Tom Keane

Take away lawmakers’ easy way out on gas tax

RAISING TAXES is a job for politicians, not something to be handed off to the consumer price index. For that reason alone, Question 1 — on the gas tax — deserves voters’ approval.

State legislators last year passed an increase to the gas tax, the first in since 1991, pushing it from 21 cents a gallon to 24 cents. Those who worry about Massachusetts’ “crumbling bridges and roadways” — a bit of rhetorical excess, perhaps — were thrilled. In truth, the rise wasn’t all that much: 3 cents over that span of time amounts to a very modest annual uptick of less than three-quarters of 1 percent. And the higher levy is still below national averages.

None of that seems a problem. But the new law added a troubling twist: Henceforth the gas tax would rise automatically each year, going up by the rate of inflation. It’s that twist that provoked a group of activists, organized under the banner of “Tank the Gas Tax,” to spearhead a ballot question to overturn the law.

The “Tank” folks somewhat misleadingly try to tap into voter anger over tax waste or inept government, pointing, for example, to $50 million spent on Evergreen Solar, remodeling of the governor’s office, and the crime lab scandal. All are red herrings. The gas tax is by law dedicated to transportation improvements. Question 1 won’t do a whit to affect any of the abuses proponents cite.

For their part, those urging defeat trot out misinformation as well. They make a persuasive case about the need to invest in transportation improvements. But they also say Question 1 will be “taking away existing gas tax revenues.” It won’t. Despite its name, the “Tank the Gas Tax” folks actually aren’t tanking the tax at all, nor are they even rolling back the 3-cent increase. All they seek to do is prevent it from automatically going up.

There’s a logic to indexing a tax to inflation. The costs of roadwork rise each year, and it seems sensible to just have the resources available keep pace. Of course, one could make the same argument about everything, including household budgets. Alas, families don’t get their own automatic increases, meaning that for many higher gas taxes would eat into family budgets, forcing consumers to cut elsewhere. This is not an insignificant problem: The compounding effect of annual inflation increases can prove quite large. If automatic indexing had been in effect since 1991 (when it was 21 cents), for example, the gas tax today would stand at a whopping 36 cents.

It was tough enough for the Legislature in 2013 to increase the tax to 24 cents. If it had tried for 36 cents, I suspect, many pols this November would be fighting for their political lives.

That point underscores the seductiveness of indexing — at least to politicians. Elected officials can simply wash their hands of the annual increases, shrugging their shoulders and saying it’s not their fault. It’s a great way to shirk responsibility. Moreover, once in place, the increases are potentially locked in, reversed only at risk of throwing the state into default for future bonds it might issue.

All of which underscores, for taxpayers, the dangers. The English philosopher John Locke famously wrote in 1690, “The legislative cannot transfer the power of making laws to any other hands.” That’s because, in a representative government, those elected by the people need to remain accountable to the people. By allowing taxes to step up inexorably, based merely on a formula, the Legislature has delegated away its authority, largely removing from public view and public check something that I think almost everyone would acknowledge is a core function of government — the power to tax.

If Question 1 passes, by the way, there’s no reason the Legislature can’t meet annually to try to boost the gas tax by the consumer price index or any other amount. Granted, any proposed increases will be scrutinized and debated. But that’s the way it should be. Opponents of Question 1 fear that forcing politicians to vote on changes to the gas tax would make rises less likely, and they may well be right. But that’s less of a problem than saying voters no longer have a voice.

This column was first published in The Boston Globe on September 30, 2014. 

Allston’s Green District: High-end housing without high-end prices

Luxury housing is booming in Boston, and policy makers and politicians are concerned. It’s not that they don’t like rich people. But they worry the middle class is getting priced out and they fear a city of just the rich and the poor. Cheap talk doesn’t help much, however. What’s needed is cheaper housing, and a model for that, perhaps, can be found in Allston.

One of Boston’s 23 neighborhoods, Allston is filled what some call character and others call grit, graced with an eclectic mix of ethnic restaurants, interesting watering holes, and funky shops — the kind of places once found in Harvard Square or upper Newbury Street before high rents and high-end retailing drove them out. It is also ground zero for lousy landlords and oftentimes overcrowded, dangerous housing that feeds on students and post-grads looking for a cut-rate place to live.

