FinermanWorks

ISTANBUL, Turkey (AP) _ Turkey swiftly condemned a U.S. House panel’s approval of a bill describing the World War I-era mass killings of Armenians as genocide, accusing the lawmakers Thursday of distorting history.

The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed the bill Wednesday despite intense lobbying by Turkish officials and opposition from President Bush. The vote was a triumph for well-organized Armenian-American interest groups who have lobbied Congress for decades to pass a resolution.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates reiterated his opposition to the resolution Thursday, saying the measure could hurt relations at a time when U.S. forces in Iraq rely heavily on Turkish permission to use their airspace for U.S. air cargo flights.

Historians estimate up to 1.5 million Armenians were killed by Ottoman Turks around the time of World War I, an event widely viewed by genocide scholars as the first genocide of the 20th century. Turkey, however, denies the deaths constituted genocide, saying that the toll has been inflated and that those killed were victims of civil war and unrest.

Here is the official Turkish explanation: For some reason, the Armenians decided enmasse to march into the Anatolian wastelands but in their impetuous whimsy forgot to bring any food. Now this occurred during World War I, so perhaps there was a shortage of updated Michelin guides (the French army would have been using them to rate the trenches at Verdun.) Those silly Armenians kept missing the Howard Johnsons and ended starving to death–except for the thousands who must have accidently shot or bayoneted themselves.

For some reason, most people don’t believe the Turkish explanation. However, the Japanese do. Japan, too, has suffered from an unkind skepticism regarding “accidents” that may have happened in the topsy-turvy of the ’30s and ’40s. Apparently, millions of Chinese civilians died while the Japanese army was in the neighborhood. Given China’s large population, that may have been a statistical inevitability. There also could be a nutritional explanation. If in 1937 300,000 people in Nanking evidently chose to massacre and decapitate themselves, that might have been a reaction to all the monosodium glutamate in Chinese food. Yes, well, the Samurai Code evidently does not require credibility.

Fortunately, with my experience in the Chicago financial markets, I have a solution to Turkey’s and Japan’s bad reputations: Guilt Futures. Just pay, trade or coerce another country into taking the blame. It might not be historically valid, but we should let the marketplace determine who wants to be guilty. Sudan probably could use a little extra money to finance its ongoing genocide; an extra massacre or two on its resume would hardly be noticed. France might be willing to swap its Huguenot massacres or Nazi collaboration for more conveniently remote crimes. In the case of Nanking and the other atrocites, China and Japan could overcome history by finding a mutually agreeable scapegoat: Tibet.

Unfortunately for Turkey, it is not a rich country. The guilt future for the Armenian genocide should offer more than a few tons of figs. Of course, if the Turks offered military bases and unlimited use of their airspace, then there might be a willing culprit. After all, what are allies for?….

Today President Bush apologized for America’s massacre of the Armenians. As a national expression of remorse, the President encouraged people to eat raisins and read William Saroyan.

Today I want to pay tribute to my fellow satirist Alicia Rosenbaum, who actually made a cult of bad manners. Jack Kirby or Stan Lee could have immortalized her as a comicbook heroine: Super Yenta. However, she preferred to reinvent herself as Ayn Rand.

Her philosophy, Objectivism, is a synonym for Chutzpahism. At my local supermarket, I frequently encounter her disciples, the Hadassah Kamikazes, who ram their shopping carts into you and then complain about your clumsiness.

This is the 50th anniversary of her novel “Atlas Shrugged”, a sociopath’s guide to ridiculous writing. If you can’t get enough of bombastic prose, I’d recommend “The Ayn Rand Cookbook.”

Just savor her recipe for brisket.

First, take an inferior species: the unimaginative would use a cow; if you really want to assert your superiority, use a family pet.

Then, place yourself and the animal in a vat of boiling water. If you scream, start over and repeat until you master your weakness.

.

Eugen von Thor

The battle of Tours, fought this day in 732, is listed among the most important battles in history. It certainly is the only time that the French were underestimated. Having brushed aside the lumbering Visigoth clods in Spain, the Arabs assumed that the Franks would be just another trifle. And in theory, they were right. In the 8th century, Gallia was once again in three parts: two independent dukedoms and a weak kingdom fighting with each other. In planning their invasion of France, the Arabs discounted the possiblity of any real and organized resistance.

The Duchy of Aquitaine did not contradict the Arabs’ contempt. Southwestern France was quickly conquered. The most significant Arab losses were from hernias carrying the loot. Indeed, the sheer amount of plunder slowed down the Arabs’ invasion of central France. Their light cavalry had become quite heavy. That delay gave the desperate French two advantages. The first was weather. October in France would not seem a problem to most invaders; the Russians would be in bathing suits. But the Arabs were miserably cold; and their French loot evidently did not include long underwear. Thirty thousand sneezing Arabs are a less formidable foe, but the French still had to fight them.

