I found interesting:

In a wide-ranging study published in 2000, the U.S. Geological Survey estimated that ultimately recoverable resources of conventional oil totaled about 3.3 trillion barrels, of which a third has already been produced. More recently, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, an energy consultant, estimated that the total base of recoverable oil was 4.8 trillion barrels. That higher estimate -- which Cambridge Energy says is likely to grow -- reflects how new technology can tap into more resources.

and,

Typically, oil companies can only produce one barrel for every three they find. Two usually are left behind, either because they are too hard to pump out or because it would be too expensive to do so. Going after these neglected resources, energy experts say, represents a tremendous opportunity.

Supposing the 2000 estimate is roughly correct, and about 1/3 of hypothesized reserves have been produced and oil companies only produce 1/3 of 'found' reserves doesn't it suggest that we are really close to peak cheap oil as you suggest?

Oil is a commodity--it is IMPOSSIBLE to choose which barrel to pump out of the ground based on price of recovery unless you are fixing prices.

Not true. Growing up in OH, there I had plenty of neighbors who capped their wells. The reason was the pumps spooked their cattle, and they made more money than the oil. I'm guessing that at $70/brl, the cattle are living somewhere else. No one is 'fixing' the prices, it's just that you have to keep in mind that there is an opportunity cost to the production of all things. When we think 'oil' we usually think 'desert scrubland'. The other thing to keep in mind is quality of oil. The oil produced in OH, PA is some of the finest in the world. You can litterlly take it from the ground and put it in your car. From what I hear, you can't easily do this with 'newer' finds of oil...

Any thoughts on why I haven't heard more about this:

http://www.buffalonews.com/145/story/50479.html

It's a story about how Dow Chemical is a buyout target by a group of investors that includes:

The newspaper said a bid could come this week, with half the financial backing coming from investors in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates and Oman, and half from U.S. investors.

It seems like when the UAE (or was it dubai) port buyout was in the works, bloggers (if not you in particular, but folks not unlike yourself) were going nuts over it WAY before it got this close...

What I find astonshing is that 25% of the teenage pregnancies were intended... How many teenagers are possibly capable of actually understanding, let alone making an informed decision about the impact to their lives of having kids so young?

Wouldn't it make at least a modocum of sense to teach a serious course on the responsibilities parenthood in conjunction with a course on sex education?

How in the world could any person seriously say such a course would be encouraging kids to have sex... I had a strict catholic neighbor who made here teenaged daughter volunteer in a clinic for unwed, teenaged mothers as a method of 'encouraging' her to not have sex until she was 'ready'... While a sensible (albeit sexist as they didn't force their son into a similar course of volunteerism), it certainly wasn't state sponsored...

implicitly gives husbands a green light to rape their wives with impunity

Because we all know that men are pigs who will take any opportunity to rape whenever we get an implicit green light.

Why would the person being quoted say, "so this is very good news." If they didn't intended to suggest that it would in any way curb rapes? The mere thought of that is ridiculous as rapes still occur in countries in which it is and has been for centuries a crime.

As for your personal attack... way to stay civil. It's unfortunate you couldn't see my comment for what it was: A method of using hyperbole in a similarly absurd way to draw attention to other similarly absurd conclusions.

Should the firefighters win the case? Or should they toughen up?

Hmm... On the one hand, I suspect they particpate in July Fourth celebrations, but in that case they are celebrating something that ALL citizens are a part of.

On the other hand, they aren't gay, and making them participate is absurd as it exposes them to taunts that they clearly wouldn't appreciate.

It seems like a no-brainer to me... Would it be any different to force african american firefighters to participate in a Klan rally? Or Catholic firefighters to participate in a pro-choice rally?

I find it disgusting that you waste your time bickering with those morons... honestly, you should be ashamed.

Breaking the law should be a crime.

D08 make breaking the law a crime again

Heh.

Remarkably I came to the same conclusion as you when I read that article yesterday... albeit from a different direction: in my experience twenty-something women are insanely competative about everything... mostly because they came of age in the 90's when there was far less pressure to 'not compete' than their older peers.

It's my guess that the author was an older woman, who instead of possibly entertaining the notion that women might actually be better than men at something, applied her own experiences to develop a faulty explanation(ie that when SHE was younger women were discuraged from competing, and as SHE got older she became more competative) for an obviously measurable outcome.