FinermanWorks

Hurricane Gustav’s Silver Lining

The Republicans were looking for a way to avoid having Commandude Bush at their convention. No one actually threatened him. Sarah Palin’s offer to kill and skin Barney actually was her idea of a gift. But there were subtle efforts to discourage his presence. They never made clear whether the convention would be in St. Paul or Sao Paolo; and by a slight misunderstanding, the convention schedule sent to the White House was based on the Julian Calendar.

With the threat of Hurricane Gustav, however, the Republican Convention will understand if the President now is too busy to attend. And, if the Hurricane had not been so convenient, the Republican National Committee would have wanted the President to remain in Washington to monitor reports of a Persian Army massing to attack Greece.

The Second Syllable of Addiction

Joseph Biden was speaking, but the news scrolling on the bottom of the television screen had the real story. David Duchovy is going into rehab to be treated for sex addiction! This news item was so important that CNN spelled every word correctly. (A few days earlier, the CNN scroll reported that Chris Katten “seperated” from his wife.)

I have to wonder what is a sex addiction? I recently saw Mrs. Duchovy (alias Tea Leoni) in a film, and she did not seem the worse for his addiction. She wasn’t bow-legged. So what is Duchovy doing? Does he take public transportation just to bump into people? Is he auditioning for concerts with his baton? Is he looking for nude photos of his wife on the internet?

Having seen Duchovy’s attempts at acting, I am surprised that he is capable of any animation.

The Republican “Dream Ticket” of Maverick and Annie Oakley ended today when Alaska Governor Sarah Palin resigned. Palin had not realized that she might be expected to move to Washington D.C. “I don’t trust them cities with all their communist contraptions” explained the governor who had ordered the removal of stoplights and sewers from Juneau.

Palin even expressed her personal dislike of the White House. “It is not the kind of place where I can just open a window and shoot something.”

She also was offended that the Republican platform would not incorporate her Anti-Abortion policy into the party philosophy. “Unwanted children are an excellent source of meat” she insisted, offering the reporters a collection of her favorite survivalist recipes.

With Palin’s resignation and the need for another token woman on the Republican ticket, Mitt Romney has offered to change his sex.

George Bernard Shaw viewed morality as a middle class habit. The lower class was preoccupied with survival and couldn’t be sidetracked by a puritanical affectations. The upper class could afford to enjoy itself without fear of consequences; it had etiquette rather than morals.

But one of the rules of etiquette dictated that a woman’s older children should be sired by her husband. Once she had dutifully extended the husband’s lineage, however, she could discreetly cross-pollinate. But in royal families, this latitude was not condoned. Cheating on the king was treason. Ask Catherine Howard for further details.

Nonetheless, some royal lines had their share of faux pas and faux heirs. We have already discussed Prince Albert’s doubtful paternity. Other royal families had their scandals, too. Of course, France would have its share of bedroom farces. For example, as the wife of Charle VI, Isabeau had given her husband a number of legitimate children; so she allowed herself a little indiscretion. Unfortunately, her older sons died, leaving her little indiscretion as the heir to the throne. Worse, she told everyone that the alleged dauphin was not the son of the king. However, the French in the 1420s were willing to crown any bastard in preference to acknowledging an English king (who happened to be the legitimate grandson of Charles VI and Isabeau). So France pretended that Charles VII was a Valois.

Two centuries later, France had two reigning queens: Anne of Austria and her husband Louis XIII. Louis was not even trying, and the Bourbon dynasty looked like it was about to expire. In most monarchies, a nephew or a cousin could succeed; but France had absurdly restrictive rules of succession. The king could trace his royal lineage only through the male side of the family. It did not matter if the previous king had sisters and they had sons; they were ineligible. That rigid law brought the Bourbons to the throne in 1589–when Henri III–the last Valois was stabbed to death by an irate monk. According to the laws of royal succession, his heir was his very distant cousin Henri of Bourbon–who shared one common great-great, etc. grandfather three hundred years earlier; but at least, it was a consistent male descent. If Louis XIII failed to have a son, the royal genealogists were not sure how far back they needed to go to find the next successor. Cardinal Richelieu feared for the future of France more than the soul of Anne of Austria. His eminence personally picked her confessor, a charming Italian named Mazarin. And soon the Queen had a heir and then another. The boys were rather short and stocky, while the Bourbons were tall and lanky; but Louis XIII did not mind the discrepancy. There would be a Louis XIV, and the details were irrelevant.

England might have had an illegitimate queen. George IV could not tolerate the presence of his wife, a surprisingly unclean German duchess named Caroline. When he was coronated, he had her locked out of Westminster Abbey. Rumors had it that he never spent more than one night with her; so people were surprised–if relieved–when Caroline had a daughter. George never publicly questioned the child’s origins and he recognized young Charlotte as his heir. If nothing else, his alleged daughter was his actual niece. According to rumor, George’s younger brother Frederick felt sorry for his insulted and unhappy sister-in-law, and he may have had an informal way of comforting her. In any case, Charlotte was the granddaughter of George III. If Princess Charlotte survived the rumors, she was not so fortunate against 19th century medicine. She lived long enough to be married and then died in childbirth.

