Even when gas prices spiked up to $2 a gallon last year, SUV sales didn't falter. Gas is simply too cheap in this country. There's not enough space here to even begin to go into the reasons why, or to discuss the negative consequences of the political, economic, environmental and moral compromises successive U.S governments have resorted to in order to keep gas prices low... The only way we're going to get drivers to give up their gas-guzzlers is to provide real, affordable alternatives, or to make gas so expensive that people can't afford to drive them.

That's an excerpt from one of my first regular columns in Greenwich Time, back in January 2003. Gas prices spiking to $2 a gallon? Those were the good old days.

Higher gas prices have certainly done a number on gas-guzzler sales. First-quarter SUV and truck sales were down by double-digit percentages across the board. And here's a surprise: Sales of hybrids and smaller, more fuel-efficient cars were up by double-digit percentages. Who in their right mind is going to want to buy a Hummer or an Expedition when you need to take out a second mortgage - that's if you can get one, with the credit crunch - just to fill up the tank?

I'm hurting right now, as I suspect are most readers. I want to cry every time I have to fill up my car. A year ago it cost me $40 - now it's over $65 to refill.

Well, Sens. Hillary Clinton and John McCain are saying that they're feeling my pain, and both have proposed a "holiday" on the 18.4-cents-a-gallon federal gas tax over the summer driving months.

Mrs. Clinton claims Ms. Average Consumer (me) would save $30 over the summer. But it would cost the Federal Highway Trust Fund an estimated $9 billion, a reduction that would put at further risk our already crumbling infrastructure and, according to the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, would jeopardize 300,000 highway-related jobs.

Clinton plans to restore the fund through a windfall tax on oil company profit, but that's assuming Congress would approve the tax. McCain said he would replenish the fund with other tax revenue. But that means cuts to other programs or higher deficits. And aren't higher deficits part of the reason we have a weak dollar, which is part of the reason we have high gas prices in the first place?

Sure, the idea of a gas tax "holiday" sounds good. But the reality is this: It's not going to help.

Robert Shapiro, a former undersecretary of commerce in the Clinton administration, explains why:

"It's utterly misguided both environmentally and economically. Environmentally, it does actual harm, since it reduces the price of producing greenhouse gases. And economically, it's trivial or worse: By reducing the price of driving, it encourages more of it, thereby increasing demand for gasoline, which inevitably pushes the price back up. The consumer gains nothing, and the oil companies and OPEC collect the extra bucks instead of the government."

Not only that, economist Philip K. Verleger Jr. predicts I won't even see most of that $30. He reckons 80 to 90 percent of it will end up in the pockets of the oil industry, not with consumers.

If the candidates really want to get relief into the hands of those who really need it, why not give them a direct rebate or tax credit? But it's an election year - they're trying to buy votes.

At least Barack Obama is telling it straight. Kudos to him for that.

Ok, maybe she over-skewers just a tad, but it's hilarious and right on target:

and drop out. Now.

You fought hard (and dirty). You had some good moments, but face it, there ain't no way you can win without tearing the party to shreds. Is that really what you want? Ok, maybe it is, but that's not what we, the People, (well, except maybe for Rush Limbaugh, but whether we count him as a person is debatable) want.

Why drag this out and get yourself into even more debt? Bow out with dignity. Keep your word and support the nominee and let's all focus on beating McCain instead of watching you flogging a dead horse.

Since moving to Cos Cob from backcountry Greenwich a year ago, I’ve been spending much more time on the commuting nightmare otherwise known as I-95. When traveling from point A to point B, the I-95 portion of my calculation is the random variable; I’m either early, because I left time for traffic and miraculously the road was clear, or late, because traffic was worse than expected.

Back in January1958, when the Connecticut portion of I-95 opened to traffic, state planners called it a “ribbon of hope.” These days it’s more like the “driveway of despair”. Over a decade ago, in 1997, transportation officials said that I-95 was at 180 percent of the rush hour capacity for which it was designed, and with annual traffic increases of 1.5 percent, things have only gotten worse since then on the World’s Longest Parking Lot.

I don’t pretend to know the solution to the Southwest Connecticut traffic nightmare. But here’s a low cost fix that I reckon will work wonders in the meantime while we let the experts figure it out. It’s a simple concept known as Lane Discipline, which comes as second nature to most Europeans, but unfortunately appears to be unknown upon these shores.

The rule is this: you stay in the right lane unless you are passing. In other words, the far left lane of traffic is only for passing. At times of high traffic when all lanes are in use, if you are traveling in the far left lane and you see someone coming up being you at a higher speed than you are traveling, you move right. You don’t just stick in the left lane, forcing them to pass you on the right, a more dangerous maneuver. Of course, this entails actually glancing in your rear view mirror from time to time, and from careful observation while following drivers on I-95, I’ve ascertained that most of them have forgotten that they even possess this valuable piece of automotive equipment.