Standing in sharp contrast is a new residential development, billed as the Green District, that offers up two interesting lessons: It’s possible to build high-quality, middle-market housing, and — especially to younger folks — environmental responsibility sells.

The Green District is a moniker attached to eight buildings bounded north-south by Commonwealth Avenue and Brainerd Road and east-west by Griggs and Redford streets. Five are rehabs; three are brand new. The idea was hatched by local developer Bruce Percelay just as the market was crashing and some were predicting even more gloom to come. Instead, Percelay bought land, demolished some derelict, industrial-style buildings, and set about trying to create a new community.

In retrospect, it all seems so logical. But at the time, the risks were huge. Percelay signed personally for the needed loans. “I bet the farm,” he says. As it turns out, it’s a wager he won; he’s reached a deal to sell the three new buildings to National Development of Newton for $150 million, installing him firmly as a member of the one percent. His real estate firm, Mount Vernon Co., continues to manage the buildings, however, so he finds himself around there most every day.

Rents at the Green District buildings are 30 to 50 percent below those high-end developments. That doesn’t make them inexpensive, but “you don’t need to make $200,000 to live here,” Percelay says. At the same time, the residences have all of the amenities found in their more deluxe brethren: workout spaces, media and club rooms, roof decks with gas grills (one also has a small putting green), and pet grooming stations. The new buildings are LEED certified (one gold, two platinum — the best possible). Solar panels dot rooftops, producing all the electricity needed for common areas. High heat-flow resistance values conserve energy. Roofs are painted white, a way to reduce the urban “heat island” effect. Water is separately metered (a practice Percelay says reduces consumption 40 percent). Recycling and composting are made easy, there are secure sections for residents’ bikes, and filtered water dispensers discourage the use of throwaways. Zipcars, a Hubway bike stand, and a T stop out front make a car-free life possible although parking is also readily available.

How was Percelay able to build all of this and still price below the competition? It helps that the land was cheaper than downtown. Then too, his buildings aren’t expensive steel but rather are wood-framed. Apartments are smaller too, a common trend in new urban housing, without being claustrophobic.

The result is high-end housing without high-end prices. And the green image adds to the appeal. The last of the buildings just opened this month, and it’s already full.

Percelay’s brainchild reminds me of the Millennium Partners development in what used to be the Combat Zone. Its sheer scale had a transformative effect, changing for much the better the once-troubled character of the area. One can see the same thing happening with the Green District, remaking Allston as well.

But the change is more subtle, edging Allston upwards rather than pushing out the old. The Green District buildings have a modern feel but they’re not ostentatious; five stories tall, they’re in keeping with the area’s modest skyline. Longtime residents seem delighted with the results. Sustainable living, moderate pricing, and a community focus: Boston could use a lot more developers like Percelay.

This column was first published in The Boston Globe on September 23, 2014.

Extremism won’t make a governor

Thirty-six governors’races are up for grabs this year, including, of course, the Bay State’s own. But while the national political chatter focuses on the prospect of the Republican Party securing a majority in the US Senate, when it comes to the hinterlands, things are more complicated.

Democrats may be on the ropes in Congress, but not necessarily so in state capitals. And for those accustomed to the national GOP’s refrains of “no, no, no,” the tune at the state level is much different. Governors — Democratic or Republican — actually have to govern, making for a refreshing change from the acrimony in Washington.

Right now, 21 of the nation’s governors are Democrats ,while 29 are Republicans. But only 14 of the Democrats’ seats are in play, while 22 of those now held by Republican governors are open or up for reelection. That creates the prospect that, even as they fall further behind in Congress, Democrats could have a pick-up in governors (or at least stay even). RealClearPolitics’ running total of polling for gubernatorial contests figures that 11 are safe or lean Democratic, 14 are safe or lean Republican and 12 are toss-ups. It’s the toss-ups on which each party pins its hopes.

And how about the Obama factor? In theory, mid-term congressional elections are substantially influenced by the president’s performance. Right now, Barack Obama’s numbers are abysmal; a New York Times/CBS poll out last week showed only 40 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving of his overall job performance. Republicans salivate.

They may not enjoy the meal, however. For one, Obama may be unloved, but so is the national GOP. And the dynamics of state races — particularly for Senate — can be influenced by many factors other than the popularity of the president. That’s why even though a “generic” vote now splits nationally 45 to 39 percent in the GOP’s favor, analysts such as Sam Wang and FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver are uncertain whether that necessarily means Democrats lose the Senate.

