FinermanWorks

Pope Pius V was not exactly your Barry Fitzgerald type of priest. Instead, just imagine if Josef Stalin had decided to stay in the seminary. Born in Italy, but with a Spanish personality, the young Antonio Ghislieri joined the Dominician Order where he found kindred psychopaths. He volunteered for the Inquisition and displayed a zealous piety. The Inquisitor was especially suspicious of the well-educated, believing that literacy and heresy were synonymous. To his frustration, however, the Italian Inquisition was more inclined to burn books rather than people. (In Spain, you could do both!)

Yet, his personal austerity earned him the support of the “reformist” faction within the Church; these were the cardinals who felt that Popes should have religious wars instead of mistresses. In 1566, on the death of Pius IV (your typical nepotic rascal), the reformers elected their favorite inquisitor as the next pope. Although 62 at the time, bigotry kept him young. As Pius V, of course, he persecuted Jews but that was a mere formality. His real interest was in exterminating Protestants and he had an eventful six year reign. He officially gave Spain permission to wipe out the Dutch. (Without the Pope’s permission, the Dutch did defend themselves.) The Pope encouraged France’s Catholics to kill the Huguenots; he died a few months too soon to enjoy the St. Bartholomew’s Massacre but he must have been there in spirit. On this day in 1570, he declared Queen Elizabeth a heretic and ordered her overthrow and death; however, the Catholics were a minority and those who tried to comply with the Papal directive generally found themselves disemboweled by the Queen’s Secret Service.

Ironically, the Pope did not like the idea of hurting animals and forbid bullfighting. This was one Papal directive that Spain ignored.

In 1712, Pius V was declared a saint. PETA might agree even if Protestants and Jews don’t.

Monarchies do tend toward nepotism. Today, on the birthday of Charles V, I would hate to suggest that he did not deserve to be King of Spain and Southern Italy, Grand Duke of Burgundy, Duke of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor. In fairness, he certainly did a better job than George Bush would have. Nevertheless, Charles’ resume consisted of a birth certificate. He certainly had the right parents at the right time.

His story begins in late 15th century Spain with the marriage of young Phil Hapsburg to Joan, the oldest daughter and heiress of Ferdinand and Isabella. The New York Times and People would have loved covering the events, but their reporters would have been burned as part of the festivities. (All the best Spanish weddings included an auto da fe.)

Phil was quite a catch. Besides being good looking, his family’s business included Austria and the Holy Roman Empire. Furthermore, his late mother had left him all Belgium and the Netherlands. His mother-in-law died in 1504; expelling most of the doctors from Spain proved unhealthy. Joan was supposed to inherit Mom’s kingdom of Castile, but Ferdinand hated to part with it.

The young Hapsburg may have cheated on his wife but he was loyal to Joan’s fortune; he protested against his father-in-law’s usurpation of Castile and even made vague threats. Then Philip suddenly died. (You can only imagine how surprised Ferdinand was.) Joan went mad and refused to have her husband buried; she transported his casket wherever she went.

Of course, Ferdinand was willing to rule Castile in his demented daughter’s name as well as regent for his young grandson Charles, who was being raised–safely–in the Low Countries. Ferdinand died in 1516 of undeservedly natural causes, so the 16-year-old Charles inherited Aragon and Sicily and finally got to rule Castille.

In 1519, his paternal grandfather died–leaving Charles the family estate of Austria and the job opening of Holy Roman Emperor. So a teenager now ruled all of Spain and its burgeoning colonial empire, Southern Italy and Sicily, the Low Countries and Austria. He was the most powerful man in Christendom since Charlemagne; so naturally the Pope had to pick a fight with him.

Leo X could ignore Luther and a Turkish army advancing into central Europe, but he was determined to annoy the young Hapsburg. He tried to prevent Charles’ election as Holy Roman Empire, a position that had long been regarded as a Hapsburg prerogative. Then, Leo refused to coronate Charles. (He was the fifth emperor Charles.) The Pope evidently thought that a 19 year-old was unworthy of such power and responsibility. Of course, Leo had been appointed a cardinal when he was 13, and the deMedici family had been bought their kid the papacy; but the young deMedici begrudged the even younger Hapsburg.