The Bolsheviks did not kill the Romanovs. Catherine the Great had extinguished the line a century earlier. Killing her husband and producing a litter of bastards constituted a change of dynasty. Catherine did not even maintain a polite fiction as to her children’s paternity–especially the son born three years after her husband’s death. No better a mother than a wife, Catherine so disliked her heir that she relished telling him that he was no Romanov. However, his maternity was never in doubt, so he was allowed to succeed his malicious mother; and Tsar Paul maintained the name of Romanov.

And that should be enough scandals for today.

On this day in 1819 Louisa, Duchess of Saxe-Coburg, gave birth to her second son. The infant did not look remotely like her husband, a fact observed by the Duke. A new-born brunet–in a fair-haired family–raised some questions as to how close the Duchess had been with the court financier. (The child turned out to be highly intelligent–which also might have incriminated the financier.) However suspicious the Duke might be, he needed the financier more than a scandal. So the Duke assumed the paternity of the infant in question. Besides, he was confident that his wife’s first-born–blond and dumb–was definitely his.

Nonetheless, the Duke was prepared to part with his wife. The miserable couple separated and, having the advantage of being Protestant, divorced. The price of her freedom, however, was the loss of her children. Both boys were to be raised by the Duke. The older boy seemed unaffected by the family discord; Teutonic obtuseness has its virtues. The younger boy–perhaps less Teutonic–was all too aware of the scandal and the rumors. His response was to make himself beyond reproach. He was diligent, studious, and puritanical. Ironically, it only proved that he was no Saxe-Coburg, but he was a most admirable young man. Fortunately, he also happened to be handsome.

The young Queen of England certainly thought so. Victoria proposed to the handsome, refined and exemplary young man–and being a second son he really had no other job prospects. He consented and became her Prince Consort. The young woman was so enamoured that she remade herself to be everything that her husband would want. A giddy, self-indulgent Hanoverian became…well…a Victorian. But all the self-contained, industrious, and (let’s face it) self-righteous traits that we call Victorian would more accurately be called Albertian.

Rome wasn’t built in a day, and it also took three days to sack. The Visigoths began their spree this day in 410.

At the time, Rome was little more than a very rich mausoleum. The Eastern more stable half of the Roman Empire was ruled from Constantinople. The Western, reeling half was now tenuously ruled from Ravenna. The Roman Empire had dispensed with Rome. Nonetheless, the former capital contained the accumulated treasures of Rome’s past glories, and the Visigoths wanted to pay their respects.

But where was the Roman army to prevent the barbarian rampage? Well, the barbarian horde was the Roman army–although flagrantly A.W.O.L. For some 20 years, the Visigoths had served the Empire fighting other barbarians, but it had not been the most gratifying experience. Under Roman command, they found themselves expendable and unappreciated–the heaviest casualties but the last to be paid. So the Visigoths decided that being Rome’s enemy would be more fulfilling and lucrative.

Led by Alaric, the Visigoths rampaged through Greece, the Balkans and then Italy. Of course, Rome was part of the itinerary, and there really was no stop them. Yet, the old capital and surrounded by stout walls and should have withstood the barbarian attack. The Visigoths actually lacked the manpower to completely surround and besiege Rome; they only managed to blockade Rome’s gates. They also lacked the siege equipment to breach Rome’s walls. Yet, those walls did lack the real deterrent: someone to defend them. The Romans now were so craven that treachery prevailed. Someone opened a gate to the Visigoths. There was some Roman resistance; it lasted a day.

The Visigoths sacked the city: looting and rape were wholesale, and the slaughter–more limited–but still an enthusiastic demonstration of long-held grudges. Yet, the Visigoths did adhere to one restraint. They were Christian–albeit Arians who confused Jesus with Thor–and so spared the churches, which only recently had confiscated the wealth of the Pagan temples. Nonetheless, there still were government buildings and palaces to loot, and citizens to rob. The Visigoths also qualified as liberals; they freed slaves–a considerable segment of the Roman society.

Alaric died soon after sacking Rome. Let’s face it, his life would have been anticlimactic after that. He was succeeded by his kinsman Ataulf (yep, that the fifth century form of Adolf) who led the Visigoths into Spain, which they conquered and ruled until the Moors dropped by. There are some traces of the Visigothic presence in Spain today. Juan Carlos certainly is one; the family tree has Visigothic roots. And there is a region of Spain originally named Gothalonia; the Spanish now mispronounce it as Catalonia.

