Blue Mass. Group has MOVED!!

Association of ombudspeople smacks down Tomlinson

The NYT reports that the Organization of News Ombudsmen (everybody has an organization these days!), or ONO, has refused to admit the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's team of one "liberal" and one "conservative" ombudsman to full membership.  The Corporation's chairman, Kenneth Tomlinson, has been on something of a mission to combat the supposed liberal bias of the Public Broadcasting Service and National Public Radio, and part of his strategy is to name these two "ombudsmen" at the Corporation (not itself a news-gathering organization) to monitor whether PBS and NPR are slanting their coverage.  A curious use of the term "ombudsman," to be sure - the usual meaning of a news ombudsman is someone who represents, and responds to, the readers, listeners, or viewers of a news outlet, not the hack who happens to be serving as one of the news outlet's major funders.

ONO, apparently of the view that the Corporation's two ombudsguys weren't really "ombudsmen," wouldn't let them in.  One must add, however, that the person behind this action appears to have been Jeffrey Dvorkin, the ombudsman for - you guessed it - NPR.  Oops.  Of course, we're certain that the decision to bar the Corporation's ombudsfolks from full membership in ONO was entirely on the merits.

The ball is now in Tomlinson's court.  Let's see how hard he decides to smack it!

Bubble bubble toil and trouble: Babies R not us

Young parents are not sticking around MA, maybe because they can get a backyard elsewhere. Here's a Globe column from Charles Stein (thanks to Democrants):

Specifically, [demographer Peter Francese] doesn't see enough young people in our future -- especially young adults with children. We drive them away, said Francese, with our high housing prices, which are high, in part, because we refuse to build affordable housing suitable for young families. ''Our wounds are self-inflicted," he said.

... New England home prices go up, but relatively little new housing gets built to satisfy the demand. Francese puts the blame for that lack of production squarely on the shoulders of a cherished New England institution -- the fiercely independent town.

Towns don't want to build houses because houses contain children who will have to go to school, which will cost taxpayers in the town money. ''The last thing anyone wants is school kids," said Francese.

That last one hurts, doesn't it? If your town doesn't want to build your kid's family a house, and is stingy with your grandkids' education, why would your kids come back to raise them near you?

This may sound rather laissez-faire for a dyed-in-the-wool lib, but I really think we've got to revisit some zoning laws regarding affordable housing development, both the official state kind, and the market-driven kind. It's not surprising that people want to protect and preserve what they've got, including high property values, but there's a really heavy price being paid right now.

(Update: For a more expansive take on taxes, politics, real estate, and the effect on quality of life, see .08.)

Rep. Lynch is thinking about it ...

The Globe reports that US Rep. Stephen Lynch is kinda sorta thinking about running for Governor, maybe.

Lynch would be the most conservative Dem in the field.  I can respectfully disagree with his anti-choice views, but his vote in favor of the Terri Schiavo bill pretty much rules him out for me.  Anyone who thought the federal government belonged in that situation has a very different understanding of the role of government than I do.

More on the Wellesley override

As we noted earlier this week, the town of Wellesley's recent failure (by 17 votes) to pass a $3.6 million Proposition 2-1/2 override resulted in the cancellation of a Spanish immersion program in the Wellesley public schools (the town did pass a smaller override), whereupon some concerned parents took it upon themselves to raise $380,000 to try to save the program.  The school board, however, rejected the offer, and will cancel the program instead.  We wondered aloud whether this was the right call, and got some interesting comments.

In today's Globe, columnist Eileen McNamara continues the discussion by delivering a lecture to the Wellesley parents, who in her view are "confused" about "the definition of public education" and require a lesson on "the concept of collective responsibility."

I was mightily put off by McNamara's pious, high-and-mighty tone, which seems to me completely inappropriate in a situation where the parents (and the kids, who were also involved in the fundraising effort) were simply trying to preserve an educational program that they found to be beneficial.  And, in thinking about it, I don't find much of what McNamara says to be very persuasive.  Read on...

I can see two broad categories of reasons in support of the school board's decision to reject the privately-raised funds.  The "strategic" reasons are the variants on the notion that "if we accept private funds here, the town will never vote for a Prop. 2-1/2 override again because they'll assume that the parents will raise the money."  The "philosophical" reasons go more to the idea that there's something intrinsically bad about public schools accepting private donations.

McNamara's column does not address the "strategic" reasons at all, so I won't discuss them further here (though they're important and are well worth discussing).  She focuses entirely on "philosophical" reasons - in particular, her view seems to be that when the voters spoke by rejecting the override, that should have been the end of the matter.  She writes:

We cast our lot together, for good or ill. The majority rules. That means: Win some, lose some.

And later:

The take-away lesson for disappointed parents might have been the need to do a better job next time convincing townspeople of their point of view, or to do a more aggressive job of getting like-minded residents to the polls. Persuasion and participation usually win the day. Whatever happened to losing gracefully, and living to fight another day? Instead, parents indignant that they lost such a close vote launched a fund-raising drive to use private resources to pay for a core curriculum public-school program.

And still later:

In the face of the fundamental inequity in educational opportunity we do not need Citizens to Save Spanish, parents determined to circumvent the will of a majority when they do not prevail at the polls. No matter how committed they are, no matter how worthy their goal, these parents are sending a message that their cause is more legitimate than the democratic process.

"Majority rules"?  "Losing gracefully"?  "Circumvent the will of the majority"?  "Sending a message that their cause is more legitimate than the democratic process"??  McNamara's entire column is devoted to demolishing a straw-man (a classic technique of misdirection familiar to any litigator).  What the "democratic process" in Wellesley decided was that the town's property taxes would not be raised in order to fund the Spanish immersion program.  No one is trying to "circumvent" that result by forcing people to pay for the Spanish program.  The thing about taxes is that they are involuntary - everyone has to pay them, even if they don't like what they are being used for.  The people who raised the $380,000 were voluntary donors - they didn't want the program to be cancelled, so they shelled out their own money to try to save it.  McNamara's entire argument thus depends on the premise that it is "wrong" for public schools to be funded through anything other than tax money.  But she never defends (or even acknowledges) that premise, and it is not clear to me that it is entirely correct, at least in circumstances like these, for the reasons in my previous post.

