Peak oil is an important concept in the modern world, and one that doesn't get nearly enough attention or press.  So what is it exactly?  Peak oil is the concept that sooner or later, the supply of oil will peak and then gradually decline until we run out in 25 to 50 years.  Basically, it goes like this.  The world has 1 trillion barrels of oil in the ground at present.  However, 90 million barrels of oil are used by the world each and every day for various purposes.  This is much faster than oil is formed, since oil is a nonrenewable resource that is formed over millions of years.  So for all intensive purposes, the earth's oil supply (assuming constant rate of withdrawal) will be at zero barrels in a little over 30 years.  However, as oil supplies dwindle, it will be harder to pump any significant amount from the ground, which means that the rate of withdrawal will gradually decline.  Peak oil then, is the rate of maximum production before the rate of oil withdrawal begins declining.  Of course, once the rate of oil begins declining, the price of oil goes up, which means that gas prices follow.  And yet, despite this certainty, the United States government and the world at large have done little to address the problem of what our main source of energy will be in the future once the supplies of fossil fuels are exhausted. 

  This phenomenon known as peak oil is nothing new.  In fact, it has already occured in the United States.  Oil production in the United States in 1970 was about 10 million barrels of oil per day.  In 1975, oil production in the U.S was already down to 8 million barrels per day, and at present, oil production is around 4 million barrels per day.  Check out this graph and story at this url: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4172.  Another interesting thing to check out on the attached site is how oil reserves in the Middle East have grown since the 1980s.  However, this is not a real increase.  In the 1980s, when OPEC formed, the rule was that you could only pump out oil at a rate that was proportional to your reserves (not sure what the proportion was).  So, the countries in OPEC had a vested interest in overstating the size of their reserves so that they could increase oil production.  Basically, even though the countries in the Middle East claim to have about 900 billion barrels of oil in reserve, the truth is probably closer to half that (or possibly less). 

    Here's a news article from Business Week that discusses the likelihood of Saudi oil production falling off over the next few years:  http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/jul2008/db2008079_865368.htm

  Here's an excerpt of an article involving the IEA decreasing their predictions in oil production and getting an angry OPEC reaction (which, the article states, the IEA still predicts an oil supply of 106 million barrels per day in 2030, which I find to be very unlikely, but that is likely to be much higher than the supply in that year):  http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article5141848.ece

  An energy expert for Raymond James and Associates believes that production peaked in 2008:  http://evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=1729

  Peak oil is no longer debatable (Business Day article): http://www.businessday.co.za/articles/Content.aspx?id=76325

  And Forbes has an article on how peak oil will change our lives:  http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/14/20-dollar-gallon-business-energy-oil.html

  
  
Other interesting website to check out: 
http://www.oildecline.com/ 
http://www.theoildrum.com/
http://www.peak-oil-news.info/
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/49629
http://www.lifeaftertheoilcrash.net/

And then there are those who believe peak oil is just a myth:
http://peakoildebunked.blogspot.com/
http://www.prisonplanet.com/archives/peak_oil/index.htm
http://www.reason.com/news/show/36645.html

There are already local agencies dedicated to this reality:
http://www.portlandpeakoil.org/\
http://vtpeakoil.net/
http://www.seattleoil.com/

Some interesting books on the matter include (which I've already read, as an Environmental Science grad):
Powerdown
Fossil Fools (be warned that the author does have his nuclear energy agenda, which may or may not be a good idea)
The End of Oil

And of course, there are others on Amazon that look interesting, but that I cannot vouch for.


So what's the crux?  Oil supply will peak soon (if it hasn't already), and the prices in 10 to 20 years will make us wish that we had acted sooner on developing renewable resources.  Since we aren't currently dedicating nearly enough time or money to developing alternative energy to fossil fuels, we'll likely be caught off guard, and a major energy crisis will erupt when demand for oil becomes much higher than the amount that is in supply.  This will likely lead to a global catastrophe (likely) or an era where the entire world cooperates to resolve the energy crisis (unlikely).  Please do read up on this, and as with everything, keep in mind any possible agendas of the peak oil deniers as well as any agendas of the doomsday crowd.




 

  In California, activists are pushing for a law that would end all state benefits to illegal immigrants and their children (regardless of whether the child was born in the United States, which would by law make it a U.S. citizen, or not).  The article link is here:  http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-illegal-immigration13-2009jul13,0,4982035.story?page=1

Two passages from this article struck me.  The first is this one:  "Most illegal residents contribute to the state through taxes and labor, but research indicates that the costs to state and local governments outweigh the additional tax revenue, at least in the short term."

Ok, so contrary to popular myth, most illegal immigrants do pay taxes.  To establish that, let's link in some additional article to verify that indeed, the majority of illegals do pay taxes to a nation that doesn't recognize them as legal residents.

http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/2008-04-10-immigrantstaxes_N.htm

"Illegal immigrants are paying taxes to Uncle Sam, experts agree. Just how much they pay is hard to determine because the federal government doesn't fully tally it. But the latest figures available indicate it will amount to billions of dollars in federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes this year. One rough estimate puts the amount of Social Security taxes alone at around $9 billion per year."