The Obama factor can leak into gubernatorial races as well. Some think a tight reelection race for Colorado’s Democratic governor, for example, is due to an Obama “drag.”

But in general, the president’s standing should matter less when it comes to gubernatorial elections. Consider Massachusetts’ own battle between Martha Coakley and Charlie Baker. Some may vote for one or the other because of Obama (or for that matter, John Boehner), but you’d have to think them mighty foolish. Plainly the two gubernatorial candidates differ, and often on ideological lines. But smart voters will try to figure how those differences work to the benefit of Massachusetts, rather than turning the governor’s race into a referendum on the president.

This can be seen elsewhere too. Hawaii and Illinois — both reliably Democratic states — may well elect Republicans for governor this year. Meanwhile, right-wing Kansas may oust Republican governor Sam Brownback for cutting taxes too much. It turns out that even conservatives want a state government capable of delivering basic services.

Another confounding thing about governors is that they don’t necessarily hew to the stereotypes of their parties. Outgoing Texas governor Rick Perry, for instance — yes, the same one who embarrassed himself on the 2012 presidential campaign trail — has made a name for himself in prison reform, pushing for halfway houses and drug courts and opposing mandatory minimum sentencing. For his part, Democratic governor Bill Richardson slashed income and capital gains taxes during his years in office in New Mexico.

That’s not to say governors aren’t above partisanship. Indeed, a former executive director of the National Governors Association bemoans that the body is far less collegial than it once was. Still, partisanship can only go so far. Congressional districts tend to be homogeneous and can easily pull far-left or far-right.

But most of the 50 states are diverse places, with folks of varying incomes, races, ethnicities, religions, and so on. One can’t be a successful candidate (or effective governor) without catering to all of those interests. Thus, there’s a push towards the center. In Massachusetts, for instance, neither Coakley nor Baker can win without gaining the votes of at least some independents (53 percent of all registered voters). Extremism may secure a seat in Congress, but it won’t make one governor.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Sunday Globe on September 21, 2014.

Pelosi should apologize to Republicans

“Civilization as we know it today would be in jeopardy if Republicans win the Senate.”

— REPRESENTATIVE NANCY PELOSI, House minority leader

Pelosi delivered that line on HBO’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” Maher, who makes no secret of his own Democratic leanings, seemed surprised himself, following up with what appeared an absurd comparison: “This and ISIS are threatening civilization?”

To which Pelosi then responded, “Yeah, it is really important.”

Ugh. Equating Republicans to the murderous thugs who beheaded James Foley, Steven Sotloff, and David Haines? It seems so out of bounds, so repugnant as to beggar belief. Indeed, watch the clip of Maher’s show and one suspects from Pelosi’s tone of voice and body language that she was just making a ham-handed attempt at humor. She’s not much of a natural comedian, however. Her laughter as she delivered her lines sounded more diabolical — think Dr. Evil — than ho-ho-ho. And to be frank, under the theory that there’s often an element of truth behind every joke, one has to wonder whether Pelosi really does believe what she said. If so, her world may be soon upended; most political handicappers give better than even chances that this November the Senate in fact will turn Republican.

Pelosi’s language was yet another example of the hyperpartisanship that grips our politics. Granted, it’s an equal opportunity problem. It’s not only that each party uses mockery and caricatures of the other’s leaders to whip up their bases (John Boehner and Pelosi are both frequent targets). That’s campaign stuff and, while offensive, is almost to be expected. But what happens on the campaign trail no longer stays on the campaign trail. President Obama refuses to engage Republicans, governing through executive order on matters such as immigration. The GOP talks of impeachment and won’t even confirm ambassadors for nations such as Turkey and Sierra Leone. A dense and nasty cloud of vituperation hangs over Washington.

Some will argue that this is nothing new, and they have a point. Politics in the 19th century was sometimes especially brutal. In 1856, for example, South Carolina congressman Preston Brooks nearly beat to death Massachusetts senator Charles Sumner. But many of the arguments back then were over slavery, an issue that brooked no compromise and ultimately led to the Civil War.