McNamara remarks on the fact that our state's system of locally-funded schools means that some towns have much better schools than others.  While that is true, it seems to me as irrelevant as the "majority rules" point that underlies most of her column.  Again, the question is whether public schools should accept private funds.  Would her conclusion be different if precisely the same set of facts had arisen in Everett instead of Wellesley?  The one thing I agree with in McNamara's column is this: "All parents want the best education for their children."  I still haven't been persuaded that parents in a town that rejects a Prop. 2-1/2 override should be barred from replacing those funds with voluntary, private donations in order to keep the quality of the schools from declining.

"We've got to do this!"

So here's the long-awaited GBIO action recap. (I'm getting up at 4am tomorrow for a flight, so I won't be revising -- sorry for the typos and syntax.)

I arrived a little later than I wanted to, about 6:40. Temple Israel was already swarming with people -- a very positive vibe, sort of an organized chaos. There were check-in tables, a table for press, a table for the post-action collection for Darfur, you name it, and traffic bubbled merrily into the sanctuary, which, I'm told, 40 years earlier hosted one Martin Luther King Jr. Later one of the speakers remarked on the similar atmosphere last night.

A GBIO "action" is not merely a rally, where people get pepped up and then go home. Something actually happens, a moment of mutual recognition between people in power (in this case the elected representatives who were invited) and those who represented their congregations. And there is also a commitment made by the congregants there: In this case, GBIO committed itself to getting 40,000 of the 65,000+ signatures necessary to put the Health Care Access and Affordability Act on the ballot in 2006.

To give you an idea of the tone of GBIO, the introductory music was by the Temple Salem Praise Team, from a Seventh-Day Adventist Church. In his opening remarks, Rabbi Jonah Pesner said, "Someone came up to me and said, 'Rabbi, they're singing about Jesus.' I said, 'Yes, that's because they're Christian.'" (Incidentally, Temple Salem itself is a converted synagogue.)

I'll cut to the chase: One of the most powerful parts of the evening is the roll call. Maybe it sounds dull: a representative from every church gets in line, says something very brief about the reason why their people showed up, and says how many of them are present. It's not dull. The tension actually builds in the room as you hear church after church, group after group tell their story in the most distilled way possible: one sentence each. It really drives home the idea that we are not alone; that it's our friends and neighbors for whom we act; what could be an abstract political stance  becomes a concrete act of solidarity and fellowship.

Six speakers, members of GBIO congregations, were asked to make their cases for expanded health coverage: Peter Brook of Fourth Presbyterian told of going without health insurance in the construction industry, and how accidents have put him in debt. He's too "wealthy" to qualify for MassHealth. D.J. Fleurissant, a small business owner, spoke of his desire to provide health care for his employees. Margarida DePina spoke of her heartbreaking experiences as an immigrant with a daughter who has Down's syndrome and other health issues. And so on. Real people in agonizing situations. There are high stakes here.

Legislative leaders were acknowleged as well. Just so you know, they were: Reps. Jeffrey Sanchez, Deborah Blumer (one of the key sponsors), Ruth Balzer, Gloria Fox, Carl Sciortino, Brian Wallace, Alice Wolf (my rep), and Jim Marzilli; and Senators Jarrett Barrios (we will miss you in the Senate, JB), and Diane Wilkerson. (Richard Moore, the lead Senate sponsor, couldn't be there, but sent a letter of encouragement to all.) Feel free to drop any of these folks a line and tell them how swell they are.

But the climax of the evening was the address by Dr. Ray Hammond of Bethel AME Church. He affirmed health care as a necessity, not a luxury, and made no bones about the extraordinary effort that reforming our system was going to take. But like this passage, "we must go through the roof": resist pressure and cynicism. "We've got to do this!"

A call for volunteers to be precinct captains for the signature collection effort seemed to lack a bit of energy and focus, but the post-action count showed that the organization got the commitments it needed. The energy and momentum is there -- people know that it will take a lot to get it done. But they know how much is at stake, and what may happen if they don't get it done.

I'm going to bed -- I'll be away for the weekend, so any imperfections here will just have to stand. Have a beautiful (and dry) long weekend, all.

Another indication that Chief Justice Rehnquist is retiring

Virtually every Supreme Court observer is assuming that Chief Justice Rehnquist's ongoing and apparently quite serious bout with thyroid cancer will result in his retirement at the end of the current Supreme Court term next month.  But, of course, there has been no word on this from Rehnquist himself, or from anyone else at the Court.

However, the unofficial federal judiciary gossip site, Underneath Their Robes, reports that Justice O'Connor has to this point only hired three law clerks for next year (she is entitled to hire four).  This is highly unusual - Justice O'Connor ordinarily completes her hiring quite early in the process, and as far as I know she has always hired four clerks.

What's the connection?  The site's mysterious author, "Article III Groupie" (or "A3G") speculates that O'Connor is holding a spot open so that she can offer a job to one of the Chief's three already-hired clerks (the Chief and Justice Stevens generally only hire three clerks).  The Chief, as a retired Justice, would be entitled to only one law clerk (the other two presumably wouldn't have trouble landing a nice job elsewhere, but a Supreme Court clerkship is a unique gig).  And, as A3G notes, O'Connor and Rehnquist have been good friends for many years, so it makes some sense that she would be willing to accommodate him in this way.

Now, it's possible that O'Connor doesn't know that Rehnquist is retiring, but is holding a spot just in case.  But that seems unlikely to me - if Rehnquist does not retire, then he would keep his three clerks, and O'Connor would be one short.  She could undoubtedly find someone to come work for her even on very short notice, but I doubt that she wants to conduct business that way - at this point, everyone who was a serious contender for a Supreme Court clerkship either has their clerkship or has accepted some other fancy law job, so a last-minute hire would be chancy.  I don't think O'Connor would risk not being able to get a top-flight fourth clerk on the chance that Rehnquist might retire.

Why, you may ask, would Rehnquist have hired clerks at all if he intended to quit?  Two answers.  First, he may have completed the hiring before his illness got really bad.  Second, and perhaps more importantly, if he did not hire law clerks on roughly the same schedule that he usually does, he would be effectively announcing that he was retiring, and of course he does not want to do that.