Why don’t most drivers use lane discipline? There are a few types of drivers out there:

1. The Lazy Driver hasn’t checked his rear view mirror since 1976 and in any event is too indolent to move the steering wheel a quarter of an inch to make the lane change.

2. The Timid Driver doesn’t like driving on the highway and figures “I'm just going to drive in a straight line so I'm staying here!”

3. The Self-Righteous Driver figures that since the speed limit is 55 mph, no one should be allowed pass her anyway: “I'm being a good citizen by holding up other drivers.”

4. The Entitled Driver thinks “It’s my G-d given right as an American to drive in the left lane no matter how much I hold up the flow of traffic.”

In the countless hours I’ve spent on I-95, I’ve seen many accidents and near accidents that could have been avoided had good lane discipline been employed. Slow drivers in the left lane create a long line of frustrated drivers behind them. Some will begin to exhibit unsafe driving practices like tailgating, which is both illegal and dangerous. Others will resort to passing on the right or weaving dangerously between lanes to find the open spaces. Like water, moving traffic tries to flow around the point of obstruction – and as with a dam, pressure builds behind the slowpoke.

Most European countries have significantly higher speed limits on the motorways yet the per capita death rates from road traffic accidents are half that in the US. Why? I’m sure there are numerous factors (for example, what genius at the DOT thought it was a smart idea to put the on ramp before the off ramp so traffic merges left onto the highway while traffic is trying to merge right to get off the roadway? Pure idiocy!), but I’ll bet lane discipline is one of them.

Instead of focusing so much on trapping speeders, our state police should take a leaf out of the ticket books of their counterparts in Illinois and Oklahoma and start issuing citations for slow drivers who cause bottlenecks in the left lane.

By using good lane discipline you help the traffic flow and reduce accident risks, not to mention by lowering overall frustration levels. Why not give it a try?

As I mailed my check off to Uncle Sam, I drew a pie chart in my head of how much the government was spending on the things that are important to me (education, health care, homeland security) vs. the continuing drain on our nation’s resources otherwise known as the War in Iraq. No one is happy when mailing that check to the IRS, but when I know so much of what I’m paying is going to fund a war that was entered on false pretenses, for which we have no clear exit strategy, a conflict whose cost has wrought havoc with our economy; well, it makes me downright livid.

It got me thinking about Connecticut’s greatest cheerleader for the war, Senator Joe Lieberman and a conversation I had last week with the newly elected chairman of the party that bears his name, Dr. John Mertens.

The saga of the fictitious party created by Lieberman to enable his Senate run after being defeated in the Democratic primary by Ned Lamont in 2006 is the stuff of which political theater (not to mention a Wikipedia battle) is made.

When Senator Lieberman won his re-election battle but despite pre-election promises neglected to join his own party (nor did all of the twenty-five signatories to his petition), Dr. John Orman, a professor of politics at Fairfield University and outspoken Lieberman critic, changed his party registration to CT for Lieberman on November 15th, 2006. On December 21st of that year Orman filed a set of party rules with the Secretary of State.

In January 2007, Stuart Korchin filed a different set of party rules with the Secretary of State. Orman called an organizational meeting of the party in January 2007 at which Korchin appeared and said there would be a different meeting in August. Orman was nonetheless elected Chairman by those present; however, Korchin continued to claim that he was Chairman of the party.

Mertens stands behind John Orman as the legitimate Chairman. “I’d gotten copies of the paperwork that they’d both filed with the Secretary of state’s office and it was clear that Korchin didn’t understand what a democracy was.”

Not only that, but when, Mertens asked Korchin about the details of the August meeting, Korchin refused to provide them – even to a lawyer on the behalf of the other party members. What’s more Korchin filed no paperwork with the secretary of state about the meeting. “That’s not the way a democracy works. In the United States, every voter is entitled to join any party they wish, and they have a right to go to party meetings,” Mertens said.”

Party shenanigans aside, in the summer of 2007 Mertens approached Orman: “I think we need to use this party to do something real. Let’s turn it into an anti-war party, let’s use it to promote responsible government.”
At a statewide party caucus held on March 6th in Hartford with more than 50% of the party members in the state in attendance, Mertens was elected chair by unanimous vote. Members passed new party rules, and have nominated five candidates for state representative (see http://www.ctforlieberman.org)

Part of what motivates Mertens are the roadblocks put up by the Secretary of State’s office to his own Independent bid for Senate in 2006. “I’ve got two motivations: to counteract Joe Lieberman’s support for the Iraq war – he misrepresented his position on the war prior to the elections in 2006, running a commercial the day before the election that said ‘vote for Joe Lieberman, he’ll bring our troops home…’ We should use his party to point out that his position on the war is not the position of the majority of people of CT…I also want to use the party to run people for office the way we were denied doing in 2006. I want people to understand that we live in a democracy and what that means –that people should have ballot access and are free to join any party they want and participate in that party. I’m doing this to prove it. I can’t imagine any American being against what I’m doing. That’s the way America’s supposed to work.”

