A magnificent clarification

Check out this post by guest blogger Ross at The Daily Dish (Sullivan). I may disagree with the Catholic Church on some things, but in this arena I think we stand side by side. And this little post seems to get it, the reason why science and a faith in God are compatible. It also is one of the few posts on any blog that acknowledges one of the significant driving forces that keep people from being comfortable with evolution: the evolutionary biologists themselves. I don't see how proving evolution disproves God any more than all the previous scientific advances disproved God (and yes, he's still alive and well). But these biologists think otherwise, and they often fail to separate their science from their beliefs. One I accept. The other I don't.

Apparently...

...I'm not a real man. At least now I know.

Chrisitans on torture

An interesting series of commentaries on torture by various American Christian figures can be found here. I don't know much about any of the authors, but the commentaries themselves seem thoughtful. Take a look; the more we think about this issue, the better. Clearly, our national urge is to employ any tactics available, and if we are to keep ourselves clean of immoral actions we must have clear heads and reasoned thoughts with which to fight.

(Via Sullivan.)

Finally...

...Bush is giving some real speeches. I think we're doing good work in Iraq, and I'm encouraged to hear the President supporting the troops with solid rhetoric. I do believe that we need to win this war, and though things have gone terribly wrong, there is really no choice now. Regardless of what else may have been a mistake, it is not a mistake to finish this. The President needs to express this and convince the people that they should get behind him. That's his job, and I'm glad to see he's beginning to do it well.

Ahmadinejad: no comment needed

Read. And read. How do you respond to something so obscene?

Safest of 2006

The IIHS has recently released its list of the safest 2006 cars. The list and an explanation of the criteria can be found here. Some have noted that vehicles from manufacturers such as Toyota, Volvo, Mercedes-Benz etc. are not represented. Judging from this paragraph

"A number of automakers requested early tests, and based on our discussions with the automakers we believe no other 2006 models would meet our Top Safety Pick criteria," O'Neill says. A number of major automakers including BMW, Mercedes, Nissan, Toyota, and Volvo aren't represented in the first set of winners.

it seems that no other models would have won if they had been tested. Thus, the ones shown are the best of the model year.

Sullivan Responds

I have to say, this response is better than I expected. (Sorry for the required registration.) Take a look for yourself. The essential result of this essay, as I see it, is an admission that torture may be used in the highly improbable scenario of massive imminent death with a known source of information to disrupt it, but it should still be outlawed and should never be used in any other case. The person in power (the President most likely) would have to break the law to stop the massacre, but if it was appropriate Sullivan assumes pardons will be applied as necessary. I like it. In the situation when torture is morally justified, it is still used; however, every possible means of containing torture is implemented, including perilous legal repercussions for those who employ it. If someone is willing to sacrifice a person to torture, they better be willing to sacrifice themselves to the law and the mercy of the courts. Again, I like it.

Saturn

Here's an interesting article regarding Saturn, and Mickey Kaus has fantastic commentary. A must read is his "Chatterbox" piece from years ago.

It's a terrible idea...

to impair motorists' ability to control their cars in the name of safety. In some circumstances, you need all the speed you can get to avoid a catastrophe, and making it difficult to summon whatever power your car has is not smart. Besides the fact that I don't like this whole class of ideas, this one has fundamental conceptual flaws. What does "significantly exceed the speed limit" mean? Many cars have top speed governors anyway, but they are set so high as to not impose on normal driving (at least here in the U.S.). It seems to me any system like the one proposed that is set to intervene at a speed where it will make a difference will also cause safety problems. The alternative given in the article, a speed warning system linked with GPS, is fine with me; sometimes I just don't realize the speed at which I'm traveling. But that gives the choice, and full control, to the driver. And that's a good thing. Now, if we would just train our U.S. drivers properly...

Rally Racing

This is why my wife would never let me drive race cars. But hey, they both walked away.

Krauthammer on torture

An essay by Charles Krauthammer regarding the debate over torture. An interesting read, and one with many points that I'm not sure I can refute. I'm waiting to see Sullivan's response as well.

LCA

Check out Toyota's Life Cycle Analysis data for the Prius here. The site is in Japanese, but some more insight can be gained from using Google's translator. Not surprisingly, the Prius seems to come out ahead (if I'm reading things correctly). Imagine that, Toyota puts positive environmental data about the Prius on their website. Also, the Toyota data is discussed on Autoblog here, though I have found the commenter who introduces the data to be militantly pro-hybrid. Perhaps the commenter is militant for a good reason, and perhaps Toyota is right. But an impartial third party study is a requirement for me to fully lose my skepticism.

People for the American Way

Read.