This is real inside baseball.  But inside baseball may actually be quite a good indicator in these circumstances.  Of course, it's speculation as to why Justice O'Connor has hired only three clerks - and it's also possible that A3G's information is not accurate.  But if the info is good, I can't think of a better explanation.

So it DOES make you go blind!

The NYT reports:

The Food and Drug Administration said today that it had asked Pfizer Inc., the world's largest drug maker, to amend its warnings on Viagra in response to scattered reports of vision loss by people taking the drug.

Some blindness was reported by 38 men taking Viagra - a tiny fraction of the 23 million people who have used the drug - and among four men taking Cialis, a newer competitor.

I have nothing to add.  You, however, are invited to snark away to your heart's content.

Romney vetoes stem cell bill; SJC rejects last-ditch effort to undo gay marriage ruling

Two utterly unsurprising developments in today's news.  First, Governor Romney delivered on his promise to veto the stem cell research bill.  As we've noted, the bill passed the legislature by veto-proof margins in both houses, and veto overrides are expected as early as next week.

Second, the Supreme Judicial Court rejected what everyone expected would be a futile attempt by Catholic Action League executive director C.J. Doyle to halt gay marriage until ... well, we're not actually sure exactly what Doyle wanted.  In any case, he didn't get it.  This was a pointless court proceeding - there was no way the Court was going to undo what it has done in this area (and today's opinion, unlike Goodridge and the subsequent Opinion of the Justices, was unanimous).

So gay marriage and stem cell research will both go forward in this Commonwealth.  Keep your eye on whether the sky falls....

A twist on the usual override story

I find the Wellesley override story, as told in today's Globe, to be fascinating.  There were two possible Proposition 2-1/2 overrides on the May 10 ballot.  The first, for $3.6 million (average $329/year per taxpayer), failed by 17 votes.  The second, for $2.6 million ($240/year), passed.  Both measures would save about 60 teachers' jobs.  A big part of the difference, apparently, was a Spanish language immersion program and the seven teachers associated with that program.

Here's where it gets interesting: some Wellesley parents, unhappy with the results, decided to raise the money on their own in an effort to save the Spanish program.  They organized a fundraising effort, picked up a $7,000 check from a foundation, and ultimately went to the school board with $380,000 in hand to save the program.

But the board said "no"!  It declined the money, and will cancel the program.  Various school board types explained the decision in various terms: it'd be a bad precedent for wealthy parents to raise money to save their favored programs while letting others be cancelled; it'd mean that no one will ever vote "yes" on an override again because they figure the parents will just cough up the money themselves; "the voters have spoken."  (It also appears that the parents raised only about two-thirds of the total amount needed to fund the program, but that doesn't seem to have driven the decision to reject the funds.)

I haven't completely thought this through yet, but something bothers me about it.  Most basically, an override vote is essentially the town saying "we want to [start/continue] this program, but we can't afford it.  Do you taxpayers want to hike your property taxes to pay for it?"  And the town answers "yes" or "no."  If the town as a whole answers "no," though, what's so terrible about the townspeople who did want the program from coming up with the money on their own?  It's still their money, and in a way it's even fairer - now no one who voted "no" has to pay for a program they didn't want to support.  And the path chosen by the town leaves everyone worse off - the board has to cancel a program they liked, the kids are deprived of a program their parents were willing to pay for, the parents feel like the school board doesn't listen to them, and the quality of the schools goes down, depressing everyone's property values.

Some of the school board members commented that using private funds to pay teacher salaries was a fundamentally different path than using private funds to, say, buy athletic equipment (which happens all the time).  That doesn't strike me as very convincing - money is fungible.

Like I said, I haven't thought this through completely - I understand that there are complicated incentives at work in this kind of situation.  What do you think?

Wind Power: Beyond Nantucket Sound

Well, Wired News shows a report with the incredible, unbelieveable, counter-intuitive, weirdo finding that wind power is just like, all around us, and just there for the taking.

At the risk of repeating myself: the candidate that enumerates a comprehensive, innovative wind power strategy for the Commonwealth will be much closer to getting my support. This is a big one. (Hat tip: Carpundit.)

In other wind farm news... a group of folks from the Cape just left for Denmark for a tour of the wind farms there. The Wind Farm blog's Jack Coleman is on the trip, and reporting on it for Cape Cod Today. And here's extra-special full disclosure from me: leading the trip are William and Dorte Griswold of Centerville, who happen to be my cousins, and a big reason I got interested in the issue to begin with.

GBIO on the front page of Globe

Well, I missed it until 11:24pm tonight, but a preview of tonight's GBIO action was on the front page of the Globe. It's not a bad article, really, although I wish it had concentrated on the trials that people endure right now, today, all the time, under the current system. But I guess that's not considered news -- the dance of power always seems more interesting...

Also, the reporter sells it as a "universal" health care plan. It's not: it would cover 80% of the currently uninsured in MA. You can see it as a substantial step towards universal coverage in some of its structural particulars, but it's not a flat-out universal plan.

And here's a deceptively enlightening quote from Romney's spokesman:

''Both the governor and the Senate president have made it clear that tax increases and employer mandates are off the table," Fehrnstrom said.

Well, let's be clear what is on the table, then. High deductibles and high co-pays for people who are the least able to afford it, A-OK, that's on the table. Taking away people's dental coverage: that's on the table. Eyeglasses: on the table, and they'll take them, too, thank you very much.

Let's be clear: people's lives ... they're on the table. No taxes or employer mandates, though. Priorities.

Anyhoo, it was a really great event tonight. Very inspiring, but also humbling: there's a lot of work to do. I'll write more tomorrow.

What the bloggers are saying about what the Valley Advocate says the bloggers are saying

Nice, another alterna-press mention of the MA blogosphere, this time in the Valley Advocate of Springfield:

In the past year, Massachusetts has developed its own mini-blogosphere. It is still rather nascent, but there is a core group of bloggers emerging who are concerned with state politics. And to these new bloggers, Deval Patrick has almost a "rock star" status. All of them are talking about him. Here are some selected excerpts:

Etc. Thanks to Frederick Clarkson for the steer -- you can read his take on all this here.