Wouldn’t it be deliciously ironic if the vanity party created by Senator Lieberman to keep himself in power ended up being a truly independent voice for the voters of Connecticut?

This was my GT/Advocate column a few weeks ago that I didn't get around to posting

When I hunkered down in my basement lair in front of the computer to write this week’s column I must confess to feeling a certain malaise. I’m not sure if it was brought on by the fact that last week marked the five-year anniversary of this country’s ill-advised and ill-fated war in Iraq. Perhaps it was triggered after watching clips of the smug face of Donald Rumsfeld speaking to US troops in Aviano, Italy back in February 2003: "It is unknowable how long that conflict will last. It could last six days, six weeks. I doubt six months."
Or seeing, inevitably, a replay of President Bush standing in front of the “Mission Accomplished” sign telling us that “Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed.” Yeah right. Tell that to all the people who died recently in the new waves of violence in Basra, Mosul and Baghdad.
We didn’t just reach a timeline milestone – there was another grim marker as that same week we reached four thousand American servicemen and women lost in the conflict. While it’s true that the four thousandth death shouldn’t mean more or less than the first or the four hundredth or the four thousand and first, it’s a times like this that we stop and reflect. At least some of us do. Apparently not Vice-President Dick Cheney.
In an interview on war’s fifth anniversary, ABC News’ Martha Raddatz commented to Mr. Cheney that: “Two-thirds of Americans say it's not worth fighting, and they're looking at the value gain versus the cost in American lives, certainly, and Iraqi lives.”
Cheney’s response: “So?”
SO? If a one-word answer could ever sum up everything that’s wrong with this administration, Cheney pretty much nailed it with this one.

Martha Raddatz was clearly taken aback, asking Cheney: “So -- you don't care what the American people think?” to which the Vice President replied, “No, I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls. Think about what would have happened if Abraham Lincoln had paid attention to polls, if they had had polls during the Civil War. He never would have succeeded if he hadn't had a clear objective, a vision for where he wanted to go, and he was willing to withstand the slings and arrows of the political wars in order to get there.”
Now I’ll credit Cheney for having at least having read Hamlet enough to misquote it, but to compare this travesty of a war - foisted on the American people by an administration that doctored the intelligence to suit its political aims - to the Civil War is just plain insulting.
The Civil War was fought on home soil with our people fighting our own battles. It’s perhaps ironic that Cheney chose to compare the two, because the Bush Administration’s misguided policies have not only cost over 4,000 American lives, but over $522.5 billion. If you think this hasn’t affected the economy, well, you haven’t been watching your stock portfolio lately. The world isn’t going to go on funding our financial profligacy forever. And why are we experience all this pain and hardship? To fight the Iraqis’ Civil War for them – all because President Bush didn’t listen to General Colin Powell when he quoted the “Pottery Barn Rule” warning against invading Iraq in the summer of 2002: “You are going to be the proud owner of 25 million people, You will own all their hopes, aspirations, and problems. You'll own it all.”
Lest you think it’s just the Republicans who are getting me down, fear not. I wanted to throttle James Carville last week, after he compared New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson to Judas for choosing to endorse Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nominee over Senator Hillary Clinton.
"Mr. Richardson's endorsement came right around the anniversary of the day when Judas sold out (Jesus) for 30 pieces of silver, so I think the timing is appropriate, if ironic," Carville said.
Maybe we should send James Carville to Iraq. Add Karl Rove and make it a package deal.
Carville’s remarks bode ill for the prospect of another Clinton presidency. The “If you’re not with us you’re a traitor” attitude reminds me of the current administration.

According to the latest poll from Gallup:" Bush's job approval rating has dropped to 28%, the lowest of his administration. W's approval is lower than that of any president since World War II, with the exceptions of Jimmy Carter (who had a low point of 28% in 1979), and Richard Nixon and Harry Truman, who suffered ratings in the low- to mid-20% range in the last years of their administrations.

Even worse in terms of the whole Freudian dynamic, "George W. Bush has now descended below the low point of his father's (George H.W. Bush's) administration. The senior Bush had a reading of 29% in July and August 1992. The former president also recorded a high point of 89%, the highest on record until his son's 90% in September 2001. Both Bushes, in short, have undergone radical 60-point drops in job approval in the course of their administrations."