The slow pace of the Arab invasion allowed the French time to gather an army, but this force was not the typical medieval ensemble of jealous nobles and undisciplined peasants. No, this was a real army with a capable leader. In fact, the French commander was not even a noble, at least a legitimate one. Being a bastard Charles Martel had worked his way up, surviving battles and court politics. He had the earned the rank of Mayor of the Palace. which was more important than it sounds. He was the military commander of the Franks and wielded far more power than the actual king, the incredibly trivial Theuderich IV.

To protect France–and himself–Charles had established a professional, full-time army. (Charles had financed this army by expropriating Church property. None too thrilled, the Church threatened to excommunicate him but decided that he was a lesser evil than an Arab invasion.)

The Arab army was sluggishly advancing on the city of Tours and was surprised to find Charles’ army, along with the reinforcements from the rest of France, standing in the way. As a further inconvenience to the Arabs, Charles used tactics, positioning his army on a wooded ridge. Arab cavalry, riding uphill through trees, was at a definite disadvantage. In fact, the disadvantage was so obvious that the Arab commander spent six days trying to come to a decision: should he attack or withdraw? It was not a pleasant choice. If he withdrew, the Caliph would probably kill him. If he attacked, the French would probably kill him. Of course, if he attacked and–with Allah working overtime–won….So, he did attack; unfortunately, a sizeable portion of his army did not. These Arabs were too intent on guarding their plunder from the possibility of French pillagers (pickpocketing mimes, etc.) that they abstained from the battle. They were willing to live with the shame…and the loot. And they did live with both. The commander was not so lucky, and much of the Arab army died with him.

Because the Arab strategists (Paleo-Cons?) back in Spain had never considered the possibility of defeat, the Arab invasion had not even organized a clear chain of command. There was no one to succeed the dead commander. With the officers feuding and the army battered, the Arab force averted complete disintegration only by retreating back to Spain. The Arab threat to Western Europe was over, at least until O.P.E.C.

France was saved–but so were the Dark Ages.

Today is the birthday of my wife and the feast day of St. Osyth. You may wonder which of the two is the greater martyr?

St. Osyth
Feastday: October 7
700

Martyred nun, also called Osith and Sytha. Known mainly through legends, she was supposedly the daughter of a chieftain of the Mercians in England and Wilburga, daughter of the powerful pagan king Penda of Mercia. Raised in a convent, Osyth desired to become a nun but was married against her will to King Sighere of Essex, by whom she had a son. Eventually, she won his permission to enter a convent, and she established a monastery on land at Chich, Essex, donated by Sighere, where she served as an abbess. She was reputedly slain by Danish raiders and is thus depicted in art as carrying her own head. There are historical difficulties associated with her existence, especially as no mention is made of her by Bede in his Ecclesiastical History.

This sounds like an episode of CSI: Essex.

Detective Aeugene had a few questions and King Sighere looked a little uneasy.

Aeugene: So you say that you were separated from your wife, but no one has ever heard of her. And that she was killed by the Vikings even though they won’t be here for another hundred years. And you just collected double indemnity from the insurance company.

Sighere: How about if I donate all the money to the Church?

Pope John VI: Sold!

Aeugene: You’re letting him get away with fraud.

John VI: But that is better than murder if she actually existed. And it’s fraud in a good cause. I’m still paying off the bribes for my election.

Aeugene: It is still fraud.

John VI: I have the power to make her a saint and you a traffic cop in Wales.

Aeugene: Case closed.

The World According to Michael Medved: “The framers may not have mentioned Christianity in the Constitution, but they clearly intended that charter of liberty to govern a society of fervent faith, freely encouraged by government for the benefit of all. Their noble and unprecedented experiment never involved a religion-free or faithless state but did indeed presuppose America’s unequivocal identity as a Christian nation.”

So, if America was intended to be a Christian Nation, is Mr. Medved planning to leave or convert?

Mr. Medved, alias the Rite Wing’s Uncle Talmud, must believe that the presence of the letter “t” in constitution (a trinity of them!) really signifies the cross. You can read all his vicarious death wish, “The Founders Intended A Christian, Not Secular, Society”, at www.townhall.com, a reactionary emporium where you can sample a variety of bile, hysteria, and bigotry along with advertised t-shirts denouncing Hillary Clinton as a communist.

