Here they come to save the day!

Hybrids that is. Their power to free us all from the chains that bind us to radical wahhabis in Saudi Arabia and mad communists in Venezuela is astounding. They single handedly eliminate the mass over consumption that has characterized humans since the dawn of time, pump high quality West Texas crude back into the store houses of the earth whence it came and replant the rainforests of South America that the rich farmers there have brazenly burned to sate their need for excess. Oh those wonderful hybrids.

Again with the sarcasm. Hybrids are marginally useful. Economically, their extra cost is almost outweighed by their decreased fuel consumption. There is a valid argument that if everyone owned one, the extra autonomy we would have from those aforementioned oil producing countries would be worth any financial burden not covered by fuel savings. But that's about as far as we can go.

First, not everyone is going to buy one. Many of us are, unfortunately, environmental cads and would rather eat dirt than drive a Prius. And, what may come as a surprise to some upwardly mobile urbanites, some of us actually need a different vehicle. Second, hybrids are not the economical slam dunk that they're hyped as. I already noted that their gas savings might cover their extra cost (more likely if gas prices rise, as I think they will), but then there's the maintenance costs, something that will undoubtedly be higher for hybrids than conventional vehicles, though how much higher is still up for debate. And finally, they really aren't environmentally sound. Sure, they save some oil and avoid forming some smog. But, there is no evidence that these savings outweigh the extra costs of producing the hybrids. The huge, terribly toxic batteries need to be disposed of at some point. Any exotic composites and/or polymers used in their bodies likely cannot be recycled as well as the traditional aluminums and steels. And, what I think may be their Achilles heel, I still have not seen evidence that the added energy needed for manufacture is recouped by the end of the car's life. As an example of a simpler system where this issue is in play, look at solar cells. I read somewhere (I don't remember the source, so take this anecdote accordingly) it takes a typical solar cell eight years to produce the energy it took to manufacture that cell. Applying this to hybrids, I'm not sure the extra energy needed to make the batteries, advanced drivetrain, lightweight body etc. is saved by reduced operating costs. And don't forget, assuming we're in the USA, that energy probably comes from electricity generated by burning coal. Not exactly the environmental savings hoped for.

All in all, hybrids are an interesting idea. If you have the money and are geopolitically aware, it may make sense to buy one. You'll be doing your part to marginalize those extreme states fueled by black gold. On the other hand, there are many other, likely better, options if all you want to do is save some money and the earth. This discourse was inspired by a comment on NPR's Left, Right and Center, where Arianna Huffington said that inflation fueled by rising oil prices would mean more hybrids. If she meant that as a commentary on society, she's probably right. People will buy them to save money even though they aren't the best choice for doing so. If she meant that as a prescription to fight inflation, well I think I've made my point.

For all the rocks I've been throwing though, it turns out I live in a glass house. I kind of want one. A Prius that is. Why, you might ask after my acerbic dialogue condemning all things hybrid? It's pretty cool, the Prius. I love hatchbacks. I think they look very sharp in the dark red Toyota chose. And, while I don't think they'll save the world, I also don't think we'll go down in flames from everyone buying a hybrid. I still believe there are better choices if all you want is economic and environmental savings. But, I am thoroughly a geek, and the Prius is a fancy way to satisfy my geekiness. Also, I do believe gas prices will continue to rise significantly, and as that happens the financial incentive to drive a Prius will become real. Will I actually buy one? No, probably not. My sensible side will kick in long before I sign on the dotted line.

Miers

Harriet Miers. The best way to say what I think on this is to characterize her as an "interesting" pick. GWB seems to think she's cool. There's a few staunch conservatives out there who think he's cool, and so by association she's cool too. I don't know. On the one hand, maybe she'll be good. Maybe she'll interpret the constitution with amazing legal insight and the fortitude to apply laws instead of making ones she'd like to see. Maybe. On the other hand, why can't we have a conservative nominee with the mental ability of a heavy weight champion? Do they not exist? (For all you orthodox liberals out there, that's rhetorical. Yes they do.) So I'm a little disappointed.

Then I had this thought. My wife is currently in law school. A fairly prestigious one. She's graduating this year, has a clerkship with a federal district court judge lined up and a potential job after that clerkship available with a fairly well known law firm. Given a few years to establish herself, my wife will be MORE QUALIFIED FOR SCOTUS THAN HARRIET MIERS. A more prestigious (and one would expect rigorous) education. Much more judicial experience (my wife also interned for another federal district court judge). And, with time to establish herself, a competitive experience as a lawyer (okay, so Miers was a managing partner at her firm, maybe she wins this one). In any event, two out of three isn't bad. Now, my wife is a great woman, extremely competent, but she has not (yet!) established herself as a leader in constitutional law. But she hasn't even graduated law school. Why couldn't dubya find a scholar of greater renown? Is Miers really the best one out there?

Superpower

"Watch out judge, we're a superpower. Don't make us add you to the axis."

-Denny Crane