Not feeling terribly loyal to the Papacy, Charles proved initially quite tolerant of the fulminations of Professor Luther. After all, the Church definitely needed reform; and wasn’t that Luther’s sole aim? Yes, Charles was wrong; but by 1521, the heresy had proved so popular in Northern Germany that only a civil war could crush it. Charles needed the support of the German princes of the North; he intended to conquer Italy if only to make his point to the Pope.

Leo died without having the pleasure of meeting Charles. However, Pope Clement VII (and Leo’s cousin) was persuaded by the German sack of Rome in 1527 to coronate Charles. Being a Hapsburg hostage made Clement very considerate of Charles’ feelings. When Henry VIII wanted an annulment from Catherine of Aragon, the Pope naturally asked Charles if he wished his aunt Catalina declared a whore! Charles proved reluctant, so the Pope refused Henry’s request.

Henceforth, the Popes would proved deferential to Charles V. If brute force was not sufficiently persuasive, Charles was also contributing a tithe of the Aztec and Inca generosity to the Church. Although personally pious–especially as he got older, Charles was not a religious bigot. Yes, Spain burned anyone who showed a suspicious reluctance to pork but through the rest of his realm he proved ecumenical. He reached a political detente with the Lutherans of Germany; after the Turks had conquered Hungary and had cavalry patrols around Vienna, the Emperor really couldn’t afford to quibble over transubstantiation versus consubstantiation. And since the Dutch wanted to make money rather than trouble, Charles could turn a blind eye to Calvinism.

Charles abdicated all his thrones in 1557 and retired to a monastery where he died the following year. His younger brother Ferdinand inherited Austria and the imperial title. Charles’ son Philip received Spain and the Low Countries but none of his father’s prudence.

So, aside from bad taste in children, Charles V really did a pretty good job. Happy birthday.

BURMA TAKES SHOTS AT JOHN RAMBO

A Burmese magazine issued a harsh critique of Sylvester Stallone’s performance in the latest installment of the Rambo franchise.

The Voice, a privately owned magazine subject to censorship, says the American actor, whose character saves Christian missionaries being held in the jungles of the country also known as Myanmar, “looks funny fighting a war even though he’s so fat with sagging breasts.”

Burma is jinked. First, it is a convenient villain, one of the few countries that is politically correct and economically safe to attack. Many equally repulsive regimes have the redeeming feature of a surplus of oil. Other monstrous countries can claim a historical excuse for their butchery. For instance, any atrocities in Africa can be rationalized as a reaction to European colonialism; the massacre of 800,000 Tutsi has something to do with Belgian chocolate. But Burma has neither oil nor a plausible grievance against British imperialism. (The Burmese were treated much better than the Irish.)

Even worse for Burma, Hollywood just doesn’t have any more young leading men. The Age of Swashbucklers is over. Johnny Depp, Leonardo DiCaprio and Orlando Bloom don’t look like they could lift a sword; they need computer graphics just to fabricate that exertion. To be intimidating, Matt Damon really should be as tall as the Burmese. Will Ferrell looks more a conventional leading man, so we might as well surrender now.

But perhaps one of our middle-aged actors could terrorize the Burmese. George Clooney certainly has the build and looks of the traditional Hollywood hero, but you know that he would rather be a one-man death squad against Halliburton’s Board of Directors. (And yes, I’d buy a ticket to see that movie.) Tom Hanks never was particularly physical; he is more the type to coax and tutor the Burmese junta into behaving itself. There is Brad Pitts, but we all know that Angelina is the tougher of the two.

For some sociological reason or demographic fluke, all of our homicidal stars happen to be grandfathers. Bruce Willis, Harrison Ford or Sly Stallone may not really look good in loinclothes, but how else can they reassure us that they aren’t wearing Depends? And I find it gratifying that my fellow geezers could still wipe out the Burmese army. So what if Rambo now needs his ammo belts for a brassiere.

McCain Says Report on Lobbyist Not True
Associated Press

Feb 21st, 2008 | TOLEDO, Ohio — John McCain emphatically denied a romantic relationship with a female telecommunications lobbyist on Thursday and said a report by The New York Times suggesting favoritism for her clients is “not true.”

In fact, the Republican Party is delighted to have a heterosexual scandal for a change. The Wall Street Journal was about to promote the story, with Peggy Noonan claiming to be John McCain’s love slave.

But who would have imagined that the New York Times would have been so obliging to print the story? The Times tends to regard heterosexuality as just a vulgar exertion popular only among state university graduates. Ivy Leaguers evidently rationalize it as a contribution to the alumni fund. (Oh, you think that I am exaggerating. The Times just printed a story on the harm that children can do to your decor.)

