As a Boston homeowner, sure, I'd love to see my property taxes go down $200 a year, which is what Tom Menino says would happen if the legislature passes Deval Patrick's proposal to let local governments raise their own meals and telecommunications taxes.

But is Tom Menino making a mistake by trying to get the legislature to ensure that all the money from such taxes goes to property-tax relief? Legislators on the other sides of the Charles and Neponset don't really care all that much about Boston homeowners; they care even less about the mayor of Boston telling them what to do - especially when the speaker of the House (Boston's own Sal DiMasi) has already come out against the whole local tax thing.

Human Rights for Massachusetts Initiative (HR4MASS) a coalition of groups interested in "MAKING HUMAN RIGHTS A FACT IN MASSACHUSETTS. " We work with the legislature to increase broad awareness and implementation of the whole gamut of human rights (civil, political, economic, cultural, and social), through education and possibly the establishment of an independent Commonwealth Human Rights Commission.” Dr. Laura Roskos, co-founder and acting director of the Massachusetts CEDAW Project and chair of the Advancing Human Rights Committee.

Opponents of the proposal regroup; proponents rejoice.

Sco posts a list of the 62 legislators and wonders which ones can be persuaded to change their votes.

Chris Mason: We have lost this battle, but we will most certainly win this war.

Charley on the MTA blames Travaglini for " a Kremlin-style charade" that is the Constitutional Convention:

Oh, wait, is that a choice?

In any case, the debate over whether to ban trans fats in restaurants brings some rare agreement between right and left.

Mass. GOP News sees yet another plot by Big Government to take away your God-given right to kill yourself slowly:

... What right has government to determine the recipe for the foods we wish to eat? Are human beings so helplessly vulnerable, or vulnerably helpless, that their diets need to be monitored by the government? The mere suggestion of having a state law regulate food, not because it is deadly, but simply because it is not good for you, has too much of an Orwellian flavor about it. Big Brother is not only watching you – he is now cooking your dinner. ...

Over on the left, SCO doesn't see Big Brother behind every fry pan, but still argues against Rep. Koitoujian's proposal:

... I'd be more sympathetic if they wanted to make sure menu items containing trans fats were labeled as such. That way people could make up their own minds. Restaurants would likely start eliminating the fats by themselves as people became more informed about how bad they were for you. ... Generally, I hate slippery-slope arguments, but there are so many unhealthy things that people can buy at restaurants, where do you draw the line?

Leave it to Charles Swift, the historian among us, to point out that food regulation is nothing new in Boston:

... I find this outpouring of libertarianism amusing because history shows that one of the primary functions of Boston's government was, in fact, the regulation of the food supply to ensure consumers received what they paid for and that the food they bought was healthy. This runs contrary to the libertarian belief in a pre-big government Eden where people lived freely in a state of nature, unecumbered by governmental snares. Sam Adams (the brewer and patriot) would have known and understood the beer brewing regulations laid down by the Town of Boston and Bostonians would have understood these regulations as part of the proper scope of government. ...

Naturally, he provides several examples dating back to the early 1800s of local regulation of stuff we toss down our gullets.

Bay Windows has you covered. Blue Mass. Group is doing the liveblogging thing as well.

Sushiesque posts photos from outside the State House.

Eeka translates the debate for any O RLY Owl readers.

It's Constitutional Convention day at the State House again, and the legislators might decide whether to let voters vote on same-sex marriage - or just adjourn and let the issue die.

Mass. Marrier analyzes the situation:

It's not every day that you see somebody at Blue Mass. Group saying something nice about Mitt Romney. But Bob raises his glass to Romney for vetoing a bill that would have put new restrictions on online wine sales to Massachusetts residents (following a Supreme Court ruling that states could not block such sales):

... The vetoed bill tried to undercut the Court's ruling. Romney said the measure did not help consumers but protected existing liquor distributors in Massachusetts. Indeed. This kind of back-scratching legislation is what has given the Democratic Party, and especially the Massachusetts legislature, a bad name among many Massachusetts residents and national observers. ...

But fret not - there is a dig at His Mittness in the post.