I also should point out that although the idea was certainly out there before sco put up his comments about Patrick's convention speech, the precise wording of the Advocate's cover ("Our Obama") comes directly from sco's quote. (I see that sco noticed as well. Take a bow over there in Watertown.)

As sco says, the reason we're getting noticed is because hardly anyone else is covering what we're covering. To pretty much everyone else in the media, the gay marriage plank was the story from the convention, even though its adoption was absolutely pro-forma. Even to the Phoenix, which does very good local reporting, the story of the convention was that of stagnation and insularity. It seems like the bloggers, perhaps due to our naiveté, star-struckness and inexperience, were the ones to realize that something actually happened there.

---

... By the way, I just got that robo-call from Patrick, too. Also, a cardboard cut-out of Patrick just came up to my door and asked for my vote. I shook a Deval Patrick inflatable dummy's hand in line at Dunkie's this morning, and I'm going bowling tonight with a holographic Deval Patrick projection. I'm on the simulacrum short list!

GBIO takes on Health Care

Thursday night, May 26th at 7pm at Temple Israel of Boston, the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization will hold an action in support of the Health Care Access and Affordability Act, a major piece of legislation that will provide health care coverage to 80% of the 500,000 people currently uninsured in Massachusetts. They're expecting more than 1,000 people to show up, representing the various member organizations of GBIO. They will tell their stories about the necessity of expanding health care in this state; recognize legislators that have signed on to support the bill; and will commit to getting 40,000 of the necessary 65,825 signatures to qualify the bill for a 2006 ballot initiative.

Here's my full disclosure: I am an active participant in GBIO -- what they call a "key leader". I got involved through the church I used to sing at because of some work they were doing on affordable housing issues.

GBIO encompasses a wildly diverse group of organizations, from Trinity Church in Copley Square to Temple Salem in Dorchester to Temple Dorshei Tzedek in Newton. You could not have a better representation of the "New Boston" than this. The leadership team at GBIO is the smartest, savviest, best-organized, and nicest group of folks you could meet. And as a whole, GBIO doesn't just speak Truth to Power: GBIO invites Power into the house, sits it down, serves it tea, tells the Truth that breaks Power's heart, holds Power's hand tightly, looks Power in the eye, and says, "You need to be with us."

This is going to be a great event -- the beginning of an 18 month journey to get health coverage for thousands of folks who don't have it. I'll have a rundown afterwards.

More override news

The Fray reports that the town of Longmeadow has rejected three Proposition 2-1/2 overrides, and Plympton recently rejected one as well.  Meanwhile, Cape Cod Works updates the Harwich override story: apparently, there may be a revote on the override that failed recently (and, according to this story, tempers in the town are flaring).  Holliston, in contrast, just passed an override - by 12 votes out of over 3,000 cast - and Hanson approved one as well.  Several other towns have overrides on upcoming local elections ballots, according to my quick Google News search.

Is there a trend in these results?  Or are these overrides always intensely local issues, the result of which is determined not by which way the bigger winds on "taxes" are blowing, but rather on how badly a town's residents feel they need the particular item to be financed by the override?  Either way, I continue to believe that property taxes, and Prop. 2-1/2 overrides, need to be brought into the statewide debate on income taxes.  Taxes are taxes, and it's foolish to talk about one while pretending that the other isn't implicated.  So far, Deval Patrick seems to be the only Gov candidate who understands that, but maybe there's still hope.

You! Out of the risk pool!

The Eisenthal Report has commented on my post on the governor's chief health care advisor suggesting that hospitals be more aggressive in collecting on unpaid bills. I appreciate his input, and there's a very useful discussion in the comments section of his post from Lynne and our own David.

Eisenthal's main point is that bills need to be collected as a practical business matter for the hospitals, and as a matter of equity to those of us that do pay our bills; that just as rent and property taxes need to be paid, so then do medical bills.

That's fine with me, and perfectly sensible, all things being equal. But as we know, all things aren't equal. As David points out in the comments, one has some control over what rent one pays, and from then on it's fairly predictable. Medical costs are wildly unpredictable -- part of the unfairness of life. Lynne points out that uninsured people actually pay more on an individual basis than do insurance companies, and much more than the government. (I once had a doctor give me a "professional courtesy" discount when she realized I had a large deductible, and I would be paying for her care out of pocket.)

So, it behooves us (yes, we are behooven) to look at health care in its own unique and messed-up context. The real problem of health care is: Who's paying for it? See, "health insurance" is really a misnomer: "Insurance" implies pooling of risk, where individuals get resources together, pay out for the unfortunate circumstances, and endeavor to encourage safe behavior. Well, we've got no true pooling of risk in our current system; health plans are more like memberships with benefits, like your local health club: you pay in, and you can show up. And with the rising cost and increasingly exclusionary rules of the club memberships, a lot of people simply can't afford to buy in.

To make a long story short, the people that Tim Murphy wants to collect money from, are the people who are least likely to be able to afford it, for one or more of the following reasons:

1. *They don't have any insurance (and are therefore charged higher prices),
2. **They have inadequate insurance (i.e. high deductibles and co-pays)
3. They have just gone through an illness or injury which has very possibly compromised their earning ability: lost work hours, decreased productivity, etc.

I'm sure we can all think of other reasons. (Lynne has courageously told her personal story here. I am going to be collecting more personal stories and posting them here.)

Just as a practical matter of helping hospitals collect on their bills: Instead of going after the folks who are in the weakest position to pay, doesn't it make more sense to strengthen the institutions that can pay?

I'll have a lot more on this in the weeks and months to come. Bear with me -- the wonkery can be pretty thick. But the human side is really very easy to understand, and that's the side that RomneyCo seems to find the most elusive.

*To put this in perspective regarding our state health system: The adults in a family of four that makes $26,000 a year are too rich to qualify for MassHealth under our current system (cf. also here).

**The Governor's Commonwealth Care proposal would charge families an average of $500/month for a stripped-down, high-deductible and - co-pay plan. Here's the Greater Boston Interfaith Organization's helpful proposal comparison of Romney's and Travaglini's plans with the Health Care Access and Affordability Act, which is being promoted by a wide variety of civic groups.

