People were drowning in their homes, and the government was holding back boats waiting to rescue them. Why doesn't really matter. This was another example of a major screwup associated with Katrina. Can we find another spin besides "Jindal lied"?

But then I'm still trying to figure out why I've seen more commentary on Jindal's speech than on Obama's first SOTU address.

"Peak oil" is a bit of an urban legend, or at least a seriously misnamed concept. It's like "global warming" - the name doesn't reflect what it is. Oil production isn't really peaking. CHEAP oil production is peaking. The easily accessed oil is getting harder to find, but as it become more scarce the price goes up and harder to harvest oils become profitable, such as the tar sands in Canada and shale oils in the U.S.

We will have plenty of oil for a very long time, because price controls demand. As oil becomes too expensive (let's imagine it as $20/gallon?) for the masses, we will change our societal structure to reduce usage. More telecommunting, less travel by automobile. Perhaps a 4 10 hour day work week to make commuting less onerous for those who can't work at home. More public transportation. Local stores will become more popular in rural areas. People won't travel 50 miles to go to Wal-Mart once a week. People will buy smaller homes closer to work because they just can't afford suburbs. Purchases will get more expensive, so people won't just replace their television and microwave every time they break. We will find alternative sources for things like heating our homes (solar may even become economical for the middle class). All of the little changes will add up to less oil usage, which will result in oil lasting longer for our society.

So "Peak oil" should really be changed to reflect the reality that we will have oil, but it will cost a lot more. I can't think of a simple name right now, but I'm a bit weak at memetics. Perhaps we should simply be telling people that the "era of cheap fuel" is nearing it's end, and they had better plan accordingly.

First, per capita usage of fuel is down dramatically. That's not just unusual, it's revolutionary. Americans are actually using LESS of a resource than we used TEN years ago. Americans conserving? Amazing.

Second, the change has come very quickly. Habits generally take time to change. If people decide to drive more economical cars, they probably won't just go out and sell their current car. They will wait until they would have purchased a new car and then buy a more fuel-efficient model. Hybrids are becoming more economical, but the overall price is still much higher than non-hybrid cars with nearly as good fuel efficiency. There are waiting lists for hybrids (or were until the bust, at least) and large trucks are rotting on lots. The auto dealerships who used to have rows and rows of F150's are out of business, and the newer dealers have compacts and microcompacts in the front rows. Fuel going up to $4/gallon scared the heck out of people, and they won't quickly forget the feat. They know that it will happen again, and the next time they buy a car the idea that it might cost them $100 to fill the tank will be in the back of their minds.

And a lot of the changes that happened during the recent fuel price jump are permananent. It became economical to find cheaper ways to transport goods, and even with lower fuel prices it is still cheaper to use those transport mechanisms. People switched from using fuel oil or propane (a byproduct of oil which varies in price with oil) to wood stoves, or paid for insulation, or bought sweaters. So many changes have happened, and as people replace cars and heaters the changes will continue.

All of Obama's personal association issues went away because he dealt with them. That's how he won the election. The world has moved on. The birth certificate is the one issue that he has refused to address in a meaningful way, which is why it isn't going away. Everybody simply mocks the people who believe it and lets them go on their merry way, spreading the lies. I would think that after the Kerry fiasco, we would have learned that it's not enough to mock lies, you have to disprove them.

And I'm the last person to suggest that the right wingers are going to simply embrace Obama if he addresses (or, prefereably, has an underling address) this issue. I know they will find something else to attack him over. But saying that it doesn't matter is like saying that it's pointless to take a shower because you're just going to get dirty again.

Have you ever seen a nuclear power plant close-up? They're not flimsy structures composed of girders and glass. We're talking about massive amounts of reinforced concrete. Even if a large plane hit a power plant, it would be extremely unlikely to cause any significant damage, and astronomically unlikely to cause a meltdown. If terrorists want to do damage, there are plenty of ways to hit us that will have more impact than trying to fly a plane into what is essentially a huge pile of concrete.