Ok, so "protecting traditional values" MAY be a euphemism for laws with which I don't agree. But other than that, Paul has a point.

My Christian Brothers and Sisters

Here's an article showing Christians worshiping despite some pretty intense persecution. Their faith and love of God is quite amazing, and it is clear from this prominent news article that it has caught the attention of many people. Pray for them, and pray that their faith and love would speak to many, even their persecutors.

Bush can be (is?) an idiot

What is he thinking? A measure that passes by a huge margin in the Senate, is supported by a majority of the electorate, and is, by the way, simply calling the US to abide by common norms of decency and morality should be vetoed? Apparently, in the world of Bush this is how things work. The ban on torture and inhumane treatment of prisoners has already been threatened with a veto should it make it through the House, and its prospects of doing even that are looking grim as well. While I applaud Bush for taking the fight to the terrorists and having the backbone to take on a necessary, but unpopular at the moment, war, I can't agree with his choice to use torture and other almost-torture techniques to wage said war. The administration claims to need these tactics in certain cases to prevent imminent attacks, but I expect my elected leaders, the supposed cream of the crop of our country, to be better than that. I want the job done, and I want it done right. If Bush can't protect our country without using torture, he should find someone who can. It's not like they don't exist. Though apparently, they don't exist in the White House.

Quote of the Day

We were the future of rock.

-The late, the great Five Iron Frenzy

The numbers

I ran some simple numbers as a way to illustrate my point below, that hybrids probably aren't as useful as they're made out to be. Here, I want to illustrate the economic differences between hybrid and non-hybrid cars. I chose the Honda Civic and Honda Civic Hybrid to compare since they are about as close to each other, minus the drivetrain, as can be. So, here we go.

First, the hybrid. Base price $21,850. This includes all kinds of good stuff like side air bags, abs, cc, ac with climate control, a CD player and a continuously variable transmission. All in all, this car is pretty well equipped. The EPA mileage estimate is 49/51 city/highway.

The non-hybrid. Here things get a little tricky. The hybrid is sold as one trim level only (with a nav option), so we have to pick the corresponding non-hybrid trim level. However, if you are interested in saving money, you may not care for all the fancy tidbits and would go with a more lowly Civic. So, here I have compared the uplevel EX, which corresponds with the Hybrid well in the features department (and even has some things not on the Hybrid), and the less well equipped LX. Both have equivalent mechanical specs (and both are evaluated with an automatic transmission).

EX. Base price 19,060. This car seems to have every feature mentioned for the hybrid, except that the automatic is a traditional five speed. The EPA mileage estimate is 30/40 city/highway.

LX. Base Price 17,310. I couldn't tell from Honda's website all the differences between this and the EX, but I'm certain it's missing various bits like the nice CD player, a moonroof, outside temperature display etc. Perhaps all these are worth 1700 dollars, but I wouldn't pay for them. The mileage is the same as the EX.

So, if we take the price difference between the two standard models and the hybrid, we get $2,790 for the EX and $4,540 for the LX. If we keep the car for 150,000 miles (we're saving the environment here, we keep our cars for a long time) and take an average of city and highway mileage as our average mileage over the life of the car, we see the hybrid saves 1285.71 gallons of gas over the others. To make up the purchase price differential of the hybrid, gas would need to be only $2.17 for the EX and bit more at $3.53 for the LX. Clearly, the hybrid can make up it's purchase price over the EX, and will likely do so for the LX as oil becomes increasingly scarce.

However, there are other factors. I've heard through the grapevine that a $700 tax credit is available for hybrids, adding to their appeal. This does not negate, by a long shot, the likelihood of having to replace the hybrid battery, something that has been rumored to cost about $6,000 - $10,000. And, there may be other maintenance costs associated with the complex drivetrain. Let's just look at these two additional factors however.

Adding in a $6,000 battery replacement and a $700 tax credit, we find a price differential of $8,090 for the EX and $9,840 for the LX. Remember, this is just differences in the cars. Each car has similar mechanicals other than the hybrid parts of the drivetrain, so I assume these other parts will fail similarly. These numbers require gas prices of $6.29 for the EX and $7.65 for the LX. Relative to the US now, these are stratospheric. Relative to the rest of the world, e.g. Germany, this isn't out of reach.

So I stand by my conclusions. Hybrids are very cool, and they may help us be independent of certain oil producing states. But economically they aren't a slam dunk. As for assessing their environmental impact, that's more work than I can spare right now; a full life cycle analysis including production wastes for materials, emissions during use and final disposal is no small task. Maybe if I go for a second Ph.D I'll see if anyone wants to fund that work.

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