It has been a busy week for the BHC. Considering all the other coverage throughout the IMC network on the FTAA meeting, an editorial decision was made to leave that subject alone. Still, our phalanx of researchers could barely keep pace, what with Rush back on the air, Mutual Fund Mania, Bush in England and the Christian Right freaking out about the SJC marriage opinion, it is practically a full-time job just keeping up with the stream of nonsense. But here goes...

----------------------------------------------
Operation Iraqi Freedom

Wednesday, November 12, 2003, Reuters
BAGHDAD - American soldiers handcuffed and firmly wrapped masking tape around an Iraqi man's mouth after they arrested him for speaking out against occupation troops.

Asked why the man had been arrested and put into the back of a Humvee vehicle on Tahrir Square, the commanding officer told Reuters at the scene on Tuesday: "This man has been detained for making anti-coalition statements."

I wonder if the hapless Iraqis had any idea that this is what Bush meant when he said he was bringing the American values of freedom and democracy to the Iraqi people.

----------------------------------------------
Judicial Nominee Nonsense

From whitehouse.gov:

- During President Bush's first two years in office, only 53% of appeals court nominees were confirmed compared to a rate of over 90% during the same period for the last 3 Presidencies.
- A minority of Senators are now engaging in unprecedented filibusters of two highly qualified appeals court nominees who have the support of a majority of Senators. And more filibusters are threatened.

What the WhiteHouse is really complaining about here is that, despite having confirmed 164 of Bush's 168 federal judicial nominees, Congess isn't doing it fast enough. Well, George, maybe if you would stop nominating a bunch of misogynistic, Christian zealots, things might go a little more quickly. What is actually frightening is that Congress has confirmed almost 98% of Bush's nominees.

----------------------------------------------
Lyching America

"The authorized biography of Pfc. Jessica Lynch debunks early myths that U.S. troops waged a daring rescue to save her, and describes a team of Iraqi doctors as gentle caretakers who worked at their own risk to keep her alive."

So, it would seem Lynch did the right and honorable thing. She still comes across as dippy. In an interview, she says,

"...--but I wish I hadn't done it – I wish it had never happened," Lynch says. "I'd give four hundred billion dollars. I'd give anything."

Ok, how about just 87 billion. That's all you need to give. At least for now. Maybe more later....


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25258-2003Nov11.html

----------------------------------------------
Guilty...but not

It seems that Kentucky Governor Paul Patton settled up some ethics charges labeled against him: nothing unusual, just run-of-the-mill cronyism, etc. He denies the charges, of course, claiming he did nothing wrong. Despite the settlement, he tries to obfuscate his guilt with some typical double-speak:

Gov. Paul Patton said he settled ethics charges against him not because he was guilty but because he would have been found guilty by the Executive Branch Ethics Commission.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50917-2003Nov17.html

----------------------------------------------
Morgan Stanley Regrets...

Morgan Stanley is about to cough up $50m in the midst of the recent flurry of SEC investigations of numerous mutual funds, and their "management" practices. Morgan Stanley was shown to have failed it's customers on a number of issues:

Morgan Stanley agreed to pay $50 million in penalties and restitution today to settle civil charges with the Securities and Exchange Commission for failing to disclose to its customers that the firm received payments to promote certain mutual funds.

Morgan Stanley also failed to explain to its customers that the cost of the payments it received, which went beyond standard brokerage commissions, would be born by fund shareholders....

Of course, there is no contrition forthcoming, other than the CEO saying,

"I regret that some of our sales and disclosure practices have been found inadequate," Philip J. Purcell, chairman and CEO, Morgan Stanley.

This is an amazingly fatuous claim. Is this meant to indicate that Morgan Stanley just doesn't know what it's doing as far as SEC regulations go? Yeah, right.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51720-2003Nov17.html

----------------------------------------------
Head Rush

As we have heard, Rush Limbaugh returned to the airwaves. Oh goody. Well, he wasted no time and came out swinging:

Emerging from a self-imposed exile in which he was treated for an addiction to painkillers, Rush Limbaugh returned to the air today.
"Many people feel and think that when you go to a rehabilitation center for addictions or other things, that the people in there turn you into a linguini-spined liberal, and that's not true,''

Now, on the surface this appears oddly contrite for him. But the underlying message is that he and his ilk actually do think that some sort of clandestine brain-washing program is what is really behind all this "drug rehab." And what evidence is there for that? Why Hollywood, of course. Most of that crowd has either been through rehab, are going through it now or soon will be. And we all know what a bunch of mushy-headed liberals they are.


http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/17/national/17CND-RUSH.html?hp

----------------------------------------------
Bum Rush

As stated earlier, even after a timeout from excoriation, Rush came out swinging. Apparently, all this talk of peace is really bugging him:

"Would somebody kindly please explain to me what the people who want peace are getting? What progress are they making? Where is the peace they want?" The problem, Rush says, is that the United Nations, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and everyone else in the world who wants peace are just getting blown up.

