Today's Note From a Madman

Tuesday, November 1, 2005


This is a plea. Every morning I listen to Air America Radio's Morning Sedition with Mark Maron and Mark Reilly. I found out today that Mark Maron's contract has not been renewed. There are two great personalities on Air America Radio that need to be nurtured and promotes. Sam Seder is one and Maron is the other. So, in a Madman first, I recommend that you all call (1-212-871-8100) or email ( Air America Radio and tell them not to get rid of Mark Maron. Do US all a favor and let some good, liberal humor stay in our progressive lives.
-Noah Greenberg

A Great Quote in the Lead

"Who in the hell is (President George) Bush?" he demands. "My parents came here to get away from stuff that he's recreating. Who is he to deconstruct 250 years of the constitution? If you were a Muslim in America after 9/11, you were presumed guilty of something. He prosecuted 2,000 Muslims -- and not one conviction for terrorism. They got a couple of guys on credit card fraud and a couple of guys on overstayed visas. Right now this government is going around and anywhere in the world we think there's a member of the `global war on terrorism' we can snatch him and take him somewhere where the sun don't shine on him."

-Sy Hersh, From The New Yorker

-Forwarded by Robert Scardapane


Judge Bob Perkins of the 331st Judicial Criminal District Court in Austin, TX was pulled from trying Rep. Tom DeLay (R-TX) because he gave money, LEGALLY, to Democratic causes.

Why does this rub me the wrong way?

Judge C.W. Duncan held the hearing and determined that there might be a conflict of interest regarding Judge Perkins trying DeLay. There's only one problem with this: Judge Duncan is a big contributor to the Republican Party. So, why didn't Judge Duncan recuse himself from deciding whether or not to recuse Judge Perkins.

Wow... I'm just about recused out!

Looking more closely at the situation one realizes that, according to this decision, DeLay couldn't be tried by any judge who is either a Democrat or a Republican because there is no way that either could be impartial.

I bet if you looked at all of the justices in the United States you could find no more than a small handful who haven't contributed to either Democrat or Republican causes.

Well, isn't that just about any case? maybe we could sequester judges until they are eligible to retire.

A Texas state Statute says that a justice "shall recuse himself in cases where his impartiality might reasonably be questioned, or if he has a personal bias or prejudice in the case." That could be applied to all cases.

"The public perception of Judge Perkins's activities shows him to be on opposite sides of the political fence than Tom DeLay,"
-Dick DeGuerin. DeLay's attorney

But now, DeGuerin and DeLay have another problem. Even if the new judge is a hard-right, dyed-in-the-wool Christian fundamentalist he (or she) will have to bend over backwards to make sure they show absolutely no favoritism towards DeLay. Whoever this new judge is will most certainly be under more scrutiny than any judge since Judge Ito (the O.J. Simpson case).

There is no doubt that the "Team DeLay" considers this a huge victory for their side. But they should be careful for what they wish for.

"Judges are presumed to be impartial,"
-Rick Reed, a prosecutor in the case

The bottom line is this: If we can't trust judges, then who can we trust?

-Noah Greenberg

"Rule 21"

"I demand on behalf of the American people that we understand why these investigations aren't being conducted, and in accordance with Rule 21, I now move that the Senate go into closed session."
-Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

I love it when a Democrat gets forceful.


Just what is Rule 21?



1. On a motion made and seconded to close the doors of the Senate, on the discussion of any business which may, in the opinion of a Senator, require secrecy, the Presiding Officer shall direct the galleries to be cleared; and during the discussion of such motion the doors shall remain closed.

2. When the Senate meets in closed session, any applicable provisions of rules XXIX and XXXI, including the confidentiality of information shall apply to any information and to the conduct of any debate transacted.

The first part of Rule 21 states that any senator can call for a closed door session and the whole senate will have to stay, without the gallery and without cameras, as long as the motion is seconded.. The only surprise is: What took so long?

The senate has become a club where grandstanding is the main sport. Just look at the Terri Schiavo fiasco: The "G"reed "O"ver "P"eople party senators were falling all over themselves to placate the Far Right Wing of their own party that they forget that their job wasn't to make law for one person, but to make laws for the good o all people.

"The resort to this, this, this stunt - this political stunt - this scare tactic, is really deeply disappointing. If they want to get in the gutter, I guess that's what they'll do."
-Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, in his best cry-baby voice

Why did Harry Reid make Bill Frist late for dinner, one might ask? Because it was time to make President "G"lobal "W"arming Bush answer the questions as to why his administration felt it necessary to lie (mispeak; misquote; whatever) to the United Nations, The US Senate and to the American People about saddam Hussein and the Weapons of Mass Destruction (or is that Weapons of Mass Distraction?) that, in fact, he did not have?

Maybe it was because it was time the Democratic leadership stood up and demanded to be heard.


Besides, Senator Reid has a few questions regarding the reasons we went to war with Iraq, and so do the American People. I know I do. Hey, if I'm going to pay for something, I want to know just what it is I am paying for.

The closed-door session "was not needed, not necessary."
-Cry-Baby Frist

Another Boo-Hoo-Hoo moment by the "G"reed "O"ver "P"eople party leadership (if you can call it "leadership", that is).


The question I have for Senator Frist is this: Why haven't YOU asked the president to explain himself on this issue?


Maybe Senator Frist sees himself as "the one" that Bush will endorse in 2008 and he's trying to get on his "good side." Fat Chance!

"Today we know these assessments (That Iraq had WMD's) were wrong,"
-Senator Pat Roberts (R-KS). committee chairman, July, 2004, regarding Phase 1 of the investigation

"The fact is that the administration at all levels, and to some extent us, used bad information to bolster its case for war. And we in Congress would not have authorized that war -- we would NOT have authorized that war -- with 75 votes if we knew what we know now."
-Senator Jay Rockerfeller, the committee vice-chairman, July, 2004, also regarding Phase 1 of the investigation

That was one year and 4 months ago that these statement were made, and since, the Republican "leaders" have just been ignoring that which should not be ignored.

Instead of giving former CIA director George Tenant the Medal of Freedom, perhaps it would have been a better idea to have him testify in what is termed "Phase 2" of the committee's investigation.

"We will look into Phase 2 and see what we can do and finish that product. I said a long time ago we would let the chips fall where they may."
-An angry Roberts today

Why yes, you did say it..."A LONG TIME AGO." Why has nothing been done to date?

"It is clear that only token work, at best, has been done on Phase 2 since it was authorized. That's unacceptable."

Wow. Was that an honest answer or just a CYA moment for Senator Rockerfeller? Too bad this doesn't get you off the hook for a job poorly done.

The probable answer to why Senator Reid felt as if he had to take this measure was this: Because, if it wasn't taken now, then when, if ever, would the American People, the over 2,000 dead heroes and the over 7,000 seriously wounded troops finally know the truth as to their sacrifices?

-Noah Greenberg

Send your comments to: or

-Noah Greenberg