"...and if there's a fire encroaching quickly toward thousands of gallons of highly volatile jet fuel."

As an engineer who makes a living cleaning up jet fuel spills, I have to point out the error in the use of the term "highly volatile jet fuel". Jet fuel, more specifically JET A, is 99 percent kerosene, which consists mostly of semivolatile petroleum hydrocarbon compounds. The term "volatility" refers to the speed at which a compound evaporates, and does not refer to the explosiveness or reactivity of a substance.

Despite its more volatile-sounding name, jet fuel is far less volatile than the gasoline you put in your car. In fact, jet fuel is somewhat difficult to ignite at room temperature (however, add a little heat and something to agitate and atomize the jet fuel, and a huge fireball is not far off).

So, while it is fun to bash media for their ignorance of technical aviation issues, the truth is Mr. Smith can be just as prone to hyperbole as the mainstream media.

Still love your column and glad to hear that you're back in the air.

As bad as thing look for ND right now (and they look AWFUL), at least ND has the #1 recruiting class coming to South Bend next year (assuming the recruits don't bail after a few more embarassments).

Ty got fired because his team's play AND his recruiting (#27 and #40 in his last two years) were going downhill, fast--with no sign of a turnaround. Just because ND had a history of holding on to losers like Bob Davie and Gerry Faust doesn't mean they should have continued the same mistake with Ty. Sure, on the surface it looks bad, like race may have played a part. But your job is to scratch beneath the surface.

Ty: 10-3, 5-7, 6-5

Charlie: 10-3, 9-3, ?-? (0-2)

Although I have my doubts about Charlie after these first two blowouts, Charlie still has earned a fourth season cushion.

Plug in hybrids really only make sense from a greenhouse gas emission standpoint if the electricity is coming from nuclear or renewables.

If the electricity is coming from a coal-fired plant, a regular fuel efficient car is still superior to an electric. And at the present the most reasonably available fuel efficient car is the Prius.

For example, an ideal regular gasoline engine is about 37% efficient--that is 37% of the energy in the gasoline is converted into energy used by the car. But unfortunately, starting/stopping, ancillary equipment, and operating outside of an engine's sweet spot cause regular gasoline cars to be about 20% efficient. A Prius is closer to 25%. The oil refining process and oil and gasoline transportation to the end user must also be accounted for, which is about 82% efficient. 0.25 x 0.82 = 20% efficient.

To power an electric car, coal must be converted into electricity, which is about 35% efficient, then the electricity must be transmitted to your house at say 90% efficiency, then the electricy must be converted from AC to DC at 90% efficiency, the DC current charges the battery, which is 90% efficient, then the battery must power the car's electric motor which is ~80% efficient after it powers all the car's ancillary equipment. Thus, of the BTU held in the coal only 0.35 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.9 x 0.8= only 20% of the coal's energy is really used to propel the car, similar to that of a regular Prius. However, plug-ins reduce in-city emission (which for a Prius are minimal), and better, reduce dependence on foreign oil. AND if the power comes from nukes or renewables--THEN they are truly an improvement over standard gasoline cars.

You can quibble about the numbers I used here somewhat, but the Plug-in Hybrid is an incremental improvement not a revolutionary one. Don't get me wrong--Plugins are a worthwhile investment and advancement, but it will take many many more incremental improvements to get to where we need to be.

The guy campaigned for 4 years in Iowa and still lost handily, with a smaller percentage than he had in 2004. Then came in a distant 3rd in NH and will likely come in 3rd in his HOME state. Even Romney won his home state and the press continually pounds on him. He had his chance and the voters said no. Why isn't Edwards winning? Same reason Romney isn't winning they come across as a phonies to anybody with horse sense.

I'm the relatively priveleged son of a doctor (not a mill worker), yet even if I had Edwards' money, I would never build a 28,000 square foot mansion. My father (and most salt-of-the-earth workers who should have been Edwards voters) are embarrassed at such largesse. There's a fundamental disconnect when a millionaire charges $55,000 to give a speech on poverty that just doesn't sit well with an Iowa farmer.

The $400 haircuts. I know it's a stupid story, but 14 years after Bill Clinton got raked over the coals mercilessly for his expensive haircut on the LAX runway, any polititian with HALF a brain should have learned that you get your hair cut for $10 by a barber (not a hairstylist) named Bert at a Main Street barbershop with a red, white, and blue barber pole out front. No exceptions. And this on top of the "I Feel Pretty" youTube video?

And please don't call that an unfair media bias, Dead Fred Thompson got slaughtered in the press for showing up at the Iowa State Fair in Gucci loafers. It might not be fair, but any politician who isn't savvy enough to avoid these gaffes isn't ready for prime time.

He'll make a great Attorney General though.

My point is that Edwards had his chance in Iowa and NH where he's campaigned for 4 years and was soundly defeated. The voters of those two states simply didn't like him enough--and I tried to explain why. Huckabee won Iowa with ZERO media support. Can't blame the media for everything.

The "GOP Talking Points" I mentioned are bullets Edwards loaded into their gun. It's hard to vote for someone not astute enough to avoid such gaffes.