Interesting concept from Jason Kottke who’s listing all the cities he’s been to in 2008. My list (not counting places I just drove through or switched planes in) with asterixes for places I’d never been before:
All told, I think I did more traveling this year than I had in some time which at times got exhausting (those were three separate trips to Southern California) but overall I found incredibly fun and interesting. I’m still very eager to get to the Pacific Northwest at some point as I’ve never been to Portland, Seattle, or Vancouver and not to the Bay Area since I was a little kid. That or, you know, Asia.
UPDATE: And Cambridge, MA! Apologies to SR my host in that fine town.

There’s a “global edition” of The Daily Show produced for a foreign (or, perhaps, expat and tourist) audience and aired on CNN International.
Also — every time I find myself abroad in a hotel that gets CNN International I’m shocked all over again by how much better it is than the American version of the network. Less talking heads, less random crap, more efforts to cover actual news events from around the world, and a generally calmer, more informative presentation all around. Basically, the guys who own the CNN we see in the U.S. know how to produce better news content — they just choose not to thanks to their contempt for the American audience.

It’s occurred to me now and again that pretty much every real or hypothetical technological development you hear about that could make things radically more fuel efficient relates to cars. But high oil prices would also imperil the viability of airplanes. And while it’s pretty clear in the case of automobiles that if 10-15 years from now oil is incredibly expensive we’ll be able to shift to plug-in vehicles of some kind nobody seems to think you can build an electric plane. Brad Plumer looked into this for The New Republic and, indeed, there seems to be absolutely nothing on the horizon, technologically speaking, that could shelter air travel from its heavy vulnerability to air travel.
For short flights, high-speed rail is a very good alternative option. It would require substantial investment in infrastructure, but it’s not as if we got our current air travel network without substantial investment in infrastructure. But even a train enthusiast such as myself needs to acknowledge some serious limits to this option. Most notably, as Brad says, “Trains, of course, can’t span oceans.” Which leads to some genuinely wacky scenarios:
Perhaps the most unlikely alternative to emerge in recent months is the rebirth of the dirigible or airship, as companies have already been unveiling new designs for niche tourist trips and transporting cargo. The good news is that modern helium airships are far safer than the Hindenburg and emit a great deal less carbon than jumbo jets. The bad news is that natural reserves of helium may be running low and, more to the point, airships can’t carry many people at a time, don’t handle heavy weather well, and are quite slow: A flight from New York to London would take around 40 hours. (Fast passenger ships would take twice as long, though modern ocean liners suffer in peak oil scenarios, too.)
Near the end, Brad quotes George Monbiot saying that a major decline in the availability of air travel “flies in the face of everything we have been encouraged to regard as progress.” It’s worth considering in that regard, however, that for decades now aerospace technology has really been disappointing the high hopes that once existed for it. We’ve already pulled back from manned travel to the moon and from supersonic passenger travel as basically impractical so it wouldn’t totally shock me to see further backsliding on this front even as advances continue in other domains.