However, I wonder if John McCain is mistaken to deny the rumors–even if he is innocent. Consider the advantages for him of being a lecherous old goat.

1. This will appeal to the Bible-thumpers. McCain merely has to announce that he is following the example of the Old Testament Kings, and that this young woman is his concubine. In his dotage, King David had a young “lobbyist” named Abishag; for McCain to do less might even be sacrilege.

2. The story certainly makes McCain seem more youthful and vigorous. He’ll be guaranteed the vote of the Viagra generation.

3. This is the perfect contrast to the appeal of Barak Obama. If Barak is presented as the new John Kennedy, McCain can be the new Joseph Kennedy. (Karl Rove already insinuated in 2000 that McCain had a black child; so why couldn’t it be Barak, the result of McCain’s liaison with–say–Pam Grier?) Why wouldn’t we want Joseph Kennedy for President today? If he was a successful bootlegger, he is a role model for modern executives. If Papa Joe wanted to appease a right-wing monster intent on tyrannizing the world, he would be ready for Rupert Murdoch. And if Joseph Kennedy was a shameless lecher, he had excellent taste. Gloria Swanson was a lot classier than Marilyn Monroe; in fact, a President of France would have been jealous.

So, in the face of this scandal, John McCain’s correct response should be “thank you!”

How would you like to rule over an impoverished, fractious land with the added perk of a violent death? Just send your resume to 15th or 16th century Scotland.

On this day in 1437, James I resolved an argument with some cousins by being stabbed to death. He also set a precedent for names and sudden deaths. His son was James II who, while besieging an English castle in 1460, belatedly discovered a need for caution when standing next to a cannon. He was succeeded by James III whose son just couldn’t wait to be James IV; among royalty, civil wars generally are family reunions. Having killed dear old dad, James IV became king in 1488. In 1513, he had a fatal family reunion, fighting his brother-in-law Henry VIII; and that created a job opening for James V. Unfortunately, in 1542, he died in flight from Uncle Henry. James V forgot to have any legitimate sons and he could not bring himself to naming his heir Jamesette. No, she was known as Mary, Queen of Scots. Her autopsy report is fairly well known. Mary’s heir was…wild guess…James VI; however, he heard of a job opening in London where the pay and longevity were better. He was the first reigning Stuart in nearly 200 years to die of natural causes.

Charles I must have been a traditionalist, chipped off the old block. But his descendants were content to die of the pox (both syphilitic or small) and alcoholism.

Imagine that you are an unbearable French aristocrat whose coach recklessly runs over starving children. What music would you have on your coach’s CD player? This, of course:

Apparently, this was the only music in 18th France because it is the only music that you have ever heard in a film in that seething setting. You may have categorized the tune as “Minuet to the Guillotine” but it actually is part a string quartet by Luigi Boccherini.

Popular in his day (1743-1805), Boccherini was in demand as a court composer. If you couldn’t get Haydn or Mozart, you settled for Boccherini. At the time, there was no shame in being third best, and he had commissions and positions in Madrid, Paris and Berlin. He seems to have avoided Vienna, however; maybe Salieri was dangerous.

Unfortunately, posterity judged Boccherini unkindly. By the standards of the 19th century, he was dismissed as a second-rate Haydn. Yet, in another century and hemisphere, Boccherini–or at least three minutes of his work–enjoyed a tremendous revival. Louis B. Mayer would have offered him a contract, although certainly not for any requiem masses. Worse for the composer, he has been unable to collect any royalties for that ubiquitous minuet.

At least, we can offer him this solace: Happy Birthday Maestro.

“Who is the tall dark stranger there?”

The lyrics to “Maverick” must have been disheartening to the actor Jack Kelly because they obviously did not describe him. Nope, as they said in the Old West, only his-costar James Garner fit that bill. Even when Garner left the western series, the studio did not have the courtesy to change the song lyrics to accommodate the remaining cast member. “Who is the medium, bland stranger there?” Poor Mr. Kelly remained in Garner’s tall dark shadow.

These days when you hear the theme song of “Maverick”, it must be the pundits describing John McCain.

