HYBRIDBLOGGING UPDATE: I got this email from Jim Meigs, the editor of Popular Mechanics, and thought it might interest some people:

As for your Toyota purchase, I read your item on your car search the other day and meant to shoot you a note to take a look at an automotive test we were conducting at about the same time:

We tested the Highlander hybrid vs conventional, as well as the Civic hybrid vs conventional.

you can check out a few blog items from the test team here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog/automotive

Although these notes from the field don’t have all our numbers yet–just first impressions–the Highlander impressed us.

In the heaviest urban driving in our tests it got well over 30 mpg–almost twice the conventional Highlander’s mileage. That was better than expected.

The report comes out in our Feb issue (but we’ll probably post results sooner).

In fact, we liked the Highlander so much we got one in for our long-term test fleet (which means we keep the car for a year)–maybe we can compare notes.

I’ve found the Highlander very good on mileage, contrary to some reports, but as I’ve noted it’s very sensitive to driving style. When I drive it without regard to mileage (tempting, as it’s pretty quick) I get around 24-28 mpg in town; when I try for mileage I get about 10 mpg better. I’ve also noticed, now that the colder weather has hit, that it does worse initially because the gas engine runs continuously until it’s up to operating temperature. I don’t mind that, since it provides heat, but it makes a noticeable impact on mpg on short trips.

Here’s a post from the PM automotive blog, too.

UPDATE: But beware the hybrid bikes!

ANOTHER UPDATE: A less positive take on hybrids here, and some comments on driving style and mileage from Patrick Bedard of Car and Driver, here. Excerpt:

The other knock on hybrids is that they don’t get the fuel economy promised by the EPA numbers. Oh, yes, they do, if you drive them as the government drives them on the standard test. Of course, I drove my own routes at my own speeds during my week in a hybrid Lexus RX400h. About half was on freeways, sometimes at speeds above 80; at least 75 miles were in rain. I measured 25.3 mpg over 468 miles. Maybe that doesn’t sound miraculous, but when we tested a conventional RX330 (C/D, July 2003), the C/D-observed fuel economy was 17 mpg.

In fact, neither Lexus matched its EPA rating in our hands. But the hybrid outperformed the conventional version by 8 mpg.

I hope that the over-80 portions and the in-the-rain portions didn’t overlap. . . . And here’s more on high gas mileage as a hobby.

TROPICAL STORM GAMMA threatens Florida: Kind of sounds like something from futuristic science fiction. Alas, it’s fact. StormTrack has more.

UPDATE: The storm seems to be turning away from Florida now.

TOM MAGUIRE will be on CNN at 7 p.m. Eastern tonight.

UPDATE: Saw the episode, and thought Tom and Jeralyn Merritt did well — though the video, surprisingly, was better than the audio.

Tom’s commenters say that he’s a hunk, and Jeralyn is a hottie. Well, yeah. They’re bloggers, after all!

I RECENTLY FINISHED Fred Pohl’s latest book, and liked it a lot. The Heechee are one of my favorite science-fictional alien species.

IT’S A KITCHENWARE ROUNDUP over at Asymmetrical Information. And here’s Bill Quick’s Weekend Cooking Thread.

GOOD NEWS:

AMMAN, Jordan — At least 200,000 persons demonstrated yesterday against the recent bombings of three luxury hotels, while a new online statement attributed to terrorist leader Abu Musab Zarqawi defended the attacks and threatened to cut off the head of Jordan’s King Abdullah II.

An anti-terrorist demonstration of such size is unprecedented in the Arab world, where Zarqawi, his mentor, Osama bin Laden, and their al Qaeda organization have attained folk-hero status among Muslim masses.

“Zarqawi, from Amman, we say to you: ‘You are a coward,’ ” protesters chanted while brandishing banners with the names of their tribes from every part of Jordan.

I agree with them. More blog commentary rounded up here.

UPDATE: Here’s a lengthy post, with photos. “I was very struck by the young woman wearing the bandanna, because slogan-covered bandanas are usually a marker of the most extremist demonstrators. They are typical of Hamas supporters celebrating suicide terrorism. But Lina tells me that the slogan the young woman here sports says No to Terrorism.”

MIKE KREMPASKY thinks that the Miller bill for online freedom, discussed below, is a non-starter. I hope he’s wrong, but he’s usually right about these things.

A BRIEF HISTORY OF A LONG WAR: The Mudville Gazettte has produced a history of events relating to Iraq going back to 1990. Lots of must-read links and quotes.