"Would somebody please tell me," asks Rush, "what is the upside to wanting peace? There isn't any. You are inviting evil people to come kick your ass. It's real simple. In fact, you are bending over and grabbing your ankles beforehand and saying, go ahead and kick my ass. And then when they do, you say, aww, but I only want peace. And they're laughing themselves silly right at you." The peace movement, Rush says, is comprised of "so-called pacifists who only want peace," and needs to be replaced by a "victory movement."

Wars are not fought for peace, Rush says. Wars are fought for victory. "Kill people and break things. That's the purpose of a war."

add comment here _________________


http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2003/11/18/rush/index.html

----------------------------------------------
Frosty Bush

Sir David Frost conducted an interview with President Bush November 12 at the White House for PBS-BBC. Some excerpts of various profundities:

"Well, I've got some business to do with Tony Blair...We're going to talk about how to continue to spread freedom and peace"

Hey, wait a minute! Rush just said peace is for wimps and pacifists who want to get their ass kicked. The right wing needs to get their message straight.

This is just beautiful:

"Well, freedom is a beautiful thing, I would first say, and it's -- aren't you lucky to be in a country that encourages people to speak their mind? And I value going to a country where people are free to say anything they want to say."

Yes, how refreshing to go somewhere and find such freedom while my administration is doing everything it can to crush it right here.

On WMD

We will find -- you know, we will get to find the truth, but this guy for many years had been hiding weapons, deceiving weapons.

Deceiving weapons? Ahh, yes, Weapons of Mass Deceiving.
The BHC always enjoys exchanges were he just won't answer the damn question:

SIR DAVID: Did you ever believe that stuff about him having weapons of mass destruction that could be unleashed in 45 minutes, or did you never really believe that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: I believed he was a dangerous man.

SIR DAVID: But you didn't believe that?

PRESIDENT BUSH: And -- well, I believed a lot of things, but I know he was a dangerous man....

Given the Pentagon's reluctance, nay, insistance, that they will not track Iraqi civilian deaths, and that the number is rising and now estimated to be in the upper thousands, this is a particularly mendacious declaration:

PRESIDENT BUSH: And we had to deal with [Saddam], and we did in a way, by the way, that was a compassionate way. We spared innocent life...

Now, technically, this is true: they haven't killed every innocent Iraqi. Many remain alive today.

We love how Bush feels a need to explain what the UN is to the audience. One gets a sense that he himself has only recently learned it and now wants to demonstrate his new found acumen:

PRESIDENT BUSH: This issue has been discussed in the United Nations for over a decade, and the United Nations, as a -- kind of multilateral international body, passed resolution after resolution after resolution

Of course, the BHC is going to leave you with a real zinger:

PRESIDENT BUSH: I've put together one of the finest ... administrations any president has ever assembled. These are good, honest, decent, hard-working, experienced people who give me good, unvarnished advice.

Ba-da-bing!


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/16/bush_frost_int/index.html

----------------------------------------------
The Verdict Is In

Boston Globe reports that The Supreme Judicial Court [the State Supreme Court of Massechusetts] became the nation's first state supreme court to rule that same-sex couples have the legal right to marry. A 4-3 decision was rendered.

In the dissent, Robert Cordy wrote that the state's marriage statute historically described the union of one man and one woman. The law did not violate the Massachusetts constitution because "the Legislature could rationally conclude that it furthers the legitimate state purpose of ensuring, promoting and supporting an optimal social structure for the bearing and raising of children," Cordy wrote.

Is this really a "legimate state purpose," ensuring the social structure for bearing and raising children? While it may be news to most Americans that states are or should be engaged in social engineering, it is apparently the overarching concern of the state in the minds of the Christian right.

The SJC case began in 2001 after seven same-sex couples from Boston to Northampton to Orleans went to their local city or town offices and applied for marriage licenses. When their requests were rejected, they filed a lawsuit in Suffolk Superior Court.

The couples sued the state Department of Public Health, which administers marriage laws and requires blood tests. May 2002, Suffolk Superior Court Judge Thomas E. Connolly threw out the case before it went to trial.