“The maverick John McCain…. ”

I really don’t think that Sen. McCain is “smooth as a handle on a gun, wild as a wind in Oregon.” Furthermore, he actually looks more like Strother Martin than James Garner. The Mavericks brothers–Bret and Bart– were a pair of wily, charming con-artists; you could see how they belong in politics. Could you imagine John McCain as a riverboat gambler, betting 100 years on a victory in Iraq? I think someone would call that bluff.
Perhaps Sen. McCain might be better cast in one of the other classic–or at least ancient–television westerns.

For instance, there is “Have Gun, Will Travel” which sounds like the Republican foreign policy. In that series, Richard Boone played the 19th century equivalent of a business consultant, except that he had a six-shooter instead a MBA. Boone’s character, the black-garbed Paladin, was a man of refinement; he always knew an appropriate Shakespearean quote when gunning you down. Unfortunately, Mr. McCain is more inclined to cite the Beach Boys or Alan Greenspan. Furthermore, the eloquence niche already is occupied by another man in black: Sen. Obama.

The marshall in “Gunsmoke” is the strong, silent type. Just the massive physical presence of James Arness’ Matt Dillon could intimidate and tame the Wild West. Surely he could do the same in the Wild Middle East. (During the 300 years it was on television, “Gunsmoke” always relied on the same actors for character roles and villains–so Harold J. Stone would play Israel, Victor French would be Iraq and Bruce Dern would be Iran.) Dillon’s discreet relationship with the town Madam would fit the Republican approach to corporate ethics. So John McCain would want to be thought of as Marshall Dillon. We just have to ignore the more obvious resemblance to Deputy Festus Hagen. Festus was cantankerous, volatile and stubborn. He was illiterate but would neither admit it nor remedy it. In small doses Festus could be amusing, but for an entire episode he would be stupefying. And for an entire administration, terrifying. And haven’t we just had seven years of Festus Hagen.

Perhaps “Bonanza” would offer Sen. McCain just the right stereotype. Of course, he cannot be Ben Cartwright. The role of the Paternal God figure has been reserved exclusively for Ronald Reagan. The role of Adam Cartwright would be completely inappropriate. Adam was the token intellectual, cool, aloof and so miserably out of place he probably read the New York Times aloud to his horse. Yes, he was too obviously a Democrat to be John McCain. The Republican senator could aspire to be Hoss Cartwright: an ox’s strength with a bovine mind, saintly and lovable. But Rev. Huckabee already has that role. Little Joe Cartwright is just Festus Hagen with a bath, and the niche of the disastrous goof is currently occupied. Nonetheless, “Bonanza” still offers one role appropriate and appealing for today’s Republican candidate. Hop Sing, who may also be the son of Ben Cartwright, is hardworking, competent and affable. He ladles out whatever his employers tell him and he does it with a smile. Our chief public servant might as well be servile. Given the balance of trade and the disintegrating American economy, the next American president will be the Hop Sing for China.

So, forget the theme song for “Maverick.” Our number is “Happy Trails“.

LENT FAST RE-BRANDED AS ‘CHRISTIAN RAMADAN’

Dutch Catholics have re-branded the Lent fast as the “Christian Ramadan” in an attempt to appeal to young people who are more likely to know about Islam than Christianity. The Catholic charity Vastenaktie, which collects for the Third World across the Netherlands during the Lent period, is concerned that the Christian festival has become less important for the Dutch over the last generation.

“The image of the Catholic Lent must be polished. The fact that we use a Muslim term is related to the fact that Ramadan is a better-known concept among young people than Lent,” said Vastenaktie Director, Martin Van der Kuil.

Religion and marketing have long been synonymous. Perhaps Apollo and Thor could get along just on their charisma, but monotheism definitely needed a sales force. Invisible divine curmudgeons just don’t sell themselves. Being first, Judaism did have a certain brand loyalty but all those dietary laws were never “user-friendly.” Christianity initially marketed itself as Judaism-Lite, but then vastly expanded its appeal by absorbing pagan ideas and institutions. Saturnalia became Christmas, and Isis became the Virgin Mother. Some pagan gods simply were converted into saints. Ireland’s St. Brigid is the altar ego of the Celtic goddess Brigid. The saint even kept the attributes and sacred wells of her pagan self. So Jesus saves and recycles!

