Today's Note From a Madman

Thursday, April 14, 2005


The Omissions of David Brooks


David Brooks, like many conservative-when-it-suits-them writers likes the choice of John R. Bolton as United States ambassador to the United Nations. Brooks feels that the UN needs a good swift kick in the ass and thinks that Mr. Bolton, the man who kisses asses up while kicking them down might just be the guy with the boot.

In his editorial (New York Times, April 14, 2005), Brooks says many believe the purpose of the UN is in "global governance", or a one world government. Mr. Brooks describes all of the ills and reasons why this can't work and couldn't be implemented. He even trashes organizations such as the International criminal Court as a "creeping institution."

I read this article, and was able to see his point with much of it. There is one problem, however. In his editorial, Mr. Brooks never bothers to mention the World Trade Organization (WTO) or the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Aren't these "creeping institutions"? Aren't these "global governance" organizations? Or is Mr. Brooks merely ignoring these "institutions" because they disprove his arguments?


The right is always using the "pick-and-choose" method of data gathering, however, we expect better from the New York Times.



-Noah Greenberg


We are borrowing an average of $2,000,000,000, yes two billion dollars, A DAY to pay for our trade deficit. Sen. Byron Dorgan (Dem – N. Dakota) pointed out that our trade deficit is OUT OF CONTROL with $61 billion just in February this year. Guess we should all start to learn Chinese and Japanese since they are likely to own us!


A company operating in Iraq (Cuttles and Battles – spelling?) is one you might have seen in a picture where 2 men shown up to their necks (so their faces are not visible) are standing behind $2 million in cash. The cash is how they are paid. They are reportedly part of the extensive thievery in Iraq. They were particularly creative when they took some of the forklifts off the Iraq airport, painted them, and sold them back to the coalition. Just one of many, many, many fleecings we are all paying for with the massive waste, fraud and abuse in Iraq. Another company (Haliburton I believe) is charging us for feeding 48,000 people a day and they are only feeling 14,000 meals a day. We are paying for 34,000 meals a day that are not being provided. How outrageous and they dare they call themselves patriots and Americans! And how dare our representatives in Congress don’t investigate them – and since the REPUBLICANS are the majority that means THEM. Guess we have to get used to WASTE, FRAUD, ABUSE, AND THIEVERY for the next 4 years and delude ourselves that it is patriotic. Now that is DUMBING US DOWN!!


"I said something in an in artful way, and I shouldn't have said it that way, and I apologize for saying it that way," he said. "It was taken wrong. I didn't explain it or clarify my remarks, as I'm clarifying them here. I am sorry that I said it that way, and I shouldn't have." (Washington Post, 4-14-05)

DeLay supposedly apologizing for his comments about judges having to “answer for their behavior”. Doesn’t sound like an apology. Languaging is so important to him – he categorizes his inflammatory remarks as “artful” – nice of him to falsely flatter himself. He goes on to say “it was taken wrong” as if the listeners were responsible for his outrageous comments. And he excuses himself again (Tom you are much too easy on yourself) by saying he “didn’t explain it or clarify my remarks” as if saying any more can undo his original words. And, YES, he does apologize that he is sorry about the way he said it – not what he said, but how he said it. PLEASE, don’t ask me to believe this is anything other than a ploy to get himself out of hot water. If he were sincere he could have said – I am sorry for what I said, I should not have, I do not believe there is any retribution that should be directed at judges, I do not believe that judges should be punished for doing their jobs, and I deeply apologize – as a START.

