Iran has publicly acknowledged that its oil exports are down between 20 and 30 percent. The article notes that it is due to the upcoming sanctions being placed upon it by the European Union. But I immediately thought of the Export-Land Model, which is a model that shows a marked decrease in oil exports when a nation that exports oil experiences both a peak in its oil production and an increase in its domestic oil production. In other words, a country will use more and more of its oil for domestic consumption rather than exporting it. An official for the Iranian oil company even admits it in the article; "It was 20 to 30 percent we reduce regarding to our export; some of the reduction is shifting for the refinery internally."
This New York Times graph from 2007 is of several countries, including Iran, whose oil consumption had shot up due to a booming economy. Of course, this means a lesser supply of oil for importers, including Europeans and us.
For someone who is economically illiterate like myself, it always helps to have an article like this one that makes its case in a very simple way. This pretty short article outlines how we are all scammed by the Federal Reserve. Like the other factors that lie behind the conditions of this country, and indeed, the world, such as peak oil and climate change, the financial situation does not appear to be sustainable (indeed, won't be in the long term), but has a tenacious ability to ensure that "business as usual" continues on an indefinite basis. We may think to ourselves that it will fall apart, but for the near-term anyway, it keeps on going.
Anyway, read the article and you will come away with at least two basic points on why our debt has spiraled as badly out of control as it has. My only points of contention with the article is the assumption behind it, that somehow the government can do a better job of managing our debt and the money supply than the Fed has. Yes, our own Constitution gives the Congress the power to coin money and regulate its value, and that power has been usurped by the Federal Reserve, an unaccountable, private corporation. But would our government have done a better job? I'm not sure that it would. Throughout history, you can find examples of governments debasing their own currencies for one reason or another. And keeping the value of our currency pegged to a commodity (such as gold) results in big variations in the supply of money. So, upon reading what I just wrote, the point of contention that I have may seem like a pretty major one, but I still agree with the article's main argument that the Fed has done a bad job with managing the money supply, or a good job (depending on who you are and where you stand).
Hopefully, I will be able to overhaul the blog to some extent in the near future. I just added a couple of cool widgets that list, second-by-second, the energy consumption and the energy production of the planet. The former is organized by sources of energy that are being extracted, and the latter is grouped by the top energy users amongst countries. Some of my favorite links are dead or no longer useful, and some script on the page needs to be fixed. I am hoping to sit down and do some work in the next week or so. Some organization will also be nice too.
I have no links to what I'm about to post; I'm just going on what I heard were the audible "headlines" for one of the nightly local newscasts. The first two really irked me in a great way, and are both related to a trend that has irked me for the longest time, that I have not talked enough about. It probably won't be at length, since this is totally off the cuff, I wasn't planning to post today, but couldn't help myself.
The first headline was of a teenager being "bullied to death", and that charges were being filed in said case. I'm assuming that the charges are against the supposed perpetrator of the deed. This is not the first instance in which a kid took his or her own life due to being bullied. Offhand, I could think of a girl who was a track star and pretty popular that I read about awhile ago (she supposedly offed herself because someone taunted her via Facebook, what a stupid way to go), a gay teen who killed himself (I remember this because the celebrity Lady Gaga eulogized the boy in concert and said there should be laws passed; ooh boy), and the Tyler Clemente case (which many considered to fall within the "bullying" realm, but which I did not, I think it was just a prank gone awry, and I'm glad they didn't hang the kid who did it totally out to dry; he got 30 days, I know people were outraged by that sentence, but I feel that he will have to live with the guilt for the rest of his life, that is satisfactory enough for me at least). I know that I have said this before on the blog, but I will say it again, the hysteria surrounding "bullying" needs to die a quick, quiet death. It is overblown, and is a byproduct of the need for many in the hierarchy of education (and a lot of parents out there are culpable, as well) to make kids feel good about themselves.
This reminds me of a good documentary that I saw about the U.S. school system, called "Waiting for Superman". One of the many points it raised is the fact that American children are, at best, in the middle of the pack amongst developed nations when it comes to mathematical and literary skills; you name it, we are mediocre at it. But the one category that our kids excel at, that they finish first in, is "self-esteem". Now, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with people feeling good about themselves; it's just that the world at large would expect you to do something, achieve something, in order for you to feel that way. Wanting people to feel good about themselves, just for being, is empty-minded and can lead to some unforeseen consequences. I think "bullying" is one of those consequences. Some of our children feel so good about themselves, that they just cannot believe that there are others who just aren't that into them, and upon taking this detour to the school of hard knocks, it gets to be too much for them and they do stupid shit, like kill themselves or try to kill themselves. I think a potential solution for this, is rather than pursue initiatives related to stopping "bullying", simply teach those kids most at risk of being picked on, the art of resilience. Teach them to be tough. If I were a parent, I would go one further and possibly tell my child to punch any aggressor in the nose.