However, I can save you the trouble and aggravation by offering this summary. Medved does quote Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson and James Madison in his essay. However, not one of them identifies himself as “I am Jesus’ Little Sunbeam”. In most of Medved’s cited quotes, our Founding Fathers don’t even mention Christianity.

Here is Thomas Jefferson’s alleged endorsement of Christianity: “A God who gave us life gave us liberty, and can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the Gift of God?” According to Medved, we must infer that Jefferson meant Christianity. What other God was there in 18th century America? In fact, the prevailing theological view of that time–the Enlightenment–regarded God, not as as a dogmatic, demanding Semitic busybody, but as “the watchmaker”:the rational creator who set the universe in motion. Jefferson, along with Benjamin Franklin, had that theological view: Deism.

John Adams was an Unitarian, a creed that regards Jesus as an exemplary human being but not divine. However, since Mr. Adams is no longer able to speak for himself, he has been coerced into Christianity by Medved. Here is the cited quote from Adams: “The Christian religion is, above all the religions that ever prevailed or existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of wisdom, virtue, equity and humanity.” Mr. Adam’s remark is certainly a compliment, but it is the praise of a disinterested observer not of a believer. Adams is endorsing Christianity only for people who need a religion.

George Washington and James Madison were Episcopalians but they showed more fervor as members of the Freemasons. (Indeed, the Masonic influence was more prevalent than Christianity in this nation’s founding: check out the back of the dollar bill. That is not the eye of Jesus staring at you.) Medved quotes General Washington telling the Continental troops to behave in a Christian manner: even in the middle war, soldiers were expected to abide by a moral code–and Christianity was the most familiar to the colonists. However, Medved cannot find any similar Christian references from President Washington–in either public pronouncement or private correspondence. The President only referred to the Creator.

Since the Founding Fathers were not enthusiastically Christian, Medved has to quote Founding Nephews and Founding Second Cousins. You will be relieved to know that Elias Boudinot was a determined defender of the Gospels. (See if Boudinot is even in Wikipedia.) In his personal correspondence, John Marshall referred to American as a Christian society; however, the Chief Justice refrained from imposing that view in any Supreme Court decisions. A Justice Samuel Chase did, and he was later impeached for his partisan behavior. (Medved forgot to mention that.)

Nonetheless, a number of our Founding Fathers were Christians, and some even were clergymen. So why they did acquiesce to the secular character of the constitution and the government? The fact is that these Christians did not trust each other. Today, Protestantism is largely homogenized: can you tell the difference between a Lutheran, a Congregationalist, an Episcopalian and a Methodist? But in the 18th century, those differences were very pronounced and frequently antagonistic. The Congregationalists and the Episcopalians hated each other, and you can only imagine how they felt about Catholics. Quakers were none too popular either (and they were not allowed to defend themselves). The Mother Country was only too happy to dole out a colony to each and every denomination–just to get them out of England.

The Congregationalists of New England, the Episcopalians of the South, the Catholics of Maryland, the Quakers of Pennsylvania, and the Methodists and the Presbyterians scattered throughout the colonies were never going to agree on the definition of Christianity. And each of these denominations knew it. So they reconciled themselves to a compromise and accepted secularism over sectarianism. It was the rational choice; in a society where no creed is dominant, all creeds are equal.

If “The Founders had intended a Christian, not a secular, society,” America would never have succeeded.

BUSH VETOES CHILD HEALTH INSURANCE PLAN

Associated Press

WASHINGTON – President Bush, in a sharp confrontation with Congress, on Wednesday vetoed a bipartisan bill that would have dramatically expanded children’s health insurance.

Today President Bush denounced children as terrorists, citing an intelligence report that turned out to be the CliffsNotes for “Lord of the Flies.” In announcing his veto, the President said that America had to fight the Infantada.

When asked if this stance against children’s health insurance was a contradiction of the President’s pro-life pronouncements, the Press Secretary disagreed. “The President not only believes in the right-to-life but also the right-to-death, and he opposes any infringement on either right.”

I once was tempted to write a fan letter to the Shah of Iran. The Iranian tyrant was being interviewed on Sixty Minutes, and at the mercy of Mike Wallace. Wallace, whose journalistic approach has the subtlety of coaxing a handicapped child to commit suicide, read aloud the CIA’s psychological profile of the Shah: “According to this, you are erratic, unpredictable and a megalomaniac.” The Shah then was expected to respond, but this was all he had to say, “Would you rather than I was just an American stooge“? And it was Mike Wallace who was speechless!