Priscilla Owen confirmed 56-43

The Senate has just confirmed Priscilla Owen to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit.

The vote was 56-43.  If I heard the clerk's roll call correctly, the Democrats voting to confirm were Landrieu (LA) and Byrd (WV).  The only Republican voting against confirmation was Chafee (RI).  I believe that Daniel Inouye (D-HI), who did not participate in yesterday's cloture vote, also did not participate in today's vote.

Now on C-SPAN2: the nomination of John Bolton!

UPDATE: The roll call on Owen is here.

CORRECTION AND FURTHER UPDATE: The vote was actually 55 (not 56) to 43, as it turns out that Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK) voted "Present," apparently in order to protect Sen. Inouye who was out of town and therefore did not vote.

A good post on Janice Rogers Brown

This post at ACSblog explains that the Supreme Court's recent unanimous opinion in a takings case (Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A.) thoroughly rejects the extremist property rights view espoused by Janice Rogers Brown in a dissenting opinion she wrote in 2002 (the case was San Remo Hotel v. City and County of San Francisco).  Brown's position, basically, was that government regulation amounts to theft, at least to the extent that regulation diminishes the ability of people to use their property in any manner in which they see fit.  All 9 Supreme Court Justices - Scalia and Thomas among them - rejected that view.

What's wrong with the House's stem cell research bill

The Republican-dominated House of Representatives passed, by a convincing margin (238-194) and over the objections of its leadership, a bill that would partially undo President Bush's restrictive policy on stem cell research.  It is unlikely to become law, however.  The Bill will face significant hurdles (including a filibuster threat) in the Senate.  More importantly, Bush has already said he'll veto it, and the margin in the House is well short of the two-thirds needed to override.

But still, this is great news, right?  Well, yes and no.  Yes, in the sense that it's great to see a significant number of House Republicans defying both their own wacky leadership and a Bush veto threat to pass a bill on an important public policy issue.  And yes, in the sense that it's great to see that many Republicans as well as Democrats understand the potential promise of embryonic stem cell research.

But no, in the sense that the House bill seems to me to suffer from a bit of the same fallacy that our own Governor's stem cell position suffers from.  The House bill would lift Bush's ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research only if the cell lines in question are derived from "surplus" embryos from in vitro fertilization clinics.  It does nothing to encourage American scientists to keep pace with, among others, the South Koreans who have recently announced impressive results through the use of somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT).

Why is this distinction so important?  I can see two reasons.  First, on the science: the great thing about SCNT is that, when successfully accomplished, it leads to cell lines that exactly match the DNA of the patient you are trying to treat.  That gives you the best chance of avoiding rejection and other incompatibility problems.  And that is what the South Korean researchers did.  In contrast, because a "surplus" embryo from an in vitro clinic is the result of a sperm cell fertilizing an egg cell, the DNA of that embryo is unique and does not match anyone.  A cell line derived from a "surplus" embryo might be useful for research, but my guess is that the more promising therapeutic possibilities will come from SCNT.  I am no scientist, but this just strikes me as common sense.

Second, on the moral and ethical issues: I've pounded away at Mitt Romney's "OK to use surplus embryos, but not to engage in SCNT" position on numerous occasions, so I don't need to restate the whole argument here.  Here's the short version: it doesn't make ANY sense to me.  A "surplus" embryo is a fertilized egg cell that, if implanted into a woman's uterus, has a good chance of developing into a living breathing human (as Bush's photo-op with children who were adopted as "surplus" embryos was designed to show).  And it was created with the intention of having a baby.  If the couple that created the embryo now does not want to use it, that does not change the nature of the embryo.  SCNT, in contrast, does not involve the fertilization of an egg cell.  It is a scientific trick whereby an egg cell whose nuclear material has been replaced is induced to divide, thereby creating genetic carbon copies of itself.  No ethical scientist undertakes this procedure with the intention of trying to create a human being, and it is not very likely that it would work even if it were tried. 

I can appreciate that certain religious or moral points of view would have a problem with either of these methods of undertaking embryonic stem cell research.  My point is that SCNT seems to me far less objectionable than the use of "surplus" embryos.  So the House bill, and Governor Romney's position, seem to me exactly backward - they are less likely to encourage the most promising avenues of scientific research, and they are less morally and ethically defensible, than a policy encouraging SCNT.

Looking bad for medical marijuana

SCOTUSblog has this interesting post about the cases that remain to be decided in the current Supreme Court term.

Of particular note is that it seems almost certain that Justice Stevens and Justice Souter are writing the majority opinions in Miller-El (a death penalty case involving a claim of racial discrimination in jury selection) and Raich (a case challenging the federal government's right to prohibit the personal use of marijuana for medicinal purposes).  There's no way of knowing which is them is writing which opinion, but it hardly matters - I'd guess that both of their views on both cases are the same.  I'd say the chances are about 90% that Mr. Miller-El (the defendant) will win his case and it will once again be sent back to the lower courts for further proceedings (the lower courts really screwed this one up), and that federal authority over the personal use of marijuana, including for medical purposes, will be upheld.  I predicted months ago that Raich would be decided 8-1 (Thomas dissenting) in favor of the government, and I'll stand by that prediction.  We should know soon.

"Extraordinary circumstances"

As anyone who reads lefty blogs knows by now, there's been a great deal of hand-wringing over whether the Deal that averted the nucular option was a good idea for the Democrats.  I want to weigh in on one aspect of this.  Some are worried that Janice Rogers Brown is as extreme a nominee as Bush is likely to be able to find, so if she is guaranteed a vote, how can Democrats credibly argue that anyone else constitutes the "extraordinary circumstances" that justify a filibuster?  In other words, if she doesn't constitute "extraordinary circumstances," who would?

In my view, this concern is based upon a misreading of the agreement.  To me, nothing in the agreement sets Brown up as a non-"extraordinary circumstance" (nor, for that matter, do I think it sets up Myers and Saad as "extraordinary circumstances").  All the deal does is commit the signatories to vote for cloture on Brown - it doesn't characterize her nomination in any respect.