Through much of the 20th century, however, our politics was far less partisan. Back in the mid-1900s, according to researchers from Brookings and the American Enterprise Institute, Congress was largely dominated by centrists. Today, both parties have become more polarized — the average Republican member is more conservative and the average Democratic member is more liberal (although to a lesser degree). In addition, as congressional districts become safer for each party (a reflection of both gerrymandering and the way that people of like values tend to congregate together), the extreme members of each party find it even easier to get elected, pushing away moderates and further fueling divisions.

These changes in Congress reflect changes in America. One might think that the pervasiveness of mass communication and social networking would mean that we as a nation increasingly share common values and outlooks. But things actually seem to be going in the opposite direction. A June report from the Pew Research Center found that, when it comes to ideology, over the last 20 years Americans have grown progressively apart. On a variety of key issues, the average Republican and Democrat were not that different back in 1994, for example, while today the gap between them has widened considerably. Tellingly, the number of individuals who identify themselves as “consistently” liberal or conservative (as opposed to having a mixed bag of beliefs) has grown as well.

Nevertheless, civility and disagreement are not mutually incompatible. Politics, after all, is the art of bridging divides. And good politicians, even while holding true to their beliefs, need to respect and engage with those from the other side of the aisle. That’s what makes Pelosi’s words so disturbing. They demonize the opposition, making it that much harder to find common ground. There’s no simple cure for D.C.’s partisan ills, but here’s a start: Kidding or not, Pelosi should apologize.

This column was first published in The Boston Globe on September 16, 2014.

A ‘wave’ election? More like a ripple

A friend keeps hoping that each election will be a “wave” election — an election where the voters en masse choose dramatic change. His complaints aren’t ideological. Rather he’s pained by the corruption, inside dealing and outsized influence of special interests that marks politics not only nationally but also in Massachusetts. Throw all the bums out, is his attitude. Last Tuesday’s primaries gave him a glimmer of possibility: Not a wave — a ripple, perhaps — but the voters do seem to be getting restive.

Wave elections — also sometimes called realigning or critical elections — are a favorite of political scientists. The theory is that things bump along for a while, with those in power comfortably staying in power even as little problems build into bigger ones. Eventually, things come to a head. The classic realigning election supposedly was 1932, when Franklin Roosevelt won and an era of Democratic dominance began. Nothing of that kind is happening in the Bay State (if so, we’d now have the prospect of a legislature dominated by newcomers). Still, there are warning signs: In three prominent races, being part of the status quo appears to have hurt, not helped.

The three races were governor, treasurer, and the sixth congressional district. In terms of conventional issues, the Democratic candidates were in sync. Indeed, at times the efforts to paint contrasts seemed almost comical. Attorney general candidate Warren Tolman, for example, engaged in an odd argument with Maura Healey over what’s called smart-gun technology. He said he’d unilaterally require it on guns. She thought legislation was needed. This was not the kind of quarrel to inflame passions; it instead came off like dancing on the head of a pin.

Similarly, with the exception of casino gambling, differences among the gubernatorial candidates — on issues from health care to job creation to income inequality — were more of emphasis than substance. And in the congressional race, incumbent John Tierney was reduced to making absurd claims that his principal challenger, Seth Moulton, was some sort of sleeper agent beholden to John Boehner.

The real differences, instead, had to do with perception. Coakley, Tolman, and Tierney were — much to their dismay — effectively tagged with a set of new curse words: insider, old guard, establishment.

Coakley survived the slurs. But, as had been widely noted, her margin of victory — just six points — was far smaller than anyone expected. Indeed, a Globe poll taken a week before the election showed her with a margin of 22 percent — so great that even the combined votes of fellow Democrats Steve Grossman and Donald Berwick would not have beaten her. But both challengers, each a comparatively fresher face, saw their numbers grow considerably on Election Day. Grossman went from polling 25 percent to getting 36 percent; Berwick went from 13 to 21. More people didn’t want Coakley than wanted her.

Still, she lives to fight another day. Tolman and Tierney do not.

When he announced in last November, the prospect of Tolman becoming attorney general seemed inevitable. He was a familiar face, had innumerable friends and retained exceptionally close ties to labor (his brother heads the Massachusetts AFL-CIO).

Healey’s challenge at first seemed quixotic, then became real and then — in an extraordinary surge over the last two weeks — metamorphosed into something resembling a steamroller. Healy was an unknown. That alone, it seemed, made her worth consideration; her solid resume and sharp debate skills sealed the deal.