I reckon once the recession is confirmed, W will slip below Carter, Nixon and Truman, confirming his position as the worst President of modern times.

POLITICS, n. A strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles. ~ Ambrose Bierce in The Devil's Dictionary

This week's GT/Stamford Advocate column.

Many wiser and more experienced pundits than yours truly have written about the factors behind Obama-mania. Last week, the Obama campaign announced that it had received donations from more than 1 million Americans, a number that "no other campaign has ever reached ... while still in a competitive primary."

Both Republicans and the Clintons have criticized Obama for his upbeat "fairy tale" message. But what the GOP is missing and the Clintons -- who used to believe in a place called Hope -- appear to have forgotten is how critically the human spirit needs the "H" word, especially when times are tough. And make no mistake: Times are tough, and getting tougher.

Testifying before Congress last week, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke acknowledged that "the economic situation has become distinctly less favorable," as the country faces slowed growth, possibly recession, combined with rising consumer prices. (Remember that awful 1970s condition, "stagflation"?) Meanwhile, in the last four years, the dollar has plunged 24 percent against a basket of six major currencies, last week slipping to the lowest level since 1973.

With continued deficits and no end in sight in Iraq, we cannot continue to expect the rest of the world to keep financing our debt, especially if the Fed keeps cutting rates.

So when Hillary made her mocking, "The skies will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect," speech at Rhode Island College, I personally don't think she did herself any favors.

As for the Republicans -- well, I'm beyond disgusted by the recent advertisement by the House Republican Conference. It's the usual GOP "Be afraid, be very, very afraid" message, accusing the House Democrats of making the country less safe and going on vacation while the Protect America Act hung in the balance.

Never mind that the first time the Protect America Act came up late last year, the administration negotiated with the Hill in bad faith. Never mind that President Bush's idea of negotiating is "my way or the highway." Why let the facts get in the way when you can try to terrorize the American people into submission?

With "24"-type countdowns juxtaposed with images of kaffiya-wearing, rifle-toting terrorists, the ad shows a clip of Director of National Intelligence Mike McConnell on Fox News saying that since Feb. 16, the country is "increased danger."

But not everyone involved in counterterrorism agrees. Last week, four former senior level intelligence officials sent McConnell a letter disputing claims made by the DNI and President Bush during the debate about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, the PAA and telecom immunity. The letter, signed by Rand Beers, former senior director for combating terrorism for the National Security Council; Richard A. Clarke, former head of counterterrorism with the NSC; Lt. Gen. Don Kerrick, former deputy national security adviser; and Suzanne Spaulding, former assistant general counsel at the CIA, said that "recent comments have distorted rather than enhanced this conversation."

These intelligence experts wrote: "The sunset of the Protect America Act does not put America at greater risk ... Surveillance currently occurring under the PAA is authorized for up to a year. New surveillance requests can be filed through current FISA law. As you have stated, 'Unlike last summer, there is no backlog of cases to slow down getting surveillance approvals from the FISA court. We're caught up to all of it now.' As court orders are received, telecom companies are required to comply ... Existing NSA authority allows surveillance to be conducted abroad on any known or suspected terrorist without a warrant ..."

The experts dispute McConnell's claim that the telecom companies "are less inclined to help us" because FISA orders legally compel them to do so, and what's more believe " it is wrong to make this one issue an immovable impediment to Congress passing strong legislation to protect the American people."

It's wrong, too, to keep trying to whip up fear to condone lawbreaking by the administration or any other party, including telecom firms.

And that's why I predict Sen. Obama is going to win the Democratic nomination and go on to beat Sen. John McCain. Because I think the American people are sick of the nay-sayers and the fear-mongers -- and being deceived by their government.

This week's GT/Advocate column

Last week, the Senate passed a bill revising the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, one that included retroactive immunity for telecom companies that released customer information to government agencies without a warrant.

What disturbs me about the way the debate has been framed by those who are in favor of the bill is that, once again, they are using the bullying tactics of the Bush White House to try to scare us into blatant disregard for the rule of law.

This is not, as some try to frame it, a matter of "being concerned about the civil liberties of overseas terrorists." It's about being able to trust that the president will perform both of his constitutionally mandated duties: keeping the country safe and upholding the law.

The title of hearings held by the Senate Judiciary Committee last October sums up the key point of this debate to my mind: "Preserving the Rule of Law in the Fight Against Terrorism." No one, least of all me, denies that there is a real terrorist threat. But unlike some, I refuse to accept that, as citizens of this great democracy, we should accept unlawful behavior on the part of our government or anyone else in order to wage that fight.