-Casey Sweet

In response to, "If someone was convicted of killing a person close to me, and I had the choice of whether than person lives or dies, I don't know which I would choose. But I do know that I would choose to spare their life if there was even a shred of doubt in my mind," Pat Thompson writes:

The chance of one of my loved ones being murdered is small -- the chance of their being killed in an auto accident is much higher -- and we can't have bad drivers executed (those talking on cell phones, maybe!). The chance of one of my children getting cancer from chemicals in our environment is much larger -- can I have the pesticide company executives executed? I wish I could. They make money by duping people into having their homes sprayed, their lawns treated, and their FOOD covered with pesticides and herbicides. My 36 year old son has already suffered from thyroid cancer -- radioactive iodine and other substances fell back to earth and polluted food and especially dairy products when he was a tiny tot and the government was testing nuclear weapons and more nuclear power plants were being built-- who can I execute for giving my wonderful young lawyer son cancer???? It is so easy to talk about executing a murderer, but we are all having our lives shortened and our health jeopardized by profit making corporations and the government. From cigarette manufacturers and second hand smoke to meat that surely is tainted with "mad cow disease", to the 20 fold increase in autism that shuts down the lives of thousands of babies and children, due to the proliferation of injections -- up to 50 shots before they go to school -- and all full of mercury preservatives. Our food supply is junk -- full of pesticides, herbicides, trans-fats, preservatives. Did you know that Americans stopped growing taller in 1950 -- and started shrinking? But Western European nations like Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, etc. have continued to grow taller?

In response to Madman's view on the death penalty, and continuing an ongoing discussion, Robert Scardapane writes:

I respect your point of view. I appreciate it's hard to be pro-death penalty with a audience of progressives (or are we liberals, well whatever, labels don't mean much to me these days).

Too bad the lawyers won't comment on "beyond a shadow of a doubt" - it is a philosophical question and not specific to any case.

Jack Speaks

If you can direct me to ANY study that proves that generic drugs are any different, or do not perform as well as the Proprietary ones, I would very much like to see it. The reason why your Insurance Company, like most others, won't pay for proprietary drugs when there are generic equivalent is because they have knowledge of many studies clearly demonstrating that there is no chemical difference, except of course for the cost.

In regard to the gun law you proposed, perhaps I did miss your point, but it appeared to me that you were proposing another toothless NRA type bill. They have done this to every serious piece of legislation that has been offered.

I do not recall ever offering MY insurance plan. I accepted the existing SPUHC model many years ago. It is the most humane and cost effective plan that I know of. Due to political constraints, Canada, England, and several other countries have adopted modified versions of the basic model. However, I believe in the old maxim: "If it aint broke, don't fix it", except of course when politically necessary.

I completely agree with your comments concerning "Illegals" and their impact on the already overburdened public health care systems. This is an unnoticed problem occurring all over the country, and it is effecting the delivery of virtually all public social services, from mental health to housing. Long standing citizens are receiving less and less care and services because of it.

-Jack Kashinsky

Stupid Quotes


"It feels like we've been waiting as long to pass bankruptcy reform as Washington spent trying to get baseball back in town, The House hit one out of the park today. Now we're just
waiting for President Bush to cross home plate by signing this bill into law."
-Steve Pfister, senior vice president for government relations at the National Retail Association

Originally, the association sent this email out, then realizing how insensitive it was, tried to rescind it.

"The GOP is practicing Robin Hood in reverse. Last night they repealed the estate tax, a gift to the wealthiest individuals in our society. Today they pushed through the special interest bankruptcy bill, punishing the very poorest members of society. This shows all the world that all of that talk about values in the last election was just that - talk."
-Representative John Conyers of Michigan, the ranking Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee

In short, it is now harder for those who need a "fresh start" to get that "fresh start." It is, however, easier for mega-corporations to file for those same Chapter 13 laws that many low and
medium income people actually need. This includes 50 percent of all bankruptcies filed due to medical reasons.

Many Democrats voted for this bill as well, Mr. Conyers. It's obvious that they aren't as concerned for those who can't afford to contribute to their campaigns as you.

If there was ever a need for real campaign finance reform and a Single Payer Universal Medical Plan, this proves it.

-Robert Scardapane and Noah Greenberg

"Another sad day for the American people. The House approved the repeal of the estate tax and the Bankruptcy Bill. Clearly, our government only works for millionaires and corporations. How can any American believe in their government when their government does not believe in their value?"

-Robert Scardapane

Send your comments to: or

-Noah Greenberg