This is What Democracy Looks Like

Today's Note From a Madman

Thursday, February 23, 2006

A Response on the Lead

In response to "Dub'ya, Dubai and 'duh'", Hillary Greenberg writes:

Of course President Bush had no idea of his staff's decision to allow the UAE to buy our nation's ports...

He's out of his own loop!


From 1979 to 1985 I worked as a Midas Muffler Shop manager in Brooklyn, NY. I was fortunate to work for two of the best people ever to own a business, George and Max Specter I learned much about how to treat people and make a profit from both of them. It was an invaluable experience.

In the auto shop on Coney Island Avenue also worked five mechanics, all African American and all were born in the South. Including Howie, my friend and assistant manager, the seven of us worked well together in a friendly atmosphere, mostly thanks to the George and Max. They set the tone.

Jackson (his first name) was one of the mechanics at the shop. He had a high-school aged daughter who became pregnant, and it's his experience I want to share with you.

Jackson's daughter, at his urging (but not insistence) had the baby, a girl. He didn't judge her; He didn't shun her; He didn't scold her. All Jackson did was love her and his new granddaughter. He spoke frequently of his granddaughter, more in the way a father speaks of a child he is so proud of. He also spoke of his daughter. He spoke of her ability to take care of her daughter while getting great grades in school. He spoke of her college prospects and of her bright future.

Jackson loved his daughter before and after her pregnancy as much as any man ever loved his daughter.

Jackson didn't order his daughter to have her baby. He gave her the choice, and more importantly, he gave her options. I don't know if he considered his granddaughter a "life" from the moment of conception, the moment she was born or sometime in between. What I do know is that Jackson told his daughter that he would help. His granddaughter would have a life full of love, clothes, food and friends. He would make sure of it. He told his daughter that she had nothing to worry about. And, as a result, she chose to have and keep her baby.

If more people did for their children, without judgment, what Jackson did for his daughter, I would think that every woman's choice would be easier. The problem is that not every parent will do for their child what Jackson did for his. Many parents would throw their child out of the house or hide them out of shame. Some would force their child to get an abortion while others would force a child who might die during a pregnancy ,to have her child.

Jackson set the best example of what a parent should do and what a father should be.

Recently, the state of South Dakota has decided that they would make the decision for their "daughter" (figuratively speaking, of course). But, unlike Jackson, they will only force their daughter to have the child, then leave the pair out in the cold. The many sections of the South Dakota law only mention the life of the unborn fetus, its "inalienable right to life" and the well-being of the mother, excluding, of course, any mention of how to help her through an ordeal of an unwanted pregnancy and any means of how to support her child, or herself.

They are the "anti-Jacksons".

"The Legislature finds that the state has a duty to protect the pregnant mother's fundamental interest in her relationship with her unborn child."
-South Dakota Abortion Act, Section 3

That "relationship" appears to end on the child's date of birth.

It appears that the South Dakota legislation practices what many on the anti-choice side preach:

They love the fetus while hating the child.

-Noah Greenberg

"PORT"-O-SANS should be sans the ports! We would never have thought of selling any of our ports to any country within the U.S.S.R. during the Cold War. Why should we sell ports to an Arab country when we are at war with one or more Arab countries and there is significant dissatisfaction with U.S. policy among these countries? I am not defending the Iraq war. But realistically, that war--justified or not--means that we are not at peace with a significant part of the Arab world.

The UAR and Dubai may (or may not) mean well but the danger exists that unfriendly partisans could easily infiltrate into these ports. Given that terrorism is significantly on the rise and given that riots, deaths, and burnings occur when some idiot decides to print a cartoon, we must be careful about whom we allow into our country. Giving over ports, which are significant areas of entry into our country, to an Arab-owned company is just playing with fire

While I don't want to tar Dubai or the UAR with a broad--and thus--unfair brush, I just think we need to have control over our own ports. There should be nothing to stop Arab-Americans from owning them or from working in such ports, but I don't think ANY significant part of our infrastructure or lines of defense (such as ports) should belong to ANY foreign country--even such a close ally as England, let alone a country with whom we have shaky relations. Ports should stay firmly in U.S. possession and that should have been the case from get-go.