John Tierney too departs the stage. He started his fight for re-election fearing a challenge from Republican Richard Tisei, who lost to him by only 3,500 votes two years ago. But it was an opponent from his own party who did him in, voicing a simple theme of change. Towards the end, a desperate Tierney was seeking help from every Democratic stalwart he could find: Nancy Pelosi, Elizabeth Warren, Barney Frank, and Joe Kennedy III. If anything, Tierney’s appeal to his establishment credentials only made Moulton’s case stronger.

One should be careful not to oversell this theme of voters’ desire for something new. Turnout was only 16 percent, after all. Still, candidates who appear to be part of the system should be wary. It’s good to present yourself as an outsider. It’s even better to actually be one.

This column was first published in The Boston Globe on September 11, 2014.

Voters have option other than ‘D’

Today, the real elections begin. The primaries are over and now it’s Democrats versus Republicans, all fighting to win the hearts and minds of the voters.

Well, maybe. This is Massachusetts after all, so blue we could be indigo. In most races around the Commonwealth, the Democratic primary is tantamount to election and, certainly, when it comes to the Legislature and almost all congressional seats, that’s not changing this year.

But that’s not true of every contest, and the two months ahead offer some of real interest.

One is the Sixth Congressional District. Richard Tisei, formerly a state representative and senator and also a nominee for lieutenant governor in 2010, lost to incumbent John Tierney by just 3,500 votes two years ago. He’s sharpened his message this time around and faces newcomer Seth Moulton.

Then there are the constitutional offices. Charlie Baker versus Martha Coakley, of course, will be the one that sucks up most media attention. But the elections for attorney general, treasurer, secretary of state, and auditor bear watching as well. You probably haven’t heard of the GOP candidates yet, and for good reason: All their primaries have been uncontested — a testament, perhaps, to just how few Republicans there are in the state.

One of those Republicans is John Miller, an activist and lawyer who has held senior positions at two locally prominent law firms. He’d like to be attorney general. Treasurer candidate Mike Heffernan co-founded Mobiquity, a high-tech startup with 300-plus employees. Secretary of state nominee Dave D’Arcangelo was a former Malden city councilor. Patricia Saint Aubin, a Republican state committee member, seeks to be auditor.

I’m not saying any of these candidates will or even should win. But in a state so dominated by one party, where a lack of checks and balances have provoked scandal after scandal, voters have options. Before automatically pulling the lever for “D,” they might be worth checking out.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Globe on September 10, 2014, immediately following the September 9 primaries.

The world according to Romney

Mitt Romney is increasingly inserting himself into national affairs. That may be because he’s running for president, or it may simply be that he’s just positioning himself as the GOP’s éminence grise, laying its policy groundwork for 2016.

Last Thursday’s Washington Post featured Romney’s latest, an op-ed laying out a devastating appraisal of the Obama administration’s foreign policy. “Russia invades, China bullies, Iran spins centrifuges, the Islamic State … threatens — and Washington slashes the military,” Romney writes. “Reason stares.”

But it’s not just fear from those threats that worries Romney. He also argues that worldwide disorder is mounting precisely because the United States no longer seems to want to be the world’s policeman. He mocks President Obama’s hope for a “new order . . . based on a sense of common humanity,” observing that “humanity is far from common in values and views.” He dismisses talk of a multi-polar world (“with emerging poles being China, Russia, and Iran, the world would not see peace”) or US isolationism or arguments that the world today is safer than ever before. His rebuttal to that last point is a simple litany: “Ukraine, Afghanistan, Libya, Egypt, Gaza, Nigeria, Somalia, Syria, and Iraq.”

After his loss to Obama in 2012, Romney — unloved by his own party — seemed he would make like MacArthur’s soldier and “just fade away.” In retrospect, though, he began to look better, prompting many to push him forward as a future nominee. Some of that came about because, with the possible exception of Jeb Bush, many in the GOP don’t see any other Republicans with the stature to take on Hillary Clinton, the Democrats’ expected nominee.

At first, Romney’s protests against another run were vociferous (“No, no, no, no. . . ”). Of late they’ve been more equivocal. “Circumstances can change,” he admitted to radio interviewer Hugh Hewitt in late August.