Look at the structure of the original document carefully.  The deal has two distinct parts, Part I ("Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations") and Part II ("Commitments for Future Nominations").  In Part I, the document simply says that the 14 signatories are committed to voting for cloture on Brown, Owen, and Pryor, and that they are not committed on Myers or Saad.  In Part II, it says that with respect to "future nominations," judicial filibusters should only be undertaken in "extraordinary circumstances."

What the deal does not say is that Brown, Owen, or Pryor wouldn't constitute "extraordinary circumstances."  The deal in fact says nothing at all about what "extraordinary circumstances" are, other than that each Senator is expected to use "his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist."  To me, it is a perfectly defensible reading of the agreement - actually, I think it's the best reading - to say that the commitment to vote for cloture on certain pending nominees simply has nothing to do with the "extraordinary circumstances" standard applicable to future nominations.  After all, the former is in Part I of the agreement, while the latter is in Part II.

And don't you believe for a second that this is a hypertechnical, legalistic reading that the people drafting the deal weren't aware of - every word of this deal, including the headings and subheadings, was hashed out by these Senators and their counsel and staffs over weeks of difficult negotiations.  I cannot imagine that this point would have been lost on anyone involved (if it was, all of their lawyers should be fired).

In short: the notion that Janice Rogers Brown or Priscilla Owen or William Pryor somehow "sets the bar" for "extraordinary circumstances" is a misinterpretation of the agreement.  "Extraordinary circumstances" will be defined only when one or more of the signatories to the agreement decides to vote against cloture on a judicial nomination other than Myers or Saad.  And we will know if this deal can hold together when we see how the Republican signatories react to that definition of "extraordinary circumstances."

In other news, Think Progress reports that Frist has said that he intends to seek cloture on William Myers (who has already been reported out of the Judiciary Committee).  If this is true, it's a quick way of testing some of the agreement's parameters as well as the resolve of its signatories.  Also, and perhaps even more interestingly, the Hill reports Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) as indicating that some (unidentified) nominees would be rejected in an up-or-down vote.  That would be quite remarkable.  Brown seems to me the most likely candidate, although maybe Myers or Saad would be rejected too.

A good deed in Arlington

So I got a call from my mother this morning.  She was distraught because she had gone to Arlington, but when she got back to her car her keys were missing.  They weren't in her purse, or visibly in her car, or anywhere on the pavement that she could see.  She left a note on the car (saying "lost keys - please don't ticket") and called me, and I picked her up and took her back home.

Later, when she went back with my dad to look again for the keys, someone had found them and placed them on the windshield on top of the note.  Neither the person who found the keys, nor anyone who walked by the car and noticed that the keys were sitting there, drove the car away.  And our "good samaritan," who not only took the trouble to retrieve the keys from wherever they were but also to figure out which car they belonged to, did not leave a name or number so that we could thank him or her in person.  Just an anonymous good deed.

So to our mystery good samaritan: thank you.  Relatively small but truly thoughtful deeds like this one do tend to strengthen my sense that - despite what one reads in the papers on many days - most people really are decent sorts.

Debate ends on Priscilla Owen

The Senate voted 81-18 to end debate on Priscilla Owen's nomination to the 5th Circuit, setting up an up-or-down vote soon (and you can be sure the result will be "up").  Local boys Kennedy and Kerry both voted "no" (i.e., voted to continue debate).  Not voting was Daniel Inouye (D-HI), one of the signatories on the Deal.

Of "memos" and "minutes"

My post of a few days ago regarding the so-called "Downing Street Memo" led to my receipt of a lengthy email which appears to be mostly a reprint of this Daily Kos diary.  The point of the email (and the diary) is that the "memo" is in fact not a "memo," but rather "minutes" of a meeting.  And, the author concludes, because "minutes" are "legal documents" while "memos" are not, the Downing Street "minutes" could lead to some sort of legal action against someone (Bush?), whereas a "memo" would not have the same impact.

I'm not so sure.  Yes, "minutes" is the term normally used to refer to a record of what happened at a meeting, whereas a "memo" is just a communication from one person to another.  And yes, "minutes" do have legal import in the context of corporate law.  But whether they have any legal import in a context like this is quite another matter.  The problem is twofold.  First, unlike the corporate context, I am not aware that government officials are under any sort of legal obligation to maintain accurate "minutes" of their meetings - it may be a good idea, but I don't know that it's required.  Second, it is (unfortunately) not illegal for the government to lie to the people (in contrast, it is illegal for a corporation to lie to its shareholders, at least in certain contexts).  So let us assume that these "minutes" do in fact "prove" that Bush lied to the people of this country when he told us that he had not decided to go to war in Iraq prior to March of 2003 (when in fact he had), and that he was not bending intelligence to fit the policy (when in fact he was).  What then?  Anyone who thinks that some international tribunal is going to make Bush and Blair out to be war criminals is not living on this planet, and if it were to come to an impeachment trial in this country (ha ha), the distinction between "memo" and "minutes" would be relatively unimportant because an impeachment trial is not a courtroom proceeding and is not bound by rules of evidence.

So let me be clear: as I've said from the very first day that the contents of this document were revealed, this is an important development that shows - perhaps more clearly than any other single piece of evidence - that Bush misled this country about Iraq.  But whether we call it a "memo" regarding a meeting, or "minutes" of a meeting, or a "memo" that contains "minutes," or anything else, strikes me as relatively unimportant (and, since the catch-phrase "Downing Street Memo" seems to have taken hold, I don't see much harm in sticking with it).  What's important is the contents.  They are very important indeed.

The Deal

MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS

We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date, rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic Leader Reid.  This memorandum confirms an understanding among the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence, related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th Congress.

This memorandum is in two parts.  Part I relates to the currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.

We have agreed to the following:

Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations

A.  Votes for Certain Nominees.  We will vote to invoke cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown (D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla Owen (5th Circuit).

B.  Status of Other Nominees.  Signatories make no commitment to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th Circuit).

Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations

A.  Future Nominations.  Signatories will exercise their responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the United States Constitution in good faith.  Nominees should only be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in determining whether such circumstances exist.

B.  Rules Changes.  In light of the spirit and continuing commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by any means other than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.

