General

And Think What You Will Save on Razor Blades!

Posted in General on December 4th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 2 Comments

Having offended two major religions (well, one actually is minor but old and pushy), I wouldn’t want to overlook Islam.  Every year at this time, there usually is a holiday greeting from Osama Bin Laden. 

 

BIN LADEN URGES AMERICANS TO CONVERT TO ISLAM

And here is the infomercial.

Tired of being an infidel? Wish you had a friend at OPEC? Well, what’s stopping you! Become a Moslem! We’d love to have you!


Convert now and take advantage of this special introductory offer.

A CD of the Koran, ululated by Cat Stevens.

A kaffiyeh for you and four burkahs for your wives, designed by Islam Dior.

And a Jihad Scimitar Set–with a blade for every occasion: decapitations, circumcisions and minced figs!

Just call our toll-free number. We have mullahs waiting to take your soul.

So, the next time I turn to Mecca, I hope to see your backside.

p.s.  Let’s not forget Hinduism and this day’s historic significance:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/12/04/pyromantic-2/

Holiday Musings

Posted in General on December 3rd, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 4 Comments

Thought I

It must be Christmas. I am seeing Chia commercials, but I am a little disappointed that the manufacturers have not come out with the Chia Nativity Scene:

Just add water and in four days you’ll see beards on the Magi, Joseph and the baby Jesus. (You know about Semites and body hair!)

Thought II

A thousand years ago, the children of Scandinavia looked up to the sky awaiting the arrival of a jolly, boisterous spirit and his animal drawn cart. If the children had been good, they would be rewarded with weapons and attack plans for the British Isles. Thor and his goat cart would eventually be replaced by a migrant deity willing to work longer hours, deal with diseases and the other drudgery that no self-respecting Aesir would touch.

Yet, Swedes still celebrate the Christmas season with little straw goats, a symbol of their former theology. Perhaps in Scandinavian Nativity scenes the Virgin Mother is wearing a breast plate and a horned helmet.

Thought III

What, no holiday cards from any of you! When I was a bachelor–and couldn’t incriminate anyone else with my subversive taste–I used to design my holiday cards.

For instance, I came up with a tabloid called “The Nativity Enquirer.” The lead story was “Virgin Sues God in Palimony Case.”

Thought IV

Looking for that Christmas gift that will overawe the recipient with your sensitivity, erudition and cheapness?  Then give your victim a subscription to “Your RDA of Irony!”  Yes, for a fraction of a cent in electricity and maybe the strain of typing the correct email address, you will bestowing me on your acquaintances who aren’t worth a real gift.  Indeed, I am better than nothing and actually preferable to frankincense and myrrh.

Besides, with a few more readers, I can start having delusions of popularity.

My Hanukkah Medley

Posted in General on December 1st, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 14 Comments

Tonight is the beginning of Hanukkah.  Over the next eight nights, we will light an increasing number of candles, probably trying to find a decent song for the Holiday.  You will notice that this was the one miracle that Jesus didn’t attempt; either that or getting rid of the Romans would have converted us.

Jews obviously can write music.  Count the Gentiles of  Tin Pan Alley….That didn’t take long.  Yet, what can explain our inability to write “Rhapsody in Jew” for Hanukkah?  I wonder if it can be attributed to our other great creation:  guilt.  Perhaps we have a belated regret that we didn’t slightly assimilate sooner.  Are we Parthenon-plussed?

If only we could go back in time.  Imagine me on the steps of the Temple….

Here’s what Hellas has to tell us.

Achilles, Socrates, Ptolemy and Sophocles.

Can William Kristol compare to these?

All we are saying is give Greece a chance.

All we are saying is give Greece a chance.

Why be bereft of these gifts?

Philosophy, comedy, and best of all democracy!

Let’s not dwell on sodomy.

All we are saying is give Greece a chance.

All we are saying is give Greece a chance.

 

And now for my usual pedantics….

The Story of Hanukkah: Hellas, No. We Won’t Go!