Whether he’s running or not, Romney lays out in his op-ed a comprehensive conception of American power and America’s place in the world. If international issues two years from now are as messy as they are today, Romney’s arguments could become the basis for a presidential run by him or another GOP candidate — one that might have great appeal to folks appalled by the sudden upwelling of conflict and lawlessness around the globe. (Romney’s full-throated defense of American engagement with the world is also a direct riposte to some isolationist members of his own party, such as Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul, who — with the rise of ISIS — is now hastily claiming he really isn’t an isolationist after all.)

Romney’s worldview isn’t something new. Much of the same argument could be found in his 2010 campaign book, “No Apology.” Indeed, in light of today’s turmoil, Romney is looking almost prophetic.

Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton has slowly been creating daylight between herself and Obama’s foreign policy. That’s been the subject of much chatter. To many, it seems the kind of calculated political maneuvering — flip-flopping — that once earned Romney much scorn. But Clinton has always been different from Obama. During her four years as secretary of state, she was careful to appear loyal. Yet her most frequent ally in the administration was Robert Gates, the secretary of defense held over from George W. Bush’s last term. In his memoir, Gates recounts numerous incidents where it was him and Clinton against the rest of Obama’s White House team. When discussions focused on a possible surge in Afghanistan, for instance, Gates writes that he and Clinton “were the outsiders in the session.” Gates and Clinton talked frequently, usually conferring before White House meetings so that they were on the same page. Yes, Clinton (like Obama) is also a fan of soft power — building relationships — but she insists too on the unique and singular role of America in managing world affairs.

All of Romney’s critiques can be debated, of course, and it may well be that, by the time 2016 rolls around, things will have settled down internationally and domestic troubles will occupy our attention. Still, it’s possible at this point to see a presidential campaign preoccupied with global issues, one that features Romney — or a candidate voicing his thoughts — versus a Democrat who largely agrees but finds herself burdened by the previous eight years.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Globe on September 9, 2014.

Should hacking be treated as breaking and entering?

Jennifer Lawrence and Kate Upton are feeling exposed. Nude pictures of both suddenly popped up on Internet sites, provoking concern throughout Hollywood about who might be next. But it’s not only celebrities who should worry; it’s all of us. And it’s not only scandalous pictures we should fear. There’s other stuff — less salacious but just as violative — that can become the target of hackers and harassers.

The actor and the model were just two of several well-known personalities who reportedly had nude images of themselves splashed everywhere. The photos were allegedly kept in an Apple cloud server, and some first speculated there was a security flaw in the company’s systems. Apple denies that, saying the hack was far more commonplace. In all likelihood, someone targeted the celebrities’ individual accounts, changing their passwords to gain access.

Granted, the hacking of Web accounts isn’t anything new. Something similar happened to Sarah Palin in 2008 just after she was named John McCain’s running mate. What is new, however, is that in the elapsed six years the cloud has become an ever more dominant part of our lives. With our devices now permanently connected to the Internet, it’s easy — and sometimes the default — for all of our information, images, and videos to be stored remotely.

Some have argued it’s the celebs’ fault for taking naked pictures in the first place. That’s a critique that applies to many. Lovers and sometimes friends often take and share intimate photos with each other — and frequently regret it when, upon a breakup, they see those same images posted to a “revenge” site.

But that amounts to little more than blaming the victim. The whole idea behind privacy rights is that — famous or not — everything you do isn’t properly grist for public consumption. Nor are you off the hook if you haven’t posed nude. Buy something with a credit card or online, and there’s likely to be an electronic record of it. That may not matter when your purchase was a tube of toothpaste; it may matter more if it’s a box of condoms. Similarly, as medical records are increasingly stored in the cloud, the potential for the exposure of embarrassing information grows ever greater.

So what are we to do?

Some might seek to reverse the sands of time, going back to the good ol’ days — say, the mid 1990s — when everything digital was kept on an unconnected desktop computer. But that’s not going to happen, and for good reason: There’s too much good that comes from connected life to ever want to do away with it.

So the advice we get is to further strengthen protections against hacking. The litany is well-known: more complicated passwords, stronger malware defenses, improved encryption, better server security. Ultimately, though, a determined or clever enough hacker will find a way through. Indeed, much of the world of technology seems to involve fixing one hole even as new ones are being discovered. And, of course, making things too difficult undermines the openness and ease-of-use of the Internet itself.

Another approach is to treat such invasions as a criminal matter — which they sometimes are — and increase both penalties and enforcement.