We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United States Constitution, the word "Advice" speaks to consultation between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of the President's power to make nominations.  We encourage the Executive branch of government to consult with members of the Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.

Such a return to the early practices of our government may well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies the advice and consent process in the Senate.

We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek to uphold.

E. Benjamin Nelson             John McCain
Mike DeWine                      John Warner
J. Lieberman                      Robert Byrd
Susan Collins                       Mary Landrieu
Mark Pryor                          Olympia Snowe
Lindsey Graham                   Ken Salazar
Lincoln Chafee                    Daniel Inouye

Senate reaches deal to avoid nuclear option

A group of seven Democratic and seven Republican senators have reached an agreement that apparently will avoid the invocation of the nucular option that would have demolished the Senate rules and ended the use of the filibuster on judicial nominees.  According to Sen. John McCain's brief outline of the deal:

Janice Rogers Brown, Priscilla Owen, and William Pryor will get up or down votes.

William Myers and Henry Saad are not guaranteed up or down votes (i.e., no commitment from Democrats not to filibuster).

"Extraordinary circumstances" is the key for future cloture votes - if such circumstances are present, then it would presumably be permissible to filibuster a nominee.  What that actually means, and who would decide whether the condition is met, is as yet unclear.

I will post a copy of the agreement as soon as I can find one.

UPDATE: The deal is here.

Some brilliant reporting in Washington state

Remember the gubernatorial election in Washington state - the unbelievably close one that Republican Dino Rossi won in the first count, won in the machine recount, but then lost in the hand re-recount to Democrat Christine Gregoire?  Well, it's not over.  In fact, it's about to go to trial, with Rossi claiming that illegal votes and other election problems tipped the election.

And, on the day before the trial starts, comes this outstanding report by the Seattle Times.  Rossi's biggest claim is that a large number of felons voted illegally.  But the Times's report shows pretty convincingly that even if you disqualify those felon votes, Rossi still lost.  It's a devastating article for Rossi, and a real journalistic tour de force.  Go read it - it explains how both sides are trying to make their case, and how Rossi's case doesn't work.

Rossi should give up.  It was really, really close, but he lost, and it's absolutely ridiculous to expect the people of Washington state to go through another election at this late date based on highly questionable statistical models - Gregoire has been Governor for nearly six months.  Get on with your life, Dino.

Hat tip: election law blog.

UPDATE: The trial judge has dismissed Rossi's fraud claim, leaving him only the claim that illegal votes were cast.  In light of the Times's analysis, it's looking grim for Rossi.  Boo hoo.

What a WHINER!

Conservative guru Grover Norquist, originator of the charming "get [the federal government] down to the size where we can drown it in the bathtub" quip, has gotten swept up in DeLayGate.  Turns out Norquist was a little too chummy with nefarious lobbyist and friend-of-Tom-Delay Jack Abramoff.  Oopsie.

A congressional committee headed by Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) tried for six months to negotiate with Norquist regarding records of his group, Americans for Tax Reform, which the committee wanted to see in connection with its Abramoff-related investigation.  Norquist refused, so finally the records have been subpoenaed.  Norquist's response when asked about his organization's little legal problem:

McCain hates me.

Whiner.

New NY Times "public editor" chastises slow coverage of "Downing Street Memo"

The new "public editor" of the NY Times, Byron Calame, has concluded that the NYT was slow on the uptake regarding the "Downing Street Memo," a secret document containing minutes of a high-level intelligence meeting regarding preparations for the Iraq war.  Although the British press reported the contents of the memo on May 1, in the run-up to the British election, the NYT didn't write about its impact here until this past Friday.  Mr. Calame writes:

key editors simply were slow to recognize that the minutes of a high-powered meeting on a life-and-death issue - their authenticity undisputed - probably needed to be assessed in some fashion for readers.  Even if the editors decided it was old news that Mr. Bush had decided in July 2002 to attack Iraq or that the minutes didn't provide solid evidence that the administration was manipulating intelligence, I think Times readers deserved to know that earlier than today's article.

Righto, Mr. Calame.  Really, the importance of this memo was evident to anyone who bothered to read what it said - even we here at this humble Mass.-focused blog thought it was pretty obvious that the memo showed Bush to be (as we delicately put it) a big fat liar.  And the editors' explanations for not covering the story, as provided to Mr. Calame, are not terribly convincing.  The editors gave basically two reasons for their decision.  First, they seem to be saying that everyone already knew that Bush was lying about when he decided to attack Iraq.  But that's silly - just saying that "everyone knew" it is a lot different from having a British intelligence memo that actually shows it to be true.  Second, they say that the head of British Intelligence's conclusion that "intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" wasn't proof that that was true.  Please.  It may not be rock-solid proof, but it's certainly "news" that the head of British intelligence thought that was the case.

In short, America's "newspaper of record" blew the story on Iraq yet again.  What a huge failure on the part of this incredibly influential media outlet.

Bubble bubble toil and trouble: duuhhhh edition

It's a bubble because ... uh ... people, like, can't afford it:

The gap between income and Massachusetts home prices is the widest since the peak of the 1980s housing bubble, and that gap, intensified by rising interest rates, should cause home prices to dip later this year, according to an economic forecast released yesterday.

And check out the graph. If you've looked around the real estate market lately, and asked yourself, "Who the hell has the kind of money for places like these?" Well, the answer is: Uhhhhh... apparently not us.

Then there's this:

Economists said yesterday that the longer prices soar, the more severe the correction is likely to be. Mark Zandi, chief economist of Economy.com, said the housing market, fueled by low interest rates, is becoming increasingly speculative in many metropolitan markets, including Boston. This means buyers, instead of basing decisions on fundamentals, are betting that prices will rise, leading them to stretch their finances and take out risky, short-term mortgages that are vulnerable to interest-rate increases

In California, for example, two-thirds of mortgages in the first three months of the year were interest-only adjustable rate mortgages. [emphasis mine]. Buyers pay only interest for the first few years of the mortgage, after which rates are adjusted and principal payments begin. These mortgages mean lower initial payments, but should interest rates jump, it could make the mortgages unaffordable for some, leading to defaults, foreclosure sales, and falling prices.