In the second century BCJ (before Cousin Jesus), Syria extended far beyond the borders of the country that we know and love. It also included Turkey, Jordan, Iraq, Israel and Lebanon. (Lebanon still may be part of Syria.) This very large kingdom was a fragment of Alexander’s Empire that had been divided among his generals. Seleucus grabbed it, and his ancestors continued to rule it two centuries later.

Seleucus was Greek as was the ruling caste; and these Hellenes made themselves comfortable by recreating the Greek culture in their kingdom. The same was true of the other grasping Greek and Macedonian generals. Egypt, under the Ptolemies, was Hellenized. There were Hellenized satraps in Afghanistan and India. (Even the statues of Buddha started to look remarkably like Apollo.)

A descendant of Seleucus, Antiochus the Third attempted to expand his empire into Greece. However, Rome had the same idea at the same time. Guess who won? The Romans pushed him out of Greece and then defeated him in Asia Minor (190 B.C)

His son Antiochus the Fourth inherited a smaller empire; however, he tried to make it more cohesive by imposing uniform Hellenization. But one province, with a very idiosyncratic theology, did not really appreciate the glories and gifts of Greek civilization.

Who could resist all the enticements of Western civilization? Art, theater, medicine, bathing! Had we been a little more receptive, “Pygmalion” could have been a musical 2000 years sooner.

My ancestors must have been real ingrates. In fact, those Semitic fundamentalists were so unappreciative of imposed western values that they rose in rebellion. (Do you think that history repeats itself?)

The Greeks were then obliging enough to lose the war. This was at a time when the Jews hardly ever won–obviously long before there were Nobel prizes in Economics or Emmy Awards for comedy writers.

In any case, but for Jennifer Aniston’s ancestors, we wouldn’t have Hanukkah as a psychological shield against the veritable avalanche of Christmas.

 

Will This Be Televised on Nickelodeon?

Posted in General on November 29th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 2 Comments

Anne Hathaway and James Franco Hosting the Oscars

This is one of the advantages of having a beard.  When your jaw drops, if it hits the floor at least the beard cushions the fall. 
Anne Hathaway and James Franco?  Well, the Academy Awards does need a younger audience.  According to the demographic studies, the show’s average viewer died 12 years ago.  (And let’s hope that they are all in a place where Bob Hope is the M.C.)
But Anne Hathaway and James Franco?  She is attractive, and certainly a good sport about nude scenes.  As for her acting, you might remember her in “The Devil Wears Prada” if only as the moving mannequin among the talented cast.  Reviewing her career from “The Princess Diaries” to “Love and Other Drugs”, her greatest dramatic effort was having a bad haircut in “Rachel Getting Married.” 
You might recognize James Franco as the annoying, whining brat in “The Spider-Man Franchise.”  He currently can be seen sawing off his own arm in “127 Hours.”  His character was pinned under a 800 pound rock, and it recommended that you should be, too, if only to sit through that film. 
But why didn’t the Academy come up with this youth appeal sooner?  Imagine the Bowery Boys handing out the Best Picture awards for Sergeant York and Casablanca.  Oh, yes, we were trying to win the World War, weren’t we?  There were some talented young actors during the Golden Age of Hollywood.  In fact, it is not too late to ask Mickey Rooney and Shirley Temple. 
Please!!!!!!

Sunday Sundry

Posted in General on November 28th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 2 Comments

Northwestern Wildcats Take Huge 70-23 Loss

Demonstrating far more fortitude than his team, Northwestern coach Davenport “Binky” Whitsblank smiled away what some might consider a humiliating defeat.  “Of course, Wisconsin deserved to win.  It actually wanted to play football.  I have other priorities: protecting my players.  I can’t have them looking battered for their class photos or job interviews.  You know, at Northwestern, students have to maintain a high standard of pulchritude.  Not the theater people, of course.  They can look funny or New Yorkish–if you know what I mean.  But the normal students–they have to maintain their looks; and that is part of my job.”