YOU WON — NOW WHAT? That’s the title of Taegan Goddard’s book on post-election politics, but it’s also a question for the GOP, and those supporting our efforts in Iraq generally. Though I agree with Larry Kudlow that the resolution was imperfect, it did produce a valuable moment of clarity, as floor votes, like elections, are supposed to. People may want to talk about whether the war was a good idea, but they don’t really want to yank the troops, which pretty much everyone agrees would be a disaster with enormous long-term ramifications,.

But there’s still the question of what to do next. As I mentioned earlier, I think that the Administration has probably felt that letting the war take a lower media profile was better — we’ve had troops in the Balkans for going on a decade, after all, and there’s not much move to pull them out, partly because most people have forgotten they’re there. But this is different.

As StrategyPage pointed out in a timely piece a few weeks back, it’s long been known that there’s a “three-year rule” with regard to the American public’s patience with a shooting war. We’re coming up on 3 years since Saddam was toppled, but it’s already been over four years since September 11 and the liberation of Afghanistan. That means that in the natural order of things we’ll see more opposition and disquiet. (Even in World War Two people were getting pretty war-weary by 1945.)

The Administration needs to deal with this with a more active PR strategy, making clear that in fact the Iraqis are taking over the brunt of the work. (Murtha’s statement that U.S. troops are magnets for insurgent attacks is demonstrably untrue — in fact, those attacks are now almost always against Iraqis, civilian or military or police, and this fact is making the insurgents increasingly unpopular). I suspect that in the normal course of events we’ll see a significant number of troops drawn down. That will help, and this resolution will help keep people from spinning it as a cut-and-run.

They also need to generate (and to the extent possible, publicize) more successes elsewhere, deal with Syria, etc. The Administration’s “war base” is weakening (and was even before the election) because they feel that it’s not fighting the war hard enough, or because they feel that the “war” is over. It’s not, but the “major combat” part has been over for a while, and what’s left is murky, and — like all counterinsurgency operations — takes a while. More elections in iraq will help, but they need to pay attention to this, not keep it off the table and hope people will forget. It’s not Bosnia, or Haiti. They’re going to have to make their case, strongly and regularly, and not worry that doing so will set off the critics. The critics are already set off.

UPDATE: A dissection of the NYT’s coverage of last night’s vote.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Mickey Kaus:

Murtha has now established exactly the worst context for a U.S. withdrawal from Iraq. By making his (understandable) teary concern about the injuries to our soldiers his central motiviation, he makes it seem, if we pull out now, that the Sunni/Zarqawi strategy has worked–that we’ve been run out of Iraq because we couldn’t tolerate the casualties the insurgents were inflicting. That will encourage Al Qaeda operatives around the globe. Isn’t it a lot better if we start to withdraw, after a successful Iraqi election, while plausibly claiming that we’ve done our job? That’s why Hastert’s stunt yesterday to put down Murtha’s proposal was amply justified.

Indeed. And Opinionated Bastard has been on the story of pending troop withdrawals for a while, though I believe this was actually announced last spring.

THE NEW YORK TIMES IS UNDER FIRE for issuing a correction when it was right the first time.

THIS IS INTERESTING: “House Republicans, sensing an opportunity for political advantage, maneuvered for a quick vote and swift rejection Friday of a Democratic lawmaker’s call for an immediate troop withdrawal from Iraq.”

UPDATE: “A spine is detected.”

ANOTHER UPDATE: The Hotline has more.

MORE: Here’s a post by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, who’s guestblogging at NoEndButVictory.com.

MORE STILL: Larry Kudlow writes:

Jack Murtha is a decorated Vietnam vet and a good man, a patriot. But his six-month withdrawal idea, even including US forces in nearby bases, is not a good idea.

The terrorist forces who fight against freedom and democracy and in favor of communist-like totalitarianism will not announce a withdrawal schedule.

Therefore I believe that Pres. Bush and Sen. McCain are exactly right: premature withdrawal would be a disaster.

That said, however, I do not like the Duncan Hunter resolution “…that the deployment of United States forces in Iraq be terminated immediately.”

It is not serious. It demeans the House. It totally politicizes the debate. It is a ploy and a rather weak one at that. . . .

Why not state the resolution in the affirmative? ” We pledge to deploy troops in Iraq until the mission of liberation, freedom and democracy is satisfactorily completed.” And why not seek to gain as much bi-partisan political support as possible? This would truly help the mission, and the troops.