Yikes. I wish I had the ARM statistics for MA.

And Alan Greenspan got into the action, too, quaffing the froth of certain local markets ... Hrm, whom could he be talking about?

And what's it all got to do with the price of tea in China? Paul Krugman talks about China buying our debt, thereby keeping our interest rates low and propping up our housing bubble. (Can you "prop up a bubble"? Never mind.)

Medford still not sold on Green Line extension

There are a couple of articles worth perusing in today's Globe on the proposed Green Line extension.  This one has a brief note from "Susan of West Medford" noting that West Medford already has easy access to the commuter rail plus several bus routes that go to Red, Green, and Orange Line T stops, and concluding that "West Medford does not need the Green Line extension being proposed."  And in a "Starts & Stops/NorthWest" column in the "Globe NorthWest" section that I can't find in the online edition, there is a longer story noting one of the big concerns:

The plan calls for running Green Line trolleys along a train track now used by Boston-to-Lowell commuter trains.  The current plan has the trolleys running five minutes apart from each other.  Robert Pasquariello, owner of Shore Pharmacy in West Medford, said people are worried about the Green Line's impact on the neighborhood.  Traffic is already a problem because when the commuter rail trains cross Route 60, traffic comes to a halt.  "It depends on the impact to the neighborhood.  If there is a parking program and a bridge [so trains travel above the street] people probably wouldn't be against it," he said.

I'm not sure I fully agree with "Susan" that West Medford has no need of the Green Line - buses are less convenient than trains, and the commuter rail is difficult to deal with in the evenings or on weekends because it runs so infrequently.  However, I have some experience with the West Medford railroad crossing, and I'll tell you this: there's no way it could handle the crossing gates going up and down every five minutes.  The only way the Green Line could make use of the Lowell line tracks without destroying the West Medford neighborhood would be by building either a bridge or a tunnel so that traffic on Route 60 doesn't have to stop every time a Green Line train goes through.  And parking is another concern, because I just don't know where the extra cars would go.  West Medford is pretty built up already.

So...let's see the plans.  The NorthWest article reports that state Rep. Carl Sciortino (D-Somerville) will be meeting with Medford Mayor Michael McGlynn this week, and that public hearings will follow.  Stay tuned.

Romney's operation coming unhinged

Item: a deal through which Governor Mitt Romney might have been able to walk away from the stem cell debate with something like half a loaf (Sen. Pres. Travaglini was reportedly considering adopting two of Romney's proposed amendments to the bill) falls apart because Romney's chief spokesman, Eric Fehrnstrom, chose the wrong moment to trash the legislature on budgetary issues.  To be fair, it appears that the Globe mischaracterized Fehrnstrom's comments somewhat by saying that they were about legislative pay raises when in fact they were about state workers' contributions to their health insurance, but surely Fehrnstrom should have just kept his big mouth shut until Romney and Trav sealed the deal, no?  And, according to the Globe, the normally unflappable Romney was in fact quite flapped when he found out that the deal had collapsed, leading state Sen. Fred Berry to comment that "the Governor was so upset his hair was shaking."  Heh.

Item: Romney's top policy guy, Tim Murphy, sends shock waves through the health care community by stating that getting hospitals to be more aggressive in recovering health care debts from poor people will be an important part of how Romney will fund his health care plan.  Poor Eric Fehrnstrom was so freaked by Murphy's comments that he apparently tried to declare the entire conversation "off the record," thereby keeping Murphy's comments out of the papers, but the Globe wouldn't have it. 

I don't know exactly what's going on here, but I can tell the Mittster this: if you want to run for President, you'd better get control of your PR operation pronto.  Message control is everything in Republican politics these days, and your team is looking pretty lame in that department.

No new taxes, no more services

This thoughtful post on a Cape Cod town's rejection of a Prop. 2-1/2 override is well worth a read.  The stakes were pretty high - the failure of the override will mean that town employees will lose their jobs and town services will be cut back.  People apparently knew this, yet the override failed.  The reasons why, as set out in the post, are worth pondering.

Local boy and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famously declared that "taxes are what we pay for a civilized society."  Now there's someone who knew how to frame an issue!  Don't get me wrong: I'm not for every tax increase that comes down the pike, and I understand that there can be good reasons to vote against a Prop. 2-1/2 override (one good example in the Cape Cod post: older people who have been in their homes for a long time but who live on fixed incomes may find that their homes are valued at many times what they paid for them and that they simply cannot afford to have their property taxes go up again).  But - as we've said on several occasions 'round these parts - Deval Patrick's approach to this issue is exactly right.  Tell me what you want government to do and how you will pay for it, and then let's talk about how much tax we should be paying.

Surprise! Clever scientists outpace stupid politicians

The science world is abuzz with the news of South Korean scientists' breakthrough in embryonic stem cell research.  These scientists have managed to tremendously increase the efficiency with which stem cell lines can be created from unfertilized egg cells that have undergone nuclear transfer, and also - crucially - they have for the first time created stem cell lines that are genetically matched to patients that have a genetic disease.  The scientists created 11 new cell lines, one of which was genetically identical to a patient who has juvenile diabetes and another of which matched a patient with an inherited immune disorder (the other nine lines match the DNA of patients with spinal cord injuries).  There are more detailed reports from Science Magazine here and here (free registration is required).

On the national political front, the news is much as you would expect.  President Bush has stated his intention to veto a bill pending in the House that would undo Bush's policy of not allowing federal funds to be used for research that would create new embryonic stem cell lines - precisely the sort of research that the South Korean team just announced.  The bill may well have the votes to pass the Republican-controlled House and Senate, though probably not by a veto-proof margin.  So there's no immediate prospect of federal funds being made available for this research, thereby guaranteeing that researchers in other countries will continue to outpace those in the U.S.

Speaking of veto-proof margins, though, the news on the local front is better: the state legislature has rejected Gov. Romney's proposed "amendments" to the stem cell research bill and will probably ship it back to his desk soon.  Romney, of course, will veto it, but there is no reason to think that the veto-proof majorities by which the bill passed the first time won't hold up when it comes time to override.  So the stem cell researchers at Harvard and other local institutions may have to continue to fi