Take That, Texas!

For John, BLUF:  there are positive reasons for doing things.  Doing it for spite is not a positive reason.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Pandemic-Era Voting Reforms Made Permanent In Senate Bill

From State House News Service, by Reporter Chris Lisinski, 30 September 2021, 4:38 PM.

Here is the lede:

Just more than two months before COVID-era voting provisions are set to expire, the Senate will debate an elections reform bill next week that would make mail-in voting and expanded early voting permanent options and align Massachusetts with more than 20 other states that allow same-day voter registration, a change that might meet resistance from the governor.

I found this interesting extract at MASSterList:

Senate leadership unveiled the bill last week, heralding it as a way to push back against more restrictive laws passed in other parts of the country.

"Take that, Texas!"  Massachusetts will make its voting a little less secure just to spite you.

I would be a lot more impressed with Beacon Hill if they passed an ID to Vote bill.  Yes, we should make voting easy for our Citizen, but 3we should be sure the voters are Citizens.♠ 

Hat tip to the MASSterLisgt.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  An example of what we should be doing is providing convenient polling places.  For exapple, Lowell's District 4, the Bow Tie district, because of configurtion, could use three polling locations, at least one north of the Merrimack River.

Justice Thomas Speaks Up

For John, BLUF:  Associate Justice Clarence Thomas is famous for not asking questions during oral arguments.  However, during the Pandemic, when questions were asked in turn, via telephone, he spoke up when it was his turn.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

"Justice Clarence Thomas, who once went a decade without asking a question from the Supreme Court bench, is about to complete a term in which he was an active participant in every single argument...."

From Althouse, Professor Ann Althouse, 3 May 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

"The justices now ask questions one at a time, in order of seniority.  Justice Thomas, who joined the court in 1991, goes second, right after Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., asking probing questions in his distinctive baritone....  If Justice Thomas’s questions differed from those of his colleagues, it was in their courtesy.  He almost never interrupted lawyers, though he asked pointed follow-up questions if there was time left.  Some of his most memorable comments were colorful asides.  Over the course of the last term, Justice Thomas mused about the ballooning salaries of college football coaches, said a police officer’s supposed 'hot pursuit' struck him as a 'meandering pursuit,' commented on the 'sordid roots' of a Louisiana law enacted to advance white supremacy and wondered how public schools should address students’ comments 'about current controversies, like protests or Black Lives Matter, antifa or Proud Boys.'...  The justices hope to return to the courtroom when the new term starts in October.  Once he is back on the bench, will Justice Thomas revert to his usual taciturnity?...  '[It's] fair to say that Justice Thomas may well prefer the orderly questioning of the current format as opposed to the feeding frenzy that can dominate when the justices are on the bench together.'  Irv Gornstein, the executive director of Georgetown’s Supreme Court Institute, said that 'there is one and only one way he will not return to form — if they retain justice-by-justice questioning.  And the odds of that happening.... are approximately zero.'"

Writes Adam Liptak in "Justice Clarence Thomas, Long Silent, Has Turned Talkative/The Supreme Court’s orderly telephone arguments, prompted by the pandemic, have given the public a revealing look at its longest-serving member" (NYT).

The only black person on the Supreme Court was silent for a decade, then using a new method, he became a fully equal participant, and the odds of preserving the new method are approximately zero?  Is that racist?

I don't think that Justice Thomas will return to his old ways.  I think he will look for opportunities and voice his questions and comments.  He may have found that he likes asking questions.

To answer Professor Althouse's question, no, it is not racism.  It is personality.  But, I think I could argue the opposite, that Justice Thomas, a Conservative Black member of the Court might feel that to ask questions in a somewhat rowdy environment, with several Progressive women in competition might come across wrong due to his race and political orientation  Yes, he might feel he has what he needs by reading and listening and there is no need to stir things up.  That would be sad.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Let's Not Go Back to Normal at School

For John, BLUF:  As you suspect, John, a lot of people think we should be doing testing of our students.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Pandemic Didn't Create Inequality. It Revealed How Broken Public Education Is | Opinion

From Newsweek, by Shaka Mitchell, 15 April 2021.

Here is the lede plus six:

One of the biggest impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic has been on parents.  In many states, the pandemic resulted in the immediate cancellation of in-person schooling and a pivot to virtual classes, which meant that this time last year, parents were in triage mode, navigating video conferences, Chromebook firewalls, and any number of connectivity issues.