And in 455, the Vandals sacked Rome. They refrained from rape and slaughter, but they did rob the Churches. So, Visigoth or Vandal: guess who has the worse reputation?

For some reason, I have Joe Biden on my mind. Remember how impressive he and the Senate Club were at the confirmation hearings for Son-of-Sam Alito….

Sen. Biden: I’d like to begin my question by reading aloud the first 200 pages of “Finnegan’s Wake” which I may claim to have written.

Sen. Specter: While we are waiting for Sen. Biden to finish, the other Senators will continue their questioning.

Sen. Lindsey Graham: Judge Alito. You are a credit to your race. I’d like to know how you would have improved “Godfather, Part III.”

Judge Alito: I would have killed off Sofia Coppola in the first three minutes.

Sen. Kennedy: In your previous testimony, you repeatedly refer to Starry Desirus.

Judge Alito: That is “stare decisis.” Starry Desirus sounds like a stripper.

Sen. Kennedy: I was hoping she was.

Sen. Specter: Senator Coburn will be questioning Judge Alito while hiding under the table to avoid radio transmissions from the Martians.

Sen. Coburn: Thank you, you evil Jew. Judge Alito, are you aware that homosexuality is a Masonic plot to destroy humanity.

Judge Alito: I can’t comment on any case that might come before the Supreme Court.

Sen. Feinstein: How do you envision your role on the Supreme Court? Will you be just another of Scalia’s shameless toadies or will you be revealing a warped, sadistic personality of your own?

Sen. Hatch: Please, Sen. Feinstein. Under oath, Judge Alito has clearly and repeatedly proved that he has no personality.

Sen. Sessions: Do you believe that a state has a right to secede from the Union?

Judge Alito: I can’t comment on any case that might come before the Supreme Court…y’all.

Sen. Durbin: While you were in the Justice Department, you wrote the following memorandum. “The Bill of Rights is for wimps.” Could you explain that?

Judge Alito: Certainly. I meant that wimps are entitled to the same rights and protections as is any citizen.

Sen. Spector: Judge Alito, you have spoken of your great admiration for Judge Robert Bork. Judge Bork is certainly a man of unique intellect. For instance, during his nomination to the Supreme Court, Judge Bork said the following: “I like to eat the eyeballs of children.” How do you reconcile Judge Bork’s diet with your pro-life stance?

Judge Alito: It really is not necessary to kill the children in order to eat their eyeballs.

Sen. Leahy: Tell us about an organization called The Young Stormtroopers of Princeton.

Judge Alito: I think that it was students interested in meteorology.

Sen. Leahy: Actually the club is a reactionary organization whose aims are to return Ethiopia to Italy and to overturn the Magna Carta. Now, why would you want to join a group like that?

Judge Alito: I was hoping to get lucky with Phyllis Schlafly.

Sen. Hatch: Which of your sterling qualifications have so impressed our Commander-in-Chief that he has nominated you to the highest court in the land?

Judge Alito: I let him call me “Toto.”

On this day in 1485, Henry Tudor Sr. ascended to the English throne–climbing a few corpses on the way.

Prior to the victory at Bosworth Field, the Tudor family crest might have been a leek with a bar sinister. In other words, the Tudors were Welsh bastards. They were related to Henry VI through his mother’s indiscretions with a Welsh knight. (The widow of Henry V was bored and French–so what else could you expect?) Henry VI made his half-brother Edmund the Earl of Richmond. In the Tudors’ further social ascent, Edmund married Margaret Beaufort who was the heiress of John of Gaunt’s illegitimate family with his favorite mistress. They had a boy named Henry; he later earned himself the VII.

However Margaret and her descendants also were technically barred from the throne. But they were all that was left of the Lancasters. Henry IV had four sons and only one grandchild: Henry VI. He didn’t survive the War of the Roses; neither did his alleged son. (The wife of Henry VI was also bored and French–and impatient as well.)

For lack of a legitimate alternative, the Welsh half-nephew/half-second cousin was all that the Lancastrians could scrounge. As the current Prince Edward described his ancestor’s lineage, “Henry VII’s claim to the throne was tenuous beyond belief.”

On this day in 1858, Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas held the first of seven debates in their campaign for the U.S. Senate. Each debate lasted three hours and addressed only one question. Somehow the two men carried on without a interrogating panel of reporters or pundits. It evidently was a more primitive time. Here is how a modern debate would have been….

Reporter: Mr. Lincoln, you are quoted as saying that “A house divided against itself cannot stand.” What is the basis of your harsh criticism of the American construction industry?

Lincoln: You misunderstand me. It is a quotation from the Bible which I used as metaphor reflecting the divisive issue of slavery.

Douglas: I refuse to believe that the Bible is critical of the American construction industry. May God forgive you, Mr. Lincoln!