I think that’s right. And I think that to the (large) extent that some Republicans are making this a personal issue about Murtha, instead of talking about the absolutely unsupportable nature of his proposal, it’s a mistake.

FINALLY: Resolution to withdraw was voted down 403-3.

And reader Tony McKinley writes:

I watched a lot of the “debate” on C-SPAN last night, and it definitely was not a personal attack on Murtha. In fact, I’m proud to report that my own Representative, Curt Weldon, and many, many other Republicans went out of their way to praise Murtha.

I was responding more to the comments in the blogosphere, I guess. But good point.

OVER AT DAILYKOS, Adam Bonin, who’s been great on this issue, notes a promising move by House Democrats to protect online speech. Let’s hope some House Republicans get on board. “I really like the elegance of this bill, which basically asks the Members of Congress to agree that online news and commentary are just as worthy of protection from campaign finance law as those who practice it in print, on tv or the radio.” It looks good to me.

UPDATE: Here’s a link to the bill.

I PAID $2.06 A GALLON FOR GAS today, and it’s below two dollars some places.

This is because I bought a hybrid that gets great mileage, meaning that I could have laughed at high gas prices. And since it’s four-wheel drive, we probably won’t get a flake of snow this winter. If I had bought a gas-guzzler, prices would be over four bucks; if it had been rear-wheel drive we’d have blizzards. You’re welcome, America. Maybe I should start stockpiling Tamiflu to ensure that the avian flu scare never amounts to anything . . . .

UPDATE: A reader emails:

Good God man, don’t buy any umbrellas. The ensuing drought and leftwing environmentalist tirades against you would make the puppy-eating controversy pale in comparison. Or perhaps buy umbrellas and a convertable, those should cancel each other out.

Well, I did re-sod the front yard this year, which was followed by a fine, dry summer that necessitated vast amounts of lawn-sprinkling and the resultant sky-high water bills.

ANOTHER UPDATE: This is good news:

The amount of energy used in the economy per real dollar of GDP, “Energy Intensity”, has been steadily dropping and is now about half what it was in 1950. So a barrel’s worth of oil in 1950 now stretches to two barrels worth of work.

That’s by Sam Dinkin, who predicts that widespread conversion to hybrids will produce another doubling in the efficiency of the transportation sector, too. Let’s hope.

THIS IS COOL: “A counterintuitive experiment has resulted in one of the longest recorded life-span extensions in any organism and opened a new door for anti-aging research in humans.”

Don’t raid your 401(k) yet, though — the organism in question is yeast. Still big news, though.

MORE ON MURTHA:

Murtha’s resolution would force the president to withdrawal the nearly 160,000 troops in Iraq “at the earliest predictable date.”

Most Republicans oppose Murtha’s plan, and even some Democrats have been reluctant to back his position. Republicans were seeking to force Democrats to stand with the respected 30-year congressman or go on the record against his proposal. . . .

“Our troops have become the primary target of the insurgency,” Murtha, a longtime hawk on foreign and military affairs issues, said Thursday. “They are united against U.S. forces and we have become a catalyst for violence. The war in Iraq is not going as advertised. It is a flawed policy wrapped in illusion.”

A day after his comments, a U.S. field commander in Iraq countered the position of the usually pro-military congressman.

“Here on the ground, our job is not done,” said Col. James Brown, commander of the 56th Brigade Combat Team, when asked about Murtha’s comments during a weekly briefing that American field commanders routinely give to Pentagon reporters.

Speaking from a U.S. logistics base at Balad, north of Baghdad, two days before his scheduled return to Texas, Brown said: “We have to finish the job that we began here. It’s important for the security of this nation.”

I think that’s right. I wonder, though, if this business isn’t in part based on the expectation that we would have started drawing down troop numbers next year anyway, and now the Dems can claim victory for the 2006 election.

Meanwhile, Bill Quick writes:

I understand Murtha’s point: An endless low-level conflict combined with a murky strategy that makes very little sense in the context of protecting America now from Islamofascist attack has eroded the national will to the point where what might have been a minor setback could now conceivably become a definitive defeat of the sort that Vietnam itself turned into with withdrawal.

I’d differ somewhat with Murtha’s prescriptions, however. I don’t think what is needed is a land war involving half a million American troops against a small number of insurgents. I think we need to aim our efforts – from our hard-won bases in Iraq – against the outside forces that support those terror-insurgents for one reason or another – the regimes of Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.