Why am I now thinking of the Shah? Of course, I miss him; don’t we all! But his Aryan Majesty is particularly fresh in my mind because I just wrote a magazine article about the “Energy Crisis of 1973”. That was our first energy crisis: the Arabs’ oil boycott. The gang at OPEC was divided; our enemies wanted to strangle us while our friends only wanted to rob us. And our best “friend” in OPEC was the Shah.

The oil boycott began on October 19, 1973, the Arabs’ most effective weapon during the Yom Kippur War. In mid-November the Shah–again demonstrating his reckless courage with journalists–was interviewed by Oriana Fallaci. No doubting after subjecting him to a withering editorial, she asked the Shah his prediction on oil prices. He gave both a warning and an impressive justification.

“Of course, the price of oil is going to rise. Certainly! And how! You can spread the bad news. The price of oil must rise. There’s no other solution. However, it’s a solution you of the West have wished on yourself…You’ve increased the price of wheat by 300%, and the same for sugar and cement. You buy our crude oil and sell it back to us, refined as petrochemicals, at a hundred times the price you’ve paid us. You make us pay more for everything, and it’s only fair that, from now on, you should pay more for oil.”

At the time the official price for a barrel of oil was approximately $3.50. That price had barely risen to 20 years; OPEC was not even keeping up with inflation. (Otherwise, oil would have been $5.00 a barrel.) With the oil boycott, however, the cruel reality of supply and demand caused a slight recalculation of oil’s worth. In December, the winning bid for Iranian oil was $17 a barrel.

Of course, quintupling the price of oil triggered double-digit inflation that lasted more than a decade. So in the end, the price of everything quintupled.

And we still have Mike Wallace to insult world leaders.

I just received a letter from “Viking Cruises” asking me to fill out a survey. Perusing the questions, I was so disappointed that they just don’t make Vikings like they used to. I was not asked my favorite weapons or the last time I sacked an Irish monastery. Nor could I imagine Hrolf the Gangly, Eric Bloodaxe or Sweyn Forkbeard asking:

What do you most enjoy about cruising?

a. Unpacking just once and visiting several cities
b. Gourmet meals with regional specialties
c. Socializing with fellow travelers

Christianity certainly had a pacifying influence on Scandinavia. (It had just the opposite effect in Spain, Ireland and the Republican party.) Who would want to go on a vacation with Sorin Kierkegaard?

So here are the type of questions that I would expect from “Viking Cruises“. (I have translated them for those who can’t read runes.)

1. An ideal Viking cruise would go to:
a. Countries that are defenseless
b. Countries with no extradition
c. All of the above

2. Whom would you rather carry off to Iceland?
a. A young Maureen O’Hara
b. A young Catherine Deneuve
c. Even an old Catherine Deneuve

What do you enjoy most about cruising?
a. Unpacking just once and sacking several cities
b. Gourmet meals with regional specialties because that always makes disemboweling more interesting
c. Socializing with fellow sociopaths: the maraud the merrier!

REPORT SAYS VETERANS’ CARE WOES REMAIN
Associated Press

WASHINGTON –Months after pledging to improve veterans care, the Bush administration has yet to find clear answers to some of the worst problems afflicting wounded warriors, such as delays in disability payments and providing personalized care, investigators say.

A report by the Government Accountability Office, released Wednesday, offers the first preliminary assessment of improvement efforts initiated by the Pentagon and Veterans Affairs Department after revelations in February of shoddy outpatient treatment at Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

And I believe that this is the White House response, written by Siegfried Sassoon.

Does it matter? – Losing your legs? . . .
For people will always be kind,
And you need not show that you mind
When the others come in after hunting
To gobble their muffins and eggs.

Does it matter? – Losing your sight? . . .
There’s such splendid work for the blind;
And people will always be kind,
As you sit on the terrace remembering
And turning your face to the light.

Do they matter? – those dreams from the pit? . . .
You can drink and forget and be glad,
And people won’t say that you’re mad;
For they’ll know you’ve fought for your country
And no one will worry a bit.

Of course, I am watching Ken Burn’s masterful history of “The War.” I am grateful that the series is being broadcast on Public Television. HBO would have felt obliged to include nude scenes of General Eisenhower and Kay Summersby. (Showtime would have similar scenes with Erwin Rommel and Eva Braun!). The History Channel would be G-rated but with an obscene number of commercial interruptions…”Cialis, when the moment is right for an invasion” or “Ragu Pasta Sauce: our food is better than our army“.

Yet, “The War” does have subliminal advertising:

“Pearl Harbor: Brought to you by Mitsubishi.”

“Mercedes-Benz: If you like our autos, you’ll love our cattle cars.”

You can see why General Motors sponsored the series. Furthermore, the company gets conspicuous product placement: If a GM tank is good enough for George Patton….