Pundit: Mr. Douglas, you were known to have courted Mary Todd before she married Mr. Lincoln. Do you believe that she is too promiscuous to be a senator’s wife?

Douglas: Let me assure the public that I will never be the first to exhibit daguerreotypes of the naked Mrs. Lincoln for political purposes. And I invite Mr. Lincoln to make the same pledge.

Lincoln: What?

Commentator: Mr. Lincoln, during your one term in Congress, you opposed the Mexican War. Do you hate our soldiers or do you just prefer Mexicans?

Lincoln: I oppose unnecessary wars.

Douglas: While I would not question the patriotism of my craven, timorous opponent, I have always been a full-throated supporter of victory–and I am adamantly opposed to defeat.

Psychologist: Mr. Douglas, you are a proponent of popular sovereignty. Yet, being an embarrassingly short man with a pompous personality, you certainly are not as popular as the affable Mr. Lincoln. What in your miserable childhood led you into politics?

Douglas: My dedication to public service and the opportunity for revenge.

Lincoln: Do you really have naked daguerreotypes of my wife?

In the increasingly rare occurence of news reports from Iraq, and if you still bother to pay attention, you would have heard of the Yarmuk Hospital. It is that dilapidated, pathetic locale for hapless Iraqi civilians to get some facsimile of healthcare. So, who was this namesake Yarmuk? An outstanding physician? A generous (or guilt-ridden) philanthropist?

In fact, Yarmuk was a battle. (So much for Iraqi charm. Wouldn’t you want to go to a hospital named for Iwo Jima?) Of course, Yarmuk was an Arab victory and–however obscure it may be to you–it was one of the most significant battles in history. But for Yarmuk, the Middle East might still be Christian.

Until 636, Islam was still confined to Arabia. The Caliph of the new religion had sent large raiding parties to plunder their infidel neighbors; and the affluent Byzantines certainly had lots worth stealing. In fact, given the lethargic Byzantine defenses, the Arabs burglarized the entire city of Damascus. That heist finally got Constantinople’s attention. (We’ll have to postpone this theological debate over whether or not the Christ child was born potty-trained.) The Emperor Heraclius ordered the army to stop the Arab incursions.

The approach of perhaps 80,000 Byzantines convinced the Arab expeditions to make a prudent exit from Syria. Having one third as many men, the Arab forces retreated as far south as the Yarmuk River valley, which forms the border of modern Syria and Jordan. There they took up defensive positions and awaited the Byzantine attack. And waited and waited and waited. The Byzantines had stopped on the other side of the valley, and began a three-month-long staring contest.

During that three months, the Byzantines made several attempts to negotiate. Considering the Imperial forces’ numerical superiority, the Arab Commander must have been impressed with the Byzantines’ generosity or stupidity. Had the situation been reversed, he would not have hesitated to attack. However, under the circumstances, he was willing to negotiate if only to stall for reenforcements. They arrived, but he still had half as many men as the Byzantines. So the staring contest continued until the Byzantines blinked.

They had no choice in the matter; they were downwind of a sandstorm. And they soon found themselves downwind and under the Arab cavalry. Taking advantage of Allah’s gift of weather, the Arabs attacked. At least half of the Byzantine army was annihilated, the survivors were in disorganized flight. Syria and Palestine were defenseless; the Arabs’ strategy was no longer smash and grab. They were there to stay, and they soon found that Egypt and North Africa were easy pickings as well.

So on this day in 636, Byzantine incompetence lost half of an empire, gave the Arabs the Middle East and left us with the consequences.

McCain Campaign Attacks Bias of NBC

To prove NBC’s continuous discrimination against Senator John McCain, the Republican campaign presented the following examples:

Senator McCain has never been asked to portray a judge, witness or corpse on “Law and Order.”

Senator McCain was turned down for a role in “The Man From U.N.C.L.E.” The role went to a younger man: Leo G. Carroll.

Although Senator McCain never appeared on “The Cosby Show”, neither Phylicia Rashād nor Lisa Bonet publicly denied that he was the father of a black child.

Despite John McCain’s comparable academic record, “The Today Show” hired J. Fred Muggs as its anthropoid correspondent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Fred_Muggs

J. Fred Muggs–McCain’s Vice Presidential Choice?

Why not? Mr. Muggs is 56 and certainly would have a broader appeal to youth. Like McCain, Muggs is known to have a temper–and once reportedly bit Martha Raye. However, Mr. Muggs was never verbally abusive. Cindy McCain should be so lucky.

Senator McCain and Mr. Muggs have similar long-playing records. As a former inmate of zoos, Mr. Muggs frequently refers to himself as a prisoner-of-war–whether or not it is relevant to the conversation.

Although Mr. Muggs is not–yet–a registered Republican, he shares many of the party’s values. He enjoys global warming and strongly supports banana republics. Mr. Muggs also questions evolution and certainly disputes its efficacy.