Now, the Catholic Church has to convert or at least retain the apathetic young. The crucifixion could be described as extreme body-piercing, and the Mass could be done in rap. Why not make the Gospels into a video game. For the small children (to come unto us), there can be Pax Man–who gobbles up Pharisees and demons while being chased by the Romans–who all look like Super Mario. For the ‘tweenagers and older, there can be Grand Theft Apotheosis. The player can start by hijacking a Jewish cult, fight gang wars with rival sects (watch out for those Arians), and eventually deal, steal and kill until he becomes the boss of western theology.

The one drawback to the game: knowing the actual history is unlikely to inspire any reverence. So, if the Church really wants to be relevant to today’s European youth, why not ask for a miracle? Those saints have nothing else to do, and even God must owe the Church a few favors.

SAUDI MORALITY POLICE SEE RED OVER VALENTINE ROSES

RIYADH, Saudi Arabia (Reuters) The Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice, Saudi Arabia’s powerful religious vigilantes, have banned shops from selling any red flowers in the run-up to February 14.

Florists say the move is part of an annual campaign by the committee — whose members are known as “mutawwaeen” or volunteers — to prevent Saudis marking a festival they believe flouts their austere doctrine of “Wahhabi” Islam.

“They pass by two or three times a day to check we don’t have any red flowers,” said a Pakistani florist in Riyadh’s smart Sulaimaniya district. “Look, no red. I’ve taken them all out,” he said pointing to a dazzling floral collection covering every color of the rainbow except one.

These are the same “allies” who banned Barbie Dolls for looking Jewish. (Only the special Ralph Lauren edition did.) Can you imagine what would be acceptable in a Saudi Hallmark store? A Teddy Bear dressed as a suicide bomber? A Peanuts card showing Charlie Brown married to Lucy, Violet and Peppermint Patty; of course, you can’t tell any of the wives apart because of their burkahs and veils. And for those of you with a sweet tooth–and the Saudi mouth may only have that single tooth–a box of chocolates shaped like severed heads. Or you could have the chocolate-covered severed heads.

Yes, I am referring to Abraham Lincoln. In case you were wondering, my other favorite Republicans are Teddy Roosevelt, Jimmy Stewart and Adolphe Menjou. True, it is not a long list. I could include three personal friends, but these days–out of embarrassment–they claim to be Libertarians. And yes, I do like John Wayne, but I never can forgive him for being a draft dodger. Neither could an naval veteran named John Ford, who used to ridicule Wayne about “being a sissy”; in fact, he once even made John Wayne cry.

Of course, modern Republicans would not want to be associated with a pair of liberals like Lincoln and Teddy R. It is surprising that their heads are still on Mount Rushmore. (You can imagine Halliburton getting a no-bid contract for that project.) But, oh the irony, the Republicans were once the liberals of American politics. Granted that liberalism was confined to one issue, but it was the biggest issue of the day. The Republicans were opposed to slavery. Some advocated its outright abolition; however, most Republicans had the temperate approach that we expect from liberals. They just opposed the expansion of slavery into new states. You’d think that would be a moderate, unoffensive compromise. Iowa, Nebraska and the Dakotas really are not ideal for cotton. But the South would not recognize even economic practicality as a limit to their cherished “institution”. If the South was not free to have slaves (freedom is a relative concept), then the South would leave the Union. Of course, it was constricting itself to the same geographic confinement proposed by its Republican enemies, but the South’s gray matter evidently was limited to uniforms.

Once the Civil War was won and slavery was abolished (replaced by mere serfdom), the Republicans had lost their reason for being. However, they so enjoyed power that decided to improvise a new platform. The now defunct Whig party had an incestuous affection for business, although its war hero candidates usually could camouflage the financial self-interests. That philosophy and strategy suited the intellectually-bereft Republicans. And they happened to have a new generation of war heroes, starting with Ulysses Grant himself, to front for the robber barons and their pet politicians.

Aside from Teddy Roosevelt, an aristocrat who took his noblesse oblige quite seriously, the Republican Party is essentially the same kleptocratic, stagnant-quo of the Grant adminstration. It is occasionally stirred by a social awareness but always confuses self-righteousness with morality. That is how we get Prohibition, McCarthyism and the Patriot Act.

I imagine that Abraham Lincoln would have been on Richard Nixon’s and Dick Cheney’s enemies list. And he would have been flattered.

P.S. Adolphe Menjou was a wonderful actor. Consider his fascinating performance as the diabolical general in “Paths of Glory.” Menjou was so suave and knowing, and he could convey all his cynicism with just an arched eyebrow. It was a remarkable feat of acting.