It's well established by now that the challenges posed by the pandemic disproportionately affected students in high-poverty schools, in communities where the internet can be elusive, assistance nonexistent, and even food shortages common.  Parents who could not work remotely scrambled to find a place for their kids to spend the day.  Many quit their jobs altogether, and still, children in these communities fell even further behind.

But while the pandemic has exacerbated educational inequities, it did not create them.  And those urging us to "return to normal" would do well to recall just what "normal" meant for millions of students in the U.S:

Normal was a situation where, in my state of Tennessee, only one in three students reads at grade level.  For students of color, the number is closer to one in five.

Normal was a public school system in which students who look like me, a man of color, are suspended three times as often as their white counterparts.

Normal was only six percent of Black students meeting all four ACT college readiness benchmarks.

Who wants to get "back to normal"?

The Writer then goes on to discuss how the Pandemic has opened the eyes of parents to issues within their children's schools and school districts and the need for additional options for learning.

The Writer then goes on to tackle testing:

For instance, some proponents of the status quo have already proposed canceling academic testing so as not to traumatize students.  That's like being in the midst of a diabetes epidemic and throwing out scales because we don't want to body shame.  We owe it to our kids to know exactly how they are doing so that we can help.  That's what it means to be "student-centered."

Testing should not be just a way for racking and stacking students for college admissions or for determining graduation readiness.  It should also be a diagnostic tool for helping all of us see where we need more work within our school processes.  That our teachers unions are pressuring DESE (Commonwealth Department of Elementary and Secondary Education) to not resume testing is not a good thing.  It is a vote for "normal" when reform is needed.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Urgent Matters on Beacon Hill

For John, BLUF:  An EMail from Mr Evan Lips, MASS GOP Communications Director, alterted me to this.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Massachusetts House To Vote On Expanding Abortion Access

From WGBH, by Reporter Mike Deehan, 9 November 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

House lawmakers will vote on allowing abortions after 24 weeks and ending parental consent for the procedure this week when they take up their budget bill.

A version of the ROE Act, redrafted and filed by Judiciary Committee Chairwoman Claire Cronin, will come up for a vote with Speaker Robert DeLeo's blessing this week when the House tackles nearly 800 budget amendments.

In a statement, DeLeo wrote that "it is urgent that the House take up an immediate measure to remove barriers to women’s reproductive health options and protect the concepts enshrined in Roe v. Wade," in state law.

So what is urgent at this time?  I would think that the cause of urgency would be laid out, but then I am a Republican.

Not mentioned by Reporter Deehan is that the model bill, the ROE Act, includes the authority to terminate the life of those who survive abortion, or birth.  Mr Lips wrote:

Massachusetts Republican Party Chairman Jim Lyons said Monday.  “As WBUR reported, this budget amendment is essentially the same bill as the so-called ROE Act which allows babies who have survived abortions to be killed on the spot.”

How does ending a live birth help the Mother?  Are there no adoption agencies?  Have they all be squeezed out?  Or does the Mother need to know the child is extinguished in order to move on with her life?

Regards  —  Cliff

Triage in a Time of Pandemic

For John, BLUF:  When medical capabilities run short, some will get support and some won't.  The question is the rules to be followed.  For example, Italy saying no medical support to those 60 and over, seems to be arbitrary and wrong.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ethicists, lawyers see dangers in rationing of scarce health resources

From The Boston Pilot, by Ms Nancy Frazier O'Brien, 25 March 2020.

Here is the lede plus four:

Catholic ethicists and legal experts are sounding the alarm that the scarcity of resources such as ventilators and hospital beds during the current coronavirus pandemic could prompt health care decisions based only on age and disability -- and in some cases already is.

Decisions on life-saving care based solely on those criteria are unjust, discriminatory and a violation of federal civil rights law, they say.

One of the strongest and most persistent voices has been that of Charles Camosy, an associate professor of theological and social ethics at Fordham University in New York, one of the hardest-hit U.S. cities.

"It should not be up to physicians to decide whose subjective quality of life deserves to be prolonged," he wrote in a March 19 opinion piece in the New York Post.  "If rationing arrives, we must stand up unambiguously for the marginalized and vulnerable."

He was especially critical of the Italian government for reportedly recommending that health care resources be rationed by age and limited to those who "could enjoy the largest number of life-years saved."  Italy has had nearly 70,000 confirmed cases of COVID-19 and more than 6,800 deaths as of March 25.

A short article with a lot of food for thought.

Regards  —  Cliff