The article mentions the Ford Escape Hybrid in passing. As the owner of a Mariner Hybrid, an Escape clone, I find the comparison interesting. I don't know what deals one could get these days on an Escape or Mariner Hybrid, but they're probably more expensive than the Outlander by five grand or more, which is hardly chump change even in these modern days. And hybrids feel a bit ponderous to drive simply because the battery adds a lot of weight. But the two wheel drive Escape gets 31 to 34 mpg, which is around 50% better than the Outlander. That's a nice feeling too. And the driving position and the interior appointments, as they say, are just fine.

Another part of the feeling in the driver's seat of a hybrid is the visual fun of watching regenerative braking charging up the battery icon on the visual display. Not entirely rational? Not really. Great fun though.

The Hummer is a specialized vehicle that is a superior performer for certain specialized uses. It is good--not bad--that America can create such vehicles. But most civilian Hummer buyers did not use their Hummers for those particular uses. So why did they buy them? Because the whole Hummer concept delighted them, and because they could afford it.

A Hummer can be a garish display of wealth and arrogance, but folks have been making such displays since the dawn of civilization. Whatever happens to the Hummer, I doubt they're going to stop. Personally I have more sympathy for Hummer haters that for Hummer owners, but are we really ready to setting up committees to decide what vehicles Americans can and cannot buy? Be careful what you wish for; it could be ugly. It is good--not bad--that rappers can buy Hummers if they feel like it.

The 'lightening strikes' in Switzerland may have cut ESPN's feed, but what feed was that? I watched the game live from provincial capital of Konya in Turkey. Nary a blip. The feed was fine all game.

Not that the Turks liked what they saw late in the game, but still...

It was quite interesting to see Dan Savage's response to the Keilor column. Savage is always entertaining and usually pretty sensible. But subtle he’s not and here he just shows how helpless he is in dealing with someone who is. Looking back at the Keilor piece, I can see--sort of--why Savage feels slapped in the face. And I think Keilor does have a bias or two showing here. But having said that, I think Savage and many of the letter writers here are just not getting it. For example, Keilor says:

"Today, serial monogamy has stretched the extended family to the breaking point. A child can now grow up with eight or nine or 10 grandparents -- Gampa, Gammy, Goopa, Gumby, Papa, Poopsy, Goofy, Gaga and Chuck -- and need a program to keep track of the actors."

Savage assumes that this is an attack on serial monogamy and then calls Keilor a despicable hyprocrite since Keilor is in fact a serial monagamist himself. But in context, Keilor is not attacking or maligning. He is saying that this is what 'our' lives are like now, and including himself in the group. For anyone with eyes to see, he is saying very explicitly: "This is what my personal life is like now and I find it somewhat bemusing that what I have created in my life is so different than what I grew up with." I would call this the opposite of hypocrisy.

Keilor's comments about the stereotypical gay men in the chartreuse pants are a little odd and I can see how they might offend. And what's the point exactly? But to call this an attack on all gay parenting is a little much. Surely gay parenting has more serious enemies than this! Keilor's main point is that parents need to nurture and then get old and that children always ultimately come into the center stage. Is Keilor saying that this applies to straight parents but not gay parents? Or to gays but not straights? No, he's saying it applies to both. He is in fact being inclusive in a way that only a few mainstream figures are these days. It’s sad that Savage just misses this entirely.

The research cited sounds like a classic case of conflating association with causality. I have not read the study, nor am I an expert in the field, but from all published reports what the study actually found was that kids who were most interested in listening to music about sex were also the most interested in having sex. Hardly a surprize. The fact that the study author uses the word 'may' so often in his public statements is an admission that in fact the study provides no strong evidence at all about causation (or lack of causation) and that he himself well knows that.

Mr Deford is fully capable of bringing up an interesting topic and pointing us toward events or trends we might not have noticed. But in recent years his conclusions and opinions suggest a hollow and ugly man, vastly in love with the sound of his own voice. Not what I need as part of my day. I turn off NPR whenever I hear him start and advise others to do the same.