"The Internal Revenue Service doesn't track a worker's immigration status, yet many illegal immigrants fearful of deportation won't risk the government attention that will come from filing a return even if they might qualify for a refund. Economist William Ford of Middle Tennessee State University says there are no firm figures on how many such taxpayers there are.

"The real question is how many of them pay more than they owe. There are undoubtedly hundreds of thousands of people in that situation," Ford said"

So, based on quotes from this article (which is everything between the link and this paragraph), many illegals fail to file a return (not the same as not paying taxes, since those often come out of a paycheck automatically) because they're afraid of being deported.  And the majority that do this are costing the government less money because they would make little enough that they'd be eligible for a refund.  So in that regard, many illegals are overtaxed.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/04/AR2006060400965_pf.html


"The controversy over immigrants and taxes generally centers on illegal immigrants. Reliable numbers are hard to find, but researchers generally agree that 50 to 60 percent of illegal immigrants nationwide work for employers who withhold income taxes and Social Security and Medicare payments from their paychecks. The authors of the Urban Institute study assumed 55 percent do. To get jobs, many of those immigrants use false Social Security numbers. That means they pay into the Social Security system for benefits they will never receive and pay income taxes without ever filing a return to determine whether they have overpaid."

"Overall, area immigrants pay nearly one-third of their income to the government -- at least $10 billion a year -- but those here illegally pay less than $1 of every $5 they earn in taxes, the report says. That is partly because they earn less but also because many are paid off the books and escape payroll taxes."


The quotes from the above article establish that many illegals pay taxes for services they will never receive (such as social security) and also that they won't file a tax return (which would make them eligible for tax refunds in many or most cases).  While many of them are paid under the table, that's as much an issue with the business as it is the illegal immigrant, and it's probably one that happens with many legal residents (mostly teens) working on a farm during the summer.  It's an inescapable issue however, there are some (possibly 40%)  illegals that manage to dodge the income tax.  That doesn't mean that they don't pay taxes, as there are taxes on sales, car registration, property value, and many other things.

Another interesting point from the article is that some experts believe that illegals shouldn't be given a path to citizenship because even though it would increase the input to the tax system (and get more of them to pay taxes), it would also make them eligible for social security, medicare, medicaid (which the illegals aren't currently eligible for), and would encourage more of them to file tax returns (which would result in more government refunds).  In other words, while more money would flow in, more would flow out as well.


Anways, another thing from the original article (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-illegal-immigration13-2009jul13,0,4982035.story?page=1) is this quote:

"The measure would also cut off CalWorks payments to the children of citizens or legal residents who fail to meet eligibility requirements for state aid because they are unwilling to work, addicted to drugs or absent, among other reasons."

So the bill these anti-illegal people are advocating for would also cut off payments to the children of many legal residents (including citizens) who fail to meet eligibility requirements for state aid.  That many any children of people who are too lazy to work, addicted to crack, or absent on a consistent basis won't get any help from the state.  Is it right to punish the child for the transgressions of their parents?  Or perhaps a more complicated question is this one:  If their parents aren't eligible for state aid, they certainly don't sound like good parents.  Is there a way that the state can take their kids away for neglect or whatever?  Or if there is already a way, then why do they still have kids?

In any case, it's something else that the residents of California need to be aware of.

Here's an interesting article regarding white supremicists in the armed forces:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0711/p20s01-usmi.html

I have a few questions regarding this.  How does the knowledge that some of the soldiers in our armed forces are white supremicists affect the morale of non-white soldiers?  And why is it that the military has eagerly discharged over 12,000 homosexual soldiers (Don't ask, don't tell) but is unwilling to discharge any soldiers who are singled out as being white supremicists or racists?  If I'm a black person, I'd rather have a gay soldier with my back any day of the week over a white supremicist.  Isn't leaving these guys in there, especially with minorities in a battlefield setting, a little dangerous?

  I haven't managed this domain quite like I should be, and I think I'll get on the ball a bit more.  It's been over a year since I've even posted anything (pathetic, I know), but the truth is out there.  There's still corrupt politics, regardless of whether George W. Bush is in office or Barack Obama, and there's still the little matter of those that swore to uphold the Constitution not honoring their oath, whether it be the freedom of speech being trampled, freedom of privacy (unreasonable search and seizure, see the fourth amendment), or the right to keep and bear arms.  And the sheep need to become enlightened, so that they are sheep no more.

  For those who drive a car with Onstar or other directional services, beware, you may be being tracked by satellite!  Of course, that is how these things work.  But this data from the satellite may also be used against in the court of law coming soon.  Have you ever driven 85 miles an hour?  It's on the computer in your car?  Have you been to the local brothel lately?  That's on there too.  Check out this article from msn that will tell you more about the advantages (and drawbacks) to having a tracking device on your car. 