The second story that bothered me, and probably bothered me even more than the prior issue, is that an increasing number of schools in Long Island are having students take breath tests for signs of alcohol use before being admitted to their proms. Again, this has to do with underaged kids, and I feel it's even more of a civil rights issue than the criminalization of "bullying" (AKA "kids being kids"). The reason I feel this way is because I feel these initiatives (along with this new law, you also have a law in Suffolk County that can hold parents criminally liable if they serve alcohol to their kids, in their own home, and of course, you have the ID requirements for buying alcohol and tobacco) are not just about keeping underaged kids from these forbidden pleasures, but also to craft them into obedient adults. As a society, our civil liberties are eroding at a frightening rate, and we are turning into a "show me your papers, please" society, but without the "please". Between the proposed criminalization of bullying, metal detectors and security guards in the schools, breathalyzers for going to the prom and all the rest of it, we are taking and punishing any signs of rebellion and questioning out of our youth, and are teaching them, at an earlier age, to respect and to not question authority.
* I don't literally mean what I say in the headline, it's just a funny routine that was performed by George Carlin in his classic comedy special, "You are All Diseased".
Like some Americans, and it seems that I'm in a minority, I will never understand the adulation that has been bestowed upon President Ronald Reagan. When you delve into his track record, you will see that he was far from a "conservative"; for example, he raised taxes 11 times during his tenure in office and the overall size of the government grew as well (check out this handy article). Anyway, some of his supporters are aghast that a vial of his blood, which was taken on the assassination attempt on his life back in 1981, has been put up on an online auction. They are reportedly using both legal means and persuading the seller of the vial to donate it to the Reagan Foundation rather than sell it. In a very funny response, the seller says that he's a huge supporter of Reaganomics and that Reagan would rather have seen him sell it than give it away. After all, donations are kind of socialist, aren't they?
I have not been following the Iran situation closely, but it appears to be petering out somewhat, or is at least on hold for the moment. There was a lot of saber-rattling concerning Iran's nuclear program, with Israel threatening to strike. However, it appears cooler heads have prevailed, and I think it's in no small part due to the fact that if war is declared on Iran, than it'll be game over for the economy. Gas is just shy of four dollars a gallon now, and you can count on it being much more than that if Iran is invaded. I feel that if Iran is indeed pursuing nuclear power, it's either as a defensive measure to deter the U.S., or as a stopgap measure to keep their lights on in the years to come, due to the peak of oil and natural gas.
Anyway, although they have toned it down, our powers that be are still rattling the saber, and their latest piece of evidence is a computer-rendered drawing at a supposed "nuclear facility" southeast of Tehran. Based on the picture, this is something that I think I'd be reading in something like The Onion. Even worse, is that the article plays it totally straight. The article refers to an official from a country tracking Iran's nuclear program as the one who provided the rendered drawing, with that official saying that the drawing "proves" that Iran has a nuclear program. This brings me back to the run-up to the Iraqi invasion, and that dreadful presentation that Colin Powell made to the UN, where he showed outdated pictures and presented plagiarized material.
My first reaction upon reading the headline "Viewing Child Pornography Online Not a Crime: New York Court Ruling" was one of horror and revulsion. On the issue of civil liberties, I am as pretty far-left as one can probably get, with the exception of enabling cyber-predators to go online and hook up with young kids.
I remember the Dateline NBC series, "To Catch a Predator", in which Chris Hanson and an organization called Perverted Justice would set up what amounted to sting operations against men who would first meet underage children in a chat room, make lewd sexual comments and suggestions, and set up a meet with the kid. The "kid" was actually an adult volunteer from Perverted Justice, and upon talking with the online predator, Hanson would try to delve into his head and figure out why he was attempting to inflict rape on a child. It received a lot of criticism, and perhaps some of it was deserved, but I felt no sympathy for these monsters.
I began to feel similarly on this matter, as I'd read that the judge who made the ruling wrote in a statement that "purposeful viewing of child pornography is now legal in the state of New York". I felt positive that it would generate a firestorm from many, myself included. But I kept reading. The ruling is meant to protect those who merely "view" these images online, rather than those who download and save it to their computer. You may be wondering, "what's the difference", but as a lifelong computer user, I began to understand.
Most people have caching enabled on their computers. A cache is a component within a web browser that automatically stores data and images that are previously accessed, so that when you access them again, they load faster. Accidentally accessing a website with pornographic images is a lot easier than you'd think. All it really takes is looking for a particular website or a file to come across one of these images. Especially if you're looking for something like the latest movie in theaters. Also, mis-clicking on a link, which is also very easy and happens to me all the time. Or opening an email from someone that you don't know and clicking on the link. In addition, what if a hacker is able to gain access to your computer and can direct your browser to a porn site, which would cache these forbidden images?
After delving into the matter a little further, my understanding was very heightened and I now feel that it was a good ruling. Apparently, the law that was on the books prior to the ruling was being used to lock up people for up to 20 years for merely having a child porn pic on their computer, without caching being taken into consideration. Now, a clear pattern of "intent" must be established; someone having a particular folder with pornographic pictures would still be liable for his crimes and would be sentenced, I am sure.