When the former head of the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department, Jack Goldsmith, testified in front of the Judiciary Committee, he reiterated why we have laws governing intelligence and interrogations and the importance of respecting them:

"They are designed to prevent the extraordinary abuses committed by the intelligence community in the 1950s and 1960s when the community was largely unregulated by law and ignored by Congress ... they ensure that the executive branch channels its wartime efforts in ways that maximize military effectiveness and minimize unnecessary harm. Compliance with these laws -- and more generally with the rule of law in wartime -- is critical to both domestic legitimacy and to the task of winning hearts and minds that is so central in modern warfare."

In that hearing, Goldsmith was asked by Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vermont: "Is it fair to say in your opinion the warrantless wiretapping program or at least significant parts of it were illegal or without legal basis?"

"It was a legal mess," Goldsmith replied. "It was the biggest legal mess I encountered there ... I will say there were certain aspects of programs related to the [terrorist surveillance program] that I could not find legal support for."

Once again, President Bush is saying he will veto any measure that doesn't include retroactive immunity for the telecom companies, and what's more, he has been refusing to sign another extension to the existing bill that expired Feb. 15, trying in doing so to blame Democrats for placing national security at risk. But I hope that after years of prevarications and clear attempts by this administration to bypass existing law, the electorate sees that this act is not just about safety from terrorists -- it's about being able to trust the executive branch to uphold the laws of this country. It's also about having the confidence that should the executive branch deviate from upholding the law, Congress will play its constitutionally mandated oversight role. Clearly, this is not something we can count on from Senate Republicans, or the 18 Democrats and Sen. Joe Lieberman who voted with them.

Now it's up to the House. Energy Chairman John Dingell, D-Mich., along with Reps. Ed Markey, D-Mass., and Bart Stupak, D-Mich., sent a letter to their colleagues warning them not to make the same mistake:

"It is beyond dispute that the Government must be able to protect its citizens from terrorist threats. But before Congress should consider the extraordinary notion of telling a Federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit pending before him, Congress has a duty to find out what happened and develop an adequate legislative record to justify such unusual interference with the normal practice of a co-equal branch of Government -- the Judiciary."

The telcoms have apparently responded to committee inquiries by saying that the administration has "gagged and threatened them with prosecution" if they respond to congressional inquiries. It doesn't exactly inspire one with confidence, does it?

Kudos to Democratic Sen. Chris Dodd of Connecticut for being such an outspoken defender of the rule of law. Shame on Connecticut Sen. Lieberman, an independent, for voting in favor of telecom immunity.

saramerica isn't big on Valentine's Day. To my mind, it's how someone behaves towards you on the day-to-day that matters. It means more to get an unexpected gift when you really need a pick-up than to get a bunch of overpriced roses on February 14th.

But for all those other folks out there who lurve the day of Love, here's a little something for ya:

besides the fact he made films like Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Munich, and the fantastic series, Band of Brothers.

Because the guy has the courage of his convictions.

The internationally renowned director and producer has withdrawn as an artistic adviser to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing, because of China's continued failure to pressure its allies in the Sudanese government to end the genocide in Darfur.

'After careful consideration, I have decided to formally announce the end of my involvement as one of the overseas artistic advisers to the opening and closing ceremonies of the Beijing Olympic Games...I find that my conscience will not allow me to continue with business as usual. At this point, my time and energy must be spent not on Olympic ceremonies, but on doing all I can to help bring an end to the unspeakable crimes against humanity that will continue to be committed in Darfur.'

"Sudan's government bears the bulk of the responsibility for these on-going crimes but the international community, and particularly China, should be doing more."

Also today, nine Nobel Peace Prize laureates -- including Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Elie Wiesel and Jody Williams -- sent a letter to Chinese President Hu Jintao urging China to uphold the ideals of the Olympiad by pressing Sudan to stop atrocities in Darfur.

50-47%.

Here in Greenwich, the margin was 53% Obama to 45% Clinton.

On the GOP side, McCain took it by a big margin, both statewide and here in town.

My latest Greenwich Time/Stamford Advocate column. I'm glad it came out on primary day.

Recently, I was forwarded a particularly despicable e-mail about a presidential candidate. Under the subject header, "Who is Barack Obama?" it alleged (incorrectly) that the senator is a Muslim who was schooled at a radical Wahabi madrassa in Indonesia and who only became a Christian when it was politically expedient. It further alleges that he was sworn into office on a Quran. The e-mail ended with a hysterical warning:

"The Muslims have said they plan on destroying the US from the inside out, what better way to start than at the highest level -- through the President of the United States, one of their own!!!!"

