Slashdot has an entry that ought to give us pause before betting the farm (literally in some cases) on biofuels as a replacement for fossil fuels. (The main link is to a Seattle Times article).

The benefits of biofuels have come under increasing attack in recent months, as scientists took a closer look at the global environmental cost of their production. These plant-based fuels were originally billed as better than fossil fuels because the carbon released when they were burned was balanced by the carbon absorbed when the plants grew. But that equation proved overly simplistic because the process of turning plants into fuels causes its own emissions — for refining and transport, for example. These studies… for the first time take a detailed, comprehensive look at the emissions effects of the huge amount of natural land that is being converted to cropland globally to support biofuels development.

In short, the studies suggest that the biofuels might produce more greenhouse gases than fossil fuels. Even if these studies are accurate, there might be short term reasons to prefer biofuels to fossil fuels – shortages of the latter, geopolitical reasons – our oil is buried under some pretty unstable countries; etc. But, we should keep looking for better energy sources.

The ACLU is suing the Bureau of Motor Vehicles seeking to enjoin the Bureau from unilaterally revoking licenses that don’t match information in a database maintained by the federal government’s Social Security Administration. Many of the mismatches occurred because of typographical errors and name-changes following marriage. There are apparently about 206,000 mismatches.

The ACLU’s suit asks that no licenses be suspended without hearings. I haven’t read the suit, but this seems to be a due process question to me. Specifically, how much process is due before the Bureau revokes a license? The BMV probably wants to run a mass computer check, spit out letters whenever the BMV database doesn’t exactly match the SSA database, and revoke the license in a certain number of days if the citizen doesn’t take it upon him or herself to resolve the mismatch between the two government bureaucracies. To me, it seems that if the Bureau wants to take a citizen’s right away, it bears the burden of proving to an impartial third party — presumably a court or at least an Administrative Law Judge — that the discrepancy is more than superficial. That, of course, requires more effort on the part of the BMV. But, the burden exists either way. I don’t think the BMV should be allowed to shift that burden to the citizens just because doing otherwise is a hassle; particularly where, as here, a valid license is a prerequisite to exercising one’s right to vote.

In Kirkwood, Missouri, six people are dead, including the gunman, after a disgruntled nutjob started firing his gun at a city council meeting. Aside from the normal level of interest, this story caught my eye because a big chunk of my grandmother’s family still lives in Kirkwood.

I think Atrios is right with respect to the issue of superdelegates and the Michigan & Florida delegates in the Democratic primary race:

It is a bit weird worrying that things are going to be messy going forward. There might be a fight over the Michigan and Florida delegates. There will issues with superdelegates.

I guess my basic take is that MI and FL delegates shouldn’t be seated, though if they want a do over with another caucus or primary that’d be fine. As for the superdelegates… well, I guess I’ll be a bit annoyed if they swing this one way or another, but not that annoyed. I’m annoyed by the system. There are just too many superdelegates relative to the total. But that is the system.

Someone by the name of Sarah Robinson who uses both the Canadian and U.S. health care system addresses some of the assertions about the Canadian system that are routinely raised by people who oppose a national health care system for the U.S.

Go read the whole thing, but, a very abbreviated version:

1. Socialized medicine? False. Doctors are not employees of the state. It’s more of a single-payer insurance system. Kind of like Medicare for everyone.

2. Doctors don’t make as much? True & False. They don’t take in as much revenue, but they don’t have as much overhead devoted to wrestling with insurance companies. As a result, they also tend to work fewer hours.

3. Wait times are bad? True & False. Mostly depends where in Canada you are. Rural areas tend to be worse than suburban areas.

4. You don’t get to choose your own doctor? False. You do.

5. Coverage is limited to basics? Mostly true. But it doesn’t end up being as big a deal because without big insurance premiums and the expensive basics mostly covered, the extras are more affordable.

6. Canadian drugs are not the same? False. They’re often made by the same companies in the same factories.

7. The taxes to support such a system are unsustainable? False. They’re less expensive than health insurance premiums.

[tags]health care[/tags]

Former Representative Dick Mangus (R-Lakeville) has passed away. He served 32 years in the legislature and retired a couple of years ago. I don’t have any details as to the particulars of his death, but he was an esteemed public servant and will be missed.

In terms of Presidential politics, today is second in importance only to the November general elections. In football terms, it’s much like the championship round of the playoffs. There is a huge difference, however, in that today’s elections don’t guarantee one candidate or another will lock up their respective party nominations.

For my part, I prefer Obama to Clinton. I figure either would be capable. But Obama’s “something new” really appeals to me. I don’t believe in a grand, non-partisan, ponies and flowers for everybody kind of politics, but we may have “jumped the shark” on the whole Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton thing. And Obama seems stronger on “that vision thing” than Hillary Clinton even if Hillary might be the more accomplished bureaucrat.

On the GOP side, I find myself rooting for Romney – but not for any rational reason. I honestly have no clue how Romney and McCain wold compare to each other as President. But, I had one view of McCain when he was running for President in 2000, and he turned out not to be that guy. I’ve never had any particular view of Romney, so I never had any faith in the Mittster to lose.

Hey, I’m glad I don’t edit my blog reader as frequently as I ought to, because that means I picked up Reverent and Free when it came out of hibernation this morning. Craig does some good work, and I’m glad to have him back in the Indiana blogosphere.

Per the AP:

The Indiana Bureau of Motor Vehicles could revoke driver’s licenses for as many as 56,000 people later this month after a database check showed discrepancies in some of their information.

The state also will send notices warning of a similar revocation to about 35,000 people with identification cards. But the actual totals probably will be smaller in both cases.

If they’re really planning ahead, maybe they can do the revocation right before one of the upcoming elections.

Tim Dickinson, writing for Rolling Stone, has a nicely written article entitled “Blame Pedro” which focuses on the growing nativist sentiment in the Republican Party and its potentially disastrous electoral implications.

An interesting historical note from Grover Norquist:

Looking at the same trend, Norquist points to an even more dire precedent: In 1884, the GOP attacked Democrats as the party of Romanism. “It cost them the Roman Catholic vote for 110 years,” he says. “So it is entirely possible for a political party to be that stupid. It is my hope that it is not possible for a party to be that stupid twice.”

By way of trying to explain why the GOP would go this route after President Bush and Karl Rove had been moderately successful in courting Hispanic votes, the article suggests:

But after the election, red-meat commentators like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh needed a new scapegoat. “Right-wing radio couldn’t harp on the Democrats about the war or anything else because the GOP was basically in charge of every branch of government,” says Joe García, director of Hispanic strategy at NDN. “So they turned the resentment of white Americans to this new ‘threat.’ It’s not your fault you’re fucked economically, it’s not the president’s fault — so it must be Pedro’s fault.”

Politicians don’t escape the idea that their hostile to Latinos by qualifying that they are only against the illegal ones. To a lot of Latinos, you’re still saying, “I want to deport your mom.” Not, as it turns out, a winning electoral strategy.