The idea of peak oil and the associated consequences of this theoretical, but commonly accepted as true, idea, are both far-reaching and vital to our everyday life. The website, (http://peakoil.com/),  is a website that allows people who access it to explore and share ideas relating to peak oil and methods of dealing with it when it occurs. The site is interesting in the fact that it allows users to create posts rather than merely offering information for consumption. In my opinion this is a valuable resource as it allows for better spread of ideas, more perspectives, and an overall better learning experience. The ideas discussed here are inevitably similar to those that Richard Heinberg discusses in The End of Growth. That is to say, that the economy can not progress in the same way it has endlessly and that it will reach a limit, the difference being the website is more focused on oil.

Naturally many people have concerns over the economy and in particular one of the driving forces behind it, oil. Therefore it is no surprise to find many websites and other information sources dedicated to exploring this topic exclusively. The website (peak-oil.org) is one of those many sources. This website is dedicated to both producing and sharing articles that are related to oil, naturally focused on changes in its production, availability, and price. The website offers insights on a wide variety of oil related information such as market prices, investment advice and warnings, analyses of upcoming and past events, as well as speculation about the constantly shifting market. Much in the way that anything focusing on oil or the economy does, the ideas discussed by Richard Heinberg become relevant. Most of the information on this website is about the growth and lack there of, for oil. And most of it seems to indicate a downward trend in availability. This would agree with Heinberg's assertion that constant growth is impossible and that sooner or later it must come to an end, especially in regards to an economy fueled by a non-renewable resource.


The article, "This Time, Colin Kaepernick Takes a Stand by Kneeling" by BILLY WITZSEPT, was written and posted on September 1, 2016. It was distributed through "The New York Times", which is a fairly large organization by all counts. The paper's print version has the second-largest circulation in US cities, is owned by The New York Times company, and is generally accepted to be liberal oriented.

The main subject of the article, as one might guess from the title, is the recent behavior of football player Colin Kaepernick. More specifically, his actions after his famous act of sitting during the national anthem and his newest display of taking a knee during it. The author uses frequent quotes and pictures, as well as a video to support his information. The author sources the associated press for his images and nothing else. The tone of the article is mainly objective, however through the events they were chosen to be portrayed and information given, it can be asserted that the author supports Kaepernick. This stance is subtle, not expressed directly in word choice, but rather information given. The article only lists positive aspects of his decisions, not giving serious though as to whether his actions were anti military. In addition most of the quotes used are Kaepernick saying positive things, or positive things being said about him. Further more his donation to charity was mentioned as well as his successful performance at one of his games despite the negative crowd. Though the article makes no mention of political parties, it can be garnered that those of a right political view dislike Kaepernick for several reasons, such as his high-income undermining his point and the argument that his stand was anti-military and anti-veteran. Most media seems to support his decisions and by virtue of the right disliking his stand, we can assume that the left-minded individuals approve. Information missing from this article are more perspectives of disapproval and their reasons for such, as well as expressing how relatively little he stood to lose from this. This article does a fair job of stating what the original protest was about, as well as how it had devolved from that into meaningless squabbles about political correctness. The author's intended audience seems to be those divided on the issue, seeking information, or slightly opposed. I find myself feeling mixed about the author's stance on it. While I agree that standing against injustice is important and that he did so effectively, I can't help but feel there was a better, less flashy way to go about this. The way it was done inevitably caused widespread confusion the amount of attention garnered seems to have removed focus from the original intent.