It then went on to exhort readers: "If you do not ever forward anything else, please forward this to all your contacts ... THIS COUNTRY WAS FOUNDED, "ONE NATION UNDER GOD." ALMIGHTY GOD, NOT THE GOD OF THE KORAN."

Finally, in an attempt to give itself some legitimacy, the e-mail closed with:

"We checked this out on snopes.com." It is factual. Check for yourself."

The author of this scurrilous epistle correctly assumed that most people wouldn't bother to check urban legend site Snopes.com for themselves prior to clicking forward and send. If they had, they'd have seen that Snopes debunks every single allegation contained in the e-mail, in no uncertain terms.

This is the second time I've been forwarded this rubbish, which has been making its way around the Internet since January 2007. It offends me on many levels: because it consists of lies, because it seeks to divide and frighten and, above all, because it is racist.

I believe that we all pray to the same almighty being, whatever name we choose to call it and whichever rituals we perform to worship. The sentence trying to define G-d as that of one faith over another in the narrative of our nation's history is contrary to the ideals of a country founded on religious freedom.

A January 2007 letter signed by religious leaders of all faiths sums it up perfectly: "We have had enough of the slash and burn politics calculated to divide us as children of God. We must come together as one nation, and see our stake in each other as Americans. Certain moral standards should infuse our national dialogue, and the recent attacks on Sen. Obama violate values at the heart of this dialogue. The false and malicious attacks (leveled) at him are anathema to all of our faith traditions."

What's particularly disturbing to me as a Jew is that this e-mail is now circulating among members of my faith, so much so that last month leaders of Jewish organizations such as the Simon Wiesenthal Center, the National Council of Jewish Women, the Union of Orthodox Congregations and the Anti-Defamation League felt compelled to issue an open letter condemning it.

Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean of the Simon Wiesenthal Center said, "We must have zero tolerance for the slightest traces of bigotry and hatred in our nation's political discourse." Seven Jewish senators signed a similar letter, in which they said, "Jews, who have historically been the target of such attacks, should be the first to reject these tactics."

A friend of mine who had also been forwarded the e-mail wrote that she was reminded of a story that is frequently included in Yom Kippur sermons, about a gossipy woman who felt guilty about her behavior and told her rabbi that she wanted to make amends. The rabbi told her to take a feather pillow to the top of a hill, cut it open, and let the feathers fly. She did as he asked, and upon her return asked the rabbi if she was now forgiven. He told her there was one more step: she had to go back to the hill, and gather up all the feathers.

My friend concluded with these very wise words: "The Internet is a powerful tool, which, like any invention, can be used for good or evil purposes. With a click of a button, truth or lies can be disseminated to literally millions of people, spreading much further than the feathers of a pillow."

I urge readers to think carefully before clicking "forward" and "send" if they receive an e-mail like this. Our democratic process and our nation deserve better.

Politics in my family tends to run along gender lines. My dad and brother are GOP, my sister and I are Dems, and my mother is the swing voter. I think my dad likes to think she votes GOP like he does, but when I talked to my mother after I'd done a 2004 radio commentary about my first involvement in politics for NPR, she told me what her mother told her: "No-one knows who I vote for when I go into the booth." (Of course, with the new optical scanning system, that might not be so true, but that's another story...)

I was reminded of my own family's political divide when I read that Maria Shriver, the wife of California Governator Arnold Schwarznegger has joined her relatives, Caroline and Ted Kennedy in endorsing Barack Obama for president.

Arnold supports McCain.

Mrs. Governator's statement:

“There is no place I wanted to be but here today,” said Shriver. “This election is about a moment. This is a moment not just for the United States of America, not just for the Democratic Party, but this is a moment for California. The more I thought about it, I thought, if Barack Obama was a state, he’d be California. Think about it: diverse, open, smart, independent, bucks tradition, innovative, inspiring, dreamer, leader.”

In other news, interesting trend line in the latest Gallup poll. It shows Clinton and Obama in a statistical dead heat but I'd rather have Obama's trendline than Clinton's, leading up to Super Pooper Duper Tuesday.
It's going to be an interesting Tuesday.

There are many conflicting polls about who's ahead here in CT. Some show Obama leading Clinton, 48-44%, whereas others show Clinton ahead 48%-35%.

Kevin Rennie over at Real Clear Politics comments that the momentum in "quirky" CT is in Obama's favor, seeing as that 12 days ago in a Hartford Courant poll, Clinton had a 14 point lead over Obama. If you believe the ARG poll, she still does, but I'm not seeing it.