Bush's so-called "strong point" was supposed to be security. Now he has alienated almost everyone--right, left, and middle--except those members of his own "chorus." Maybe now many of his supporters will see him for the opportunist he is.

What is more, foreign ownership of ports means a tendency to outsource jobs, which we need to keep in America.

Any senator who votes to support Bush in this is going to have a hard time getting reelected--unless the people in those states are crazy as loons. In fact, if this port thing doesn't do the Bushies in, it will only be because the Democrats have failed to carpe diem.

Both of my senators (Democrat) and my governor (Republican) are against this. My husband just told me that our mayor (Republican) is againstg it too. But, being that one of those ports will be in NYC, I am really worried and I hope that the veto is overridden by a LANDSLIDE.

-Billie M. Spaight


Notice the teaching of the Qur’an:
• "Fight and slay the pagans [Christians] wherever ye find them and seize them, confine them, and lie in wait for them in every place of ambush" (Surah 9:5)
• "Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the last day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and his apostle nor acknowledge the religion of truth of the people of the Book (the Jews and the Christians) until they pay the Jizya [tax on non-Muslims] with willing submission and feel themselves subdued." (Surah 9:29)
• "Those who follow Muhammad are merciless for the unbelievers but kind to each other." (Qur'an 48:29)
• "Enmity and hatred will reign between us until ye believe in Allah alone." (Qur'an 60:4)
• Say to the Unbelievers, if (now) they desist (from Unbelief), their past would be forgiven them; but if they persist, the punishment of those before them is already (a matter of warning for them). And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do. (Qur'an 8:37-39)
• And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practice oppression. (Qur'an 2:193)
• "Fight the unbelievers in your surroundings, and let them find harshness in you." (Qur'an 9:123)
• "For he who believes in the Trinity, "the Fire will be his abode … a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemer." Qur'an (5:72-73)


In response to your closing remarks in Wednesday's Madman about resignations, like Mr. .Summers a (former Harvard President) and [wishfully] George W. Bush: I am afraid Bush will have no incentive toward resignation until after the impeachment process gains some steam - and I am doing everything I can to stoke that fire.

After all, Nixon resigned ONLY after it was obvious that the Judiciary Committee had enough votes to impeach him. Thus he sidestepped impeachment by resigning.

When, Oh when, will the American people wake up to the crimes being committed by Bush & Co?

-Carroll S. Rankin

A Simple Thought about the Democratic Party

if the Dem's don't get off their buts and take back what belongs to them, in 50 years their will be no Democratic party to elect.

Finish high & let it fly.

-M. Chapman

In response to "we simply won't trust our borders and strategic ports to the stewardship of those who supported our enemies, like the UAE. I was one of those people who didn't know that a British company ran our ports until a few days ago. But, oddly enough, I trust England and her citizens. They are the greatest allies the US has," Robert Scardapane writes:

Actually, I have a very big problem with foreign countries owning ports, airports and infrastructure in our country. There is no sovereignty when a nation loses control over it's infrastructure. In fact, I don't believe that ports and airports should be privatized at all. I am not and never will be a globalist. I know, I am old-fashioned. I think when a country sells it's strategic assets in the end trouble will result.

And in response to "According to Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary who is under fire for his pitiful response to Hurricane Katrina, there were no less than twelve federal agencies that oversaw and approved the sale of the most important US ports that connect us to the outside world. Let's not forget that these ports are also connected to some of the most populated cities in America and that any incident would have a wide-ranging effect on millions of people. Let's face it, these freighters are pulling into Manhattan, New York, not Manhattan, Kansas.". Robert adds:

I am stunned at the agreement of left and right on this issue. No port should be owned by a foreign company - the government should manage ports. We are just begging for another terrorist incident ... perhaps, that is exactly what the Bush-itas want.

A Truth Over Power Quote


"Is there not one agency in this government that believes this takeover could affect the national security of the United States?"
-Senator Carl Levin (D-MI)

Leave it to Senator Levin to put what we're all thinking in its simplest terms. But the truth is that there is no agency at the whim of "G"lobal "W"arming Bush or his cronies that thinks this is a bad idea. In fact, they like the idea so much that they are willing to risk their reputations on it.

By the way, how can one risk what one does not have?

-Noah Greenberg

Send your comments to: or

-Noah Greenberg