I actually think that Bush would have more support if he were seen as more active. Right now he’s not only getting hit by the antiwar left, but he’s lost support from the Bill Quicks.

UPDATE: Here’s a related post by Greg Djerejian:

I sympathize with those in the Administration who want to attack Democrats for their manifold hypocrisy on this issue. I really do. But I’ve made it clear I think the messengers should be the Ken Mehlmans, Congressional attack dogs, and such–not the President, Vice President, other very senior Administration officials. It makes them look cheap, vindictive and petty–exactly what they are accusing the Kennedys and Pelosis and so on of being. Look, when it comes to Iraq, they should be focusing on devising a winning game plan in Iraq. Period.

I suspect that the White House has felt that the less press the war got, the better in terms of avoiding fatigue on the part of the American public. That’s probably true in the short term, but on the other hand it’s harder in the long term.

I also suspect that our longer-term strategy — having an armed and friendly Iraq that’s in a position to threaten Iran, Syria, and Saudi Arabia — probably isn’t something they really want to do a lot of public talking about. But there’s no question that the Bush Administration hasn’t handled this issue very well.

Meanwhile, reader Marlon McAvoy notes that we have troops in other countries, too:

After six decades, isn’t it time we came up with a withdrawal timetable for our troops in Germany and Japan? And didn’t we already cover this ground, repeatedly?

As Yogi Berra says, it’s deja vous all over again. Apparently these folks think we should only be stationed in nations that aren’t in pressing need of our military. A crafty Republican pol would be publicly asking for the doves’ opinion about our military presence in other countries.

Q&O has a letter to Murtha from a fellow Vietnam veteran that’s worth reading, too. Excerpt:

There is no “peace with honor” when you leave before the job is done.

See the job through to the end despite the obstacles and challenges.

Just once.

And yes, if it’s important, I wore this country’s uniform for 28 years as an infantry officer. I believe as much in the oath I took then as I do now. More importantly, I remember the feeling that my country had abandoned me as if it were yesterday, and I vowed if it ever tried it again, I’d speak up loudly and often.

It would be nice to believe you too remember that, and you too had made that sort of a vow.

Read the whole thing. And James Taranto has more on Murtha’s somewhat checkered history on the war, which he opposed before he voted for it, only to call for more troops before calling for a pullout. He’s got all his bases covered, I guess.

JEFF JARVIS: “Germany seems depressed — not economically but emotionally.” You think it’s bad now, wait until February. When we lived in Heidelberg we went from November to April with only one sunny day.

SONY’S SOUR NOTE: A wrapup on the Sony CD-spyware debacle.

STEPHEN GREEN GETS IT RIGHT on the McCain bill. And read this post by Derek Catsam, too.

SGT. HOOK POSTS a letter from a soldier in Iraq.

ANN ALTHOUSE DOESN’T LIKE the latest pro-Alito commercial.

When I teach Goldberg v. Kelly (welfare recipient entitled to hearing before welfare benefits terminated) and Matthews v. Eldridge (disabled veteran not entitled to hearing before Social Security disability terminated) I often tell my students to imagine how that sort of thing might be treated if we had campaign commercials for the Supreme Court. Like a lot of my reductio ad absurdum hypotheticals, we’re getting closer to that situation all the time.

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL is hosting an online discussion for its readers on whether Congress is serious about reducing the deficit. It’s a free link.

DEFENSE TECH REPORTS that the Pentagon’s “Future Combat Systems” program is likely to be axed after major cost overruns.

ED DRISCOLL REPORTS on yesterday’s Senate blog event.

HERE’S AN A.P. WRAPUP on the Tunisia Internet conference:

Another thread of concern was keeping the Internet a forum for free speech and dissent.

“It is vital that the Internet remain a neutral medium open to all in order to realize that access for our citizens,” John Marburger, director of the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, said in a not-so-subtle swipe at Tunisian President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali.

Tunisia’s selection as the host of the summit has raised eyebrows. On Thursday, the head of Reporters Without Borders was ordered out of the country after arriving at the airport. Earlier this week, human rights groups said Tunisian and foreign reporters had been harassed and beaten.

“It is the role of governments to ensure that this freedom of expression is available to its citizens and not to stand in the way of people seeking to send and receive information across the Internet,” Marburger said.

Indeed.

THIS IS COOL: “A web camera in a Norwegian artist’s living room in California allowed her sons in Norway and the Philippines to see that she had collapsed and call for help, one of the sons said Friday.” The Internet: If it saves just one life, it’s worth it!