Local Clinton boosters are starting to think that poll is a glimpse of a campaign in quick decline...State Democrats supporting Clinton, with political careers of their own; don't want to fire broadsides at a surging Obama. There are reports that poobahs in the Clinton campaign are getting that distinct tone of exasperation and anxiety that they reserve for the troops in the hinterlands that the rest of us know as primary states.

A keen student of polls and Democratic primary politics sees hints that Clinton may be in a freefall.

I was chatting with some folks at synagogue today after services, and most were disgusted by the way Bill Clinton has been carrying on. Time's Joe Klein has a good piece about how Bill is proving to be detrimental to Hillary's campaign in this week's issue. And he raises an interesting concern about another Clinton presidency:

Even the most casual observer is aware of this: at a moment of crisis in Hillary Clinton's campaign, Bill Clinton was suddenly back and all over the news. His reappearance made her seem weak, unable to defend herself. It raised the most fundamental question about her candidacy: If she is elected, who exactly will be President? What happens when there is a real crisis? My guess is, she'd be able to handle almost anything ... except him. I could easily see him jumping the shark, sending mixed messages when a single voice of authority is crucial — especially if the crisis involves one of his specialties, like the Middle East.

I was undecided between Obama and Edwards, but Edwards made my decision for me by dropping out of the race. (My dream ticket is still Edwards/Obama - but that's Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama, two women for whom I've the utmost respect. I would love to see a woman president - but not Hillary. Elizabeth Edwards, on the other hand...I would love to see her in charge.)

This from Nancy DiNardo, Chairwoman of the CT Dems, regarding Joe Lieberman's CT appearance campaigning with John McCain tomorrow:

“I continue to be disappointed beyond words with Joe Lieberman, as are a lot of Connecticut Democrats -- saddened, surprised, and truly disheartened by just how completely he has abandoned the Democratic principles that have guided him over the years and the Party whose members have supported him and helped him achieve his goals. As recently as 18 months ago, Senator Lieberman was telling us Democrats that he shares our values, and with the exception of Iraq, that he agrees with us on the issues we care so much about -- critically important issues like a woman’s right to choose, tax and economic policies, healthcare and education. Moreover, in July of 2006, Senator Lieberman even stated that he intended to work to help a Democrat get into the White House in 2008. His endorsement of Senator McCain means he either doesn’t care about the issues noted above, or he’s putting politics ahead of people. If you look at Senator McCain’s voting record, and campaign platform – on these, and many other issues we care about – you’ll understand why I am saying this. This is a man, Senator McCain, who proudly says he was a “foot soldier” in the Reagan Revolution. Senator McCain is wrong on the issues we Democrats care so much about—and he’s wrong by a lot. I am proud to stand with my fellow Democrats and announce that we as a Party will grow stronger and do everything in our power to make sure a Democrat is elected in November. “

Well, knock me down with a feather...Nancy DiNardo has finally woken up to smell the coffee! About bloody time.

As recently as 18 months ago, Senator Lieberman was telling us Democrats that he shares our values, and with the exception of Iraq, that he agrees with us on the issues we care so much about -- critically important issues like a woman’s right to choose, tax and economic policies, healthcare and education. Moreover, in July of 2006, Senator Lieberman even stated that he intended to work to help a Democrat get into the White House in 2008. His endorsement of Senator McCain means he either doesn’t care about the issues noted above, or he’s putting politics ahead of people.

Actually, Nancy, it means HE LIED. And you were stupid enough to buy into his lies and support him instead of the candidate that the voters of the party of which you are the chairwoman elected to be our candidate. If you were a thinking person, the name of the fictitious party he created to run, "CT for Lieberman" would have tipped you off...if Joe was about something other than putting politics ahead of people, he would have named it "Lieberman for CT."

Face it, Nancy. You were used. And you've got no-one but yourself to blame.

Recent LTE in the Stamford Advocate:

If you're going to continue to publish the far left ramblings of Saramerica on your editorial page, you can at least try to balance things out by having somebody else on who actually wants to see our country win the war on terrorism.

Chris Stratoudakis
Stamford

I'm like...dude...on that very same editorial page they've got George F. Will. They've got William F. Buckley. With right-wing heavy hitters like that, you're worried about little ole moi? I guess I'm flattered.

I never cease to be amazed, though, how people like Chris make the leap from being concerned about the erosion of our constitutionally-derived civil liberties and about the moral implications of torture to wanting the terrorists to win.

Here's today's Greenwich Time column

Back when I was studying for my master's in business administration, one of the required texts was Paul Johnson's Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties -- well, except back then it was from the Twenties to the Eighties. Johnson opens his history of the 20th century with Einstein's publication of the Theory of Relativity, and a major theme of his book is that the history of the 20th century was shaped by Einstein's theory, which had the effect of creating a belief at the popular level that there were no longer any absolutes "... of time and space, of good and evil, of knowledge, above all of value. Mistakenly but perhaps inevitably, relativity became confused with relativism."