Connolly ruled that the state constitution does not give same-sex couples the right to marry. Children have long been considered central to marriage, he wrote, and same-sex couples cannot bear children.

Some of us at the BHC have been involved in marriage and we cannot quite wrap our heads around why anyone would bust themselves to get into one of those legal entanglements, but that is neither here nor there. While it may be traditionally true that children have been central to marriages, that certainly is no longer the case. And by this argument, heterosexual couples who would choose not to have children ought to be barred from entering into a marriage as well. This is clearly absurd and for that to be the central tenant of the dissenting opinion exposes it for what it really is: uptight, right-wing, holier-than-thou yowling about being dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century.


http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2003/11/18/sjc_gay_marriage_legal_in_mass/

----------------------------------------------
Bedrock...twist twist

Some of the hot wind blowing out of the Christian right about the SJC decision is almost hilarious. Tony Perkins, president of Family Research Council, is positively frothing:

"This is THE wake-up call for both the American public and our elected officials. If we do not amend the Massachusetts State Constitution so that it explicitly protects marriage as the union of one man and one woman, and if we do not amend the U.S. Constitution with a federal marriage amendment that will protect marriage on the federal level, we will lose marriage in this nation.

"Marriage is about more than tax credits and other financial benefits. It is about preserving the best environment for raising children and the safest, healthiest living situation for adults. Without strong marriages as our bedrock, our nation will suffer a devastating blow."

Where in God's name has this guy been? With a divorce rate hovering around 50%, rational people might have a difficult time applying the adjective "strong" to the institution in this country but apparently not Mr. Perkins. The hyperbole about marriage being "bedrock" is truly otherworldly. This entire snarl was bound to happen. It has been on the radar now for sometime. Of course, the crux of the issue stems from this country's historical decisions, whether conscious or not, to attach a host of legal states to a religious institution. Despite the desire of the founders to try and seperate church and state, American society chose to entwine the two on a personal level via the religious instituion of marriage. Kinship, legal guardianship, healthcare coverage, probate laws, social security benefits are just some of the many civil and legal entanglements which marriage automatically confers upon those who marry. The SJC decision is simply coming to grips with the fact that American society can no longer ignore the reality that there exist a body of American citizens for whom legal status in these regards is not provided. To continue to deny legal and civil partnership status to those who are not hetrosexual couples is quite obviously at odds with most Americans' general desire for a fair and just society.

----------------------------------------------
People with nothing better to do

Conservative religious groups began a petition drive yesterday to demand that Congress legislate to protect displays of the Ten Commandments in public buildings....
Scarborough, with former Republican presidential candidates Alan Keyes and Gary Bauer, pledged to gather millions of signatures over the next year to pressure Congress to protect religious displays.

One might be inclined toward the impression from these folks that their graven images are constantly under sniper or RPG attack or other similiar assaults. With Bush at the helm, the Christian right has been going off lately in ways which haven't been seen in awhile. They seem emboldened in their usual efforts on abortion and gay marriages but they have now been extending their mission to stem cell research, religious statuary in public building, etc.. However, their efforts are being curtailed at every legal turn by the courts, who still, thankfully, are seeming to remain rational, at least so far. Of course, we know full well that Bush is trying to change that.


www.washingtonpost.com

----------------------------------------------
National Day of Mourning...in Italy

ROME -- Tens of thousands of people gathered at a Roman basilica Tuesday to pay their final respects to 19 Italians killed in a truck bombing in Iraq and the entire nation observed a day of mourning -- a unified outpouring of grief in a country deeply divided over the Iraq war.

Does it not strike anyone as odd that the US, and the Bush Administration in particular, has not had such an event as this? Of course, there have been a number of stories and opinions rendered lately as to why Bush et al. are apparently ignoring or trying to ignore the mounting US casualties. The answer really is quite obvious: bad PR. This is the same administration which is bemoaning the "negative" the coverage in Iraq and how incessantly the media belabours all those dead US soldiers. Look at what they are doing in Italy! Recognise the poor bastards! They have died as soldiers.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55778-2003Nov18.html

----------------------------------------------
Iron Hammer

"Operation Iron Hammer," response to the stepped-up violence against American soldiers in Iraq. In 1943 and again in 1945, Hitler developed Plan Iron Hammer to wipe out Soviet electrical capacity by attacking the country's main turbine stations.

One boggles at the idiocy of the this and yet it is not inconcievable these days that Bush and his cabal thought that this was a really good idea.


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/21/baghdad_diary/index.html

----------------------------------------------

We know, quite a load. But you can handle the Truth!