Sports reporters (naturally, the better looking ones graduated from Medill) criticized Northwestern’s gridiron tactics.  Coach Whitsblank defended the social arrangement of the scrimmage line.  “We tried to pair our players with opponents of similar backgrounds.  Ancestry, religion, trust funds.  It is what their families would want.  So it might create some disparity in the scrimmage.  Obviously, none of our players would want to associate with Wisconsin’s Bruno Szezewski–and he did score 7 touchdowns; but that really is a small sacrifice to uphold our standards.”

Northwestern was gratified to receive 23 points for its half-time performance: a distillation of Maurice Maeterlinck’s “Pelleas and Melisande”  and a tribute to Ann-Margaret.

This Day in History

The Duchess of Windsor gave birth to her love child with Charles Lindbergh.  The Duke, suspecting the infidelity, traded the infant daughter for a pug puppy to the Greenwald family, who named the child Leah.  So Happy Birthday Leah, whoever you really are.

p.s.  Let’s not forget the other historic significance of this day:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/11/28/your-rda-of-albania-2/

Turkey Leftovers

Posted in General on November 27th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – Be the first to comment

We are all two pounds heavier, but by now we have digested most of the meal and some of the incredible remarks by your most annoying relative.  Here, from the archives–the cobwebs may taste better than two-day-old stuffing–are some pedantics on the namesake of the turkey.

https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/09/12/turban-decay/

https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2008/02/09/turkey-in-distraught/

https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2009/05/22/states-of-denial-2/

Our Grim Pill Fathers

Posted in General on November 25th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 2 Comments

Molded by grade school lessons and Hallmark commercials, we reverently refer to those brave pioneers at Plymouth as our “Pilgrim Fathers.” Of course, if we actually did file a class action paternity suit, most of us couldn’t prove it. Furthermore, we really wouldn’t want to be related to them. The Pilgrims were a bunch of 17th century Jerry Falwells.

They were the loony fringe of the Puritans; compared to them, Oliver Cromwell was a liberal softie. We were taught that the Pilgrims fled religious persecution in England and Holland. In fact, they fled religious tolerance in those countries.

Pilgrims could not abide other Protestants (except the equally morbid Presbyterians); you can only imagine how they regarded Catholics. The Pilgrims wanted nothing less than a theocracy where only they had the freedom of worship. In England, however, the Anglicans seemed unwilling to persecute themselves. Holland was even more sectually depraved; it tolerated Catholics and (gasp) Jews. That was the Pilgrims’ idea of Hell.

And the Pilgrims were everyone else’s idea of obnoxious. If the Calvinist bigots wanted a theocracy, England did have a practical solution. In the most generous way of saying “good riddance,” the Crown offered the Pilgrims their own colony in North America. Thousands of quiet miles from England, the fanatics would be free to bore and bully. If they survived, then God and England had a new colony. And, if they didn’t survive…well, we mustn’t think that the Crown was actually rooting for the Indians.

p.s.  And now for the menu:  https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2007/11/21/the-real-first-thanksgiving/

Infamy or Obscurity

Posted in General, On This Day on November 24th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 4 Comments

November 24th

What was Charles Darwin writing? It had been five years since he had mesmerized Victorian Society with his latest revelation on the life of barnacles: “A Monograph on the Fossil Balanidæ and Verrucidæ of Great Britain.” Yes, it was a hard act to follow, the public was insatiable and Darwin himself was daunted by the prospect. But, after four treatises on barnacles, the critics were starting to dismiss Darwin as a one-subclass-of-crustaceans hack. That hurt.

He did have some notes from a sea voyage that he had taken 20 years earlier, and he had long pondered his observations of the wildlife of the Galapagos. That was it! Darwin would write a cookbook of finch recipes. The Galapagos natives had dozens of ways to prepare the bird, and the cuisine varied from island to island. In fact, he was amazed by the number and disparity of recipes; how and why did they originate? Darwin concluded that there was a scientific explanation for the evolution of all cuisines: an evolutionary process called “nutritional selection.” And so Darwin presented his theory in “On The Origin of Spices.”

(By no coincidence, the daguerreotypes of the prepared dishes would showcase the