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Insurance/InsureYourCar/WillYourCarRatYouOut.aspx

Pay special attention to page 2 of the article.  It has a store about a gentleman that got fined by a rental car agency (though not by police) for going 85 miles an hour in the rental car.  He fought the 450 dollar fine in court and won.  But he didn't win because of concerns about privacy.  The reason he won was because the rental car company didn't adequately warn him of the consequences of the technology in its car.  The court failed to condemn the technology or its usage by the rental car company.  

This capability could soon be coming to a cell phone near (or on) you, if it hasn't already.  If your cell phone has GPS type capabilities, you may already be subject to tracking via satellite without you having a clue!  Check out these articles:   http://www.mercurynews.com/traffic/ci_8215860
http://media-newswire.com/release_1060776.html
http://www.southtownstar.com/news/784679,021008cellphone.article

And these aren't the only devices that could be tracking you or giving out private information about yourself.  Pretty soon just about everything could easily be equipped with a tracking device.  Check out this chilling news story about RFID (Radio Frequency Identification Devices):  http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5horCnXwgKPtGux2O2AuN6aeBXjbAD8UDMN980

  Well, as everybody in the nation is well aware, George W. Bush has been in office for 7 years.  His first election, which was won with the electoral college (despite getting less popular votes than Gore), has raised doubts about the legitimacy of his election, especially concerning Florida.  Now, I'm sure everybody remembers people in Florida getting worked up over voting for Buchanan instead of Gore, and all that hoopla, and Gore did seem like a sore loser with recount after recount being ordered by him.  But now, it all seems very understandable.  Gore, with all the votes in, probably did get screwed.  How can I say that?  Well, it's rather simple:  Palm Beach County.

http://arts.bev.net/roperldavid/politics/FL2000.htm

  Taking a look at this website, as well as other statistical measures of the Buchanan vs. Gore vote in Florida, Buchanan, a conservative third party candidate, had his largest success in Palm Beach County, which is known for leaning to the left.  In fact, Buchanan had three times as many votes in Palm Beach County as he did in any other county in Florida.  This leads the observer to question why he had such success in Palm Beach County.  Looking at the punch hole ballot however, casts some light on this issue.  Another interesting support for this argument is found in the above website in the statement, "It appears that over 19,000 Palm Beach voters saw that they had made that mistake and then punched the correct third hole for Al Gore, also. These ballots were rejected by the vote counting machine as double-voted ballots."  In plain English, that means that 19,000 ballots had a vote for Gore and for Buchanan.  Considering which one got the popular vote, it's likely that the great majority (90% plus) of those ballots were intended as votes for Gore, and not for Buchanan.


  In the meantime, we have disenfranchised voters from New York who could not vote for their candidate of choice, Ron Paul, because they were told he had dropped out of the race:  http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_gigi_bow_080207_a_new_york_state_of_.htm

  That's not the only problem though.  Apparently voting machines can be hacked or otherwise compromised with something as simple as a magnet.  For more advanced techniques, it might require a little bit of doing, but do you think that would stop somebody who had a vested interest in one of the two major parties gaining the white house in November?  http://www.russiatoday.ru/news/news/20152

  However, as far as the electronic machines go, there is currently a bill in Congress that would offer money to voting districts across the nation that had equipped their machines to leave a paper trail or convert to paper ballots for the November election.  With the concerns about electronic machines and paper trails and the unreliability of these machines, this might be a bill worth supporting.  Take a look here:  http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hM24D2P_dBmIDGu_u_mPKthDHpGQD8U841PG0

  With all this going, apparently many Californian counties switched to paper ballots in a hurry before Super Tuesday:  http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/02/04/news/top_stories/17_55_082_3_08.txt

  But until notified otherwise, stay tuned.  It's quite possible for electronic votes to be miscounted and otherwise manipulated as well. 



 

  This domain was set up to shed light on politics.  The United States of America is supposed to be a democracy, and it is, to some extent.  However, the people usually end up getting left out of the political process when it comes to many things, and what's more, they aren't typically aware of it.  In 1997, Congress gave away our airwaves, which, at the time, were valued at about 50 billion dollars, for nothing.  Another thing that disturbingly few people are aware of is that Iraq had nothing to do with the September 11 attacks.  However, President Bush did a good job of selling that to America, despite the 9/11 Commission finding otherwise.  What's more is that the majority of our troops, according to a survey on informationclearinghous, want to withdraw from Iraq within a year.  How's that for confidence in your mission?  Yet, in the meantime, we're too busy worrying about illegal immigrants, and how they don't pay taxes (except that they really do pay taxes every year).  That's just a short sample of what this blog is going to be all about.  Of course, I will provide the links to vital information.  After all, you shouldn't take my word for it, but see it for yourself, then make up your mind.  This is about providing information in order to free your mind.  But be forewarned, the government doesn't want you to know, so the truth is treason.