Perhaps it seems ironic that as a progressive I'm quoting a darling of the conservatives to promote a point of view. But after seven years under W. et al., we need to write a new chapter about moral relativism.

I was reminded of Johnson's book while reading an interesting New Yorker article by Lawrence Wright, author of The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, profiling National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell. McConnell defines torture as: "something that would cause excruciating pain," and then, when asked if waterboarding fit that definition, said that if it were performed on him, it would. He said:

"Waterboarding would be excruciating. If I had water draining into my nose, oh God, I just can't imagine how painful! Whether it's torture by anybody else's definition, for me it would be torture."

But in a stunning example of moral relativism (whatever it takes to cover his bosses' posteriors) McConnell refused to say that waterboarding should be categorically considered torture. Why?

Because, he admits: "If it ever is determined to be torture, there will be a huge penalty to be paid for anyone engaging in it."

Let's make sure we understand this: It is torture if we do it to him, but he's not going to say it's torture because then his bosses are at risk of prosecution? Clearly a man of integrity.

Waterboarding has been considered torture ever since it was used back in the Spanish Inquisition. As one of my favorite Monty Python sketches goes: "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition" -- but particularly in the United States of America in the 21st century.

Wright's interview with McConnell is illuminating for many reasons, but particularly because it comes at a time when the bill to update the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act is once again going before Congress. And as Wright highlights, the government (aided and abetted by Sen. Joe Lieberman) will not let the facts get in the way of their arguments on warrantless wiretapping. After the German government arrested three Islamic radicals who were allegedly planning strikes against an American military base in Frankfurt last September, Sen. Lieberman asked McConnell at a Senate committee hearing if the temporary FISA bill Congress had just passed contributed to the arrests. McConnell testified that it had, but was then forced to recant two days later -- because it turned out the surveillance had been accomplished under the old FISA bill, which allowed intelligence agencies a three-day grace period after the start of monitoring before having to apply to the secret FISA court for a warrant.

Shortly thereafter, when testifying in front of the House Intelligence Committee, McConnell again testified for FISA reform by stating that bureaucratic delays in obtaining a FISA warrant slowed the search for three kidnapped American soldiers in Iraq. But then after House Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes demanded a timeline of the events surrounding the captured soldiers, McConnell's office was forced to admit that it wasn't the FISA procedures per se that had resulted in the delay, but rather internal bureaucratic wrangling between the Justice Department and the NSA.

In order to give the government the kind of authority it is asking for, the American people need to trust that authority will not be abused. FISA was first implemented after Watergate-era abuses of the Nixon administration -- and the oversight it contains is needed because throughout history, administration after administration has proved that such authority will be abused.

Sen. Chris Dodd was one of the few people who stood up to be counted on FISA. I hope others will join him.

My 14 year-old son has Asperger's Syndrome (diagnosed at age 5, admitted to MENSA age 9) and I'm currently working on a book called THE ECCENTRIC SIDE OF NORMAL based on our StoryCorps interview, which was broadcast on Morning Edition back in March 2006 and was in the top three most responded to StoryCorps segments that year.

In doing research for the book, I came across an online forum for people with Asperger's and their families, which has a news feed of Asperger's related stories.

And that's how I came across this rather interesting story.

In the great tradition of George W. Bush's rumored undiagnosed learning disabilities, might Ron Paul, the libertarian/Republican/racialist candidate for president, have a hidden disorder of his own? Could Paul have Asperger's Syndrome, the autism spectrum disorder characterized by extremely awkward social interactions along with obsessive behaviors and interests? If you've seen Ron Paul on television recently—or taken a glimpse at his platform—there's no question he displays the symptoms.

I have to say, I haven't paid that much attention to Ron Paul - he just seems like another right wing crackpot. But I'm going to have to pay attention now just from the AS diagnosis standpoint.

I just loved this part of the piece:

It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that Paul's techie, nerd-heavy base would suffer from Asperger's. In Ron Paul's universe, meet-ups don't necessarily happen in real life; just last week, there was a 240-strong World of Warcraft rally in which avatars from across the nation came together. According to the World of Warcraft Insider, "The rally started outside Ironforge with approximately 240 players (with 400 members in their RP Revolution guild) and traveled to Stormwind, Westfall, Booty Bay, Ratchet, and finally Orgrimmar."

Yep, sounds pretty Aspie to me. I'm almost tempted to check out WOW, except that between maintaining two blogs, contributing to other political blogs and reading OPB's (other people's blogs) I already spend way too much time on the "Internets".