Ruler of Omicron Persei 8; "Yes, but not by enough."  We can't just blow up entire countries over crap like this, because frankly, they all do it.  It would feel good for a while, sure, but solve nothing.
       I advocate leaving the idiots to rot.  Electric cars now, powered by batteries, (or ultra-capacitors) charged by safe, renewable, modern nuclear power plants.  Until we can develop solar, wind, and wave enough to be viable, anyway.  (If that can even be done).  For the interim, until they are built, we drill, we mine, and we make do.
     Once we devalue the one thing they have that is of any worth, they will cease to matter and can throw rocks at each other until the end of time.  No one else would care enough to be there.  Not even to watch.
       Then, once the immediate issues are addressed, we develop some other technology to move our wheels of industry.  Something free and abundant.  Say, a solar cell powering electrodes and low voltage pumps, extracting hydrogen from water, to use in fuel cells.  Oh, wait we can do that now.  (Honda has a test track and car that use this set-up)  Surely then, there is some reason we don't.
       It's almost like someone must want the primitives in the Middle-East to have power.  (I know they were a center of learning long before the western world, but seriously the world has moved past 1400; they haven't).  So like most ideas presented here, this will be left behind because it conflicts with the greed of those in charge.  Democrat, Republican, Tastycrat, Fingerlican, it doesn't matter.  Our politicians are "in-pocket" to the petroleum industry.

Why Drew Peterson being found guilty should keep you up at night.

       I will begin with by stating that I know the man is guilty.  We all know he is guilty.  But what did not occur is the state proving he was guilty.  Or even that a crime occurred.  There are a host of other issues as well.  I will detail them all and then explain why you should be scared.
       First, Illinois passed a law specifically to allow hearsay evidence, in this case.   There is a fancy Latin term for that which my brother knows, but escapes me currently. (and my best effort with an hour searching online.)  The reason there is a legal term for this type of law is that it is unlawful to pass such a law.  But hey, this is Illinois, we've never let that stop us.
       Part of this complaint is that the law was passed after the crime was committed and before the trial.  He should have been "grandfathered" into a group to which this law could not legally be applied.  Any other time this would have been the case.  But again, welcome to Illinois.
       The reason this is bothersome is that it removes a defendants right to cross examine.  In this case third party testimony from the deceased was allowed to be weighted as first hand (from the deceased) instead of removed as hearsay.  Remember this important fact.
       Second, the state could not prove there was a crime committed.  Their own expert witness stated, under oath, that there was a possibility that the death was an accident.  That alone should have been enough for a "not guilty" verdict.  Not to belabor the point but, Illinois.
       Third, They could not illustrate, let alone prove, he was anywhere near the scene where this "possible" crime occurred.  Again, that should have been enough for a "not guilty" verdict.  But again, law has never stood in the way of political expedience in Illinois.
       Why should the bending of the law to convict the obviously guilty bother me so?  The obvious answer is because the next guy might not be so obviously guilty, or even guilty.  He might just be someone who had an unrelated argument with a vengeful neighbor.
       Say there was a "suspicious" death.  I decide that my neighbor "Bob" is really pissing me off lately.  What with his always mowing his lawn early and leaving his grass clippings on my sidewalk.  I find someone, say my brother, or wife, or brother's wife, to come with me and claim we heard the deceased person say they were afraid Bob would come and kill them.  If the case went the way Drew Peterson's did, he would be cooling his early-mowing heels behind bars.
       That is exactly what happened here.  Any of you could be singled out.  Say someone who was extraordinarily vocal about the obvious corruption in this festering  cesspool of a state.  Hey, I know that guy.