When it comes to cybertheft, the last few years have seen stepped up federal activity. Credit card thief Albert Gonzalez got 20 years in 2010. Earlier this year, another thief, Luis Flores, was jailed for three-and-a-half years. Sometimes, as evidenced by the Aaron Swartz case, prosecutors can overreach, but, in general, stronger laws and more aggressive prosecution have been welcomed.

The same should apply to malicious invasions of privacy. Incredibly (and truly, almost unbelievably), one art gallery now says it plans to exhibit Lawrence and Upton’s stolen photos — as if, once stolen, they are no longer personal property. The laws need to change. The unwanted release of nude photos should be regarded as a sex crime. The theft of personal information should be regarded the same as breaking and entering. Posting to revenge sites — illegal in only 13 states — should be banned nationwide.

Granted, invasions of privacy aren’t the same as physical assault. But the psychological effects and impact on one’s life can be just as damaging. The celebrity hurt today could easily be you tomorrow.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Sunday Globe on September 7, 2014.

Cool summer doesn’t invalidate climate change

Labor Day has come and gone. Autumn looms. But how can summer be over when it never really began?

If you feel cheated — where were the scorchers and leaden humid nights? — it’s not your imagination. July and August really did feel more like an extension of spring than a separate season. The Boston area had but four days over 90 degrees; usually it has 10. Average temperatures for the summer were well below normal too. This, of course, followed on the heels of a cold and snowy winter that felt like it would never end. And, to top it off, the Farmers’ Almanac predicts that the winter to come will be even worse than last.

So much for this global warming nonsense, huh?

Admit it. In some fashion, you’ve probably given voice to the thought. If climate change is real — if the world is supposedly heating up — then how come last winter was so long and our summer so cool? It’s because our perspective is skewed. We’re like a guy with his head in the refrigerator while his house is burning down, thinking nothing’s wrong. In fact, climate change proceeds apace. Our cool summer offers proof.

The world continues to get warmer. Of that, there is no doubt. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change just released drafts of its most recent assessment (the final version should be issued in October), and the news is grim. “Each of the past three decades has been successively warmer at the earth’s surface than all the previous decades in the instrumental record, and the first decade of the 21st century has been the warmest,” it notes. Indeed, despite New England’s experience, 2013 was, worldwide, the hottest year on record, and 2014 may be hotter still. And the impacts of that rise are now being observed everywhere. The oceans are warmer. Ice sheets in Greenland, the Antarctic, and Arctic are getting smaller. Glaciers are retreating. The acidity of the oceans (caused by the absorption of carbon dioxide) has gone up 30 percent since the mid-1800s. Sea levels are rising too — 6.7 inches in the last 100 years. Extreme weather events are on the rise.

So why did we have such a cold winter and cool summer? It all has to do with the polar vortex. That’s the age-old weather phenomenon that we all learned about last year. The vortexes (there are two, north and south) are like slow-moving cyclones high in the atmosphere that circle the poles. They’re cold, not surprisingly, because the poles are cold. But, in the case of the Arctic, the impacts from the vortex to the lower levels of the atmosphere usually stay close to the pole because warmer air in the continental United States, acting as a front, keeps them there. But — thanks to global climate change — the Arctic is actually warming up faster than the rest of the world. (The reason is that ice reflects the sun, while water absorbs it. As Arctic ice is melting, there is now more sea water to absorb the sun’s energy.) That makes the difference in temperatures between the continent and the Arctic less, and so now the colder air on occasion swoops lower. Thus, the seeming contradiction: Our cold weather proves global warming.

The fact that such contradictions exist underscores the complexity of figuring out global climate change. It’s that same complexity that gives rise to those who would deny it. They’ll point to anomalous events such as a cool summer. They’ll wonder how we can know what temperatures will be like 40 years from now when the best of forecasters can’t tell for certain whether tomorrow will rain or shine. And they’ll dispute the models themselves, filled with uncertainty and assumptions.

But it’s not possible to refute what we are already seeing. And it’s not possible to refute as well that carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have climbed dramatically, now 40 percent greater than at the time of the American Revolution. If you count yourself a climate-change skeptic, read the full UN report. Keeping your head stuck in the refrigerator doesn’t change the reality of what is happening around you.

This column originally appeared in The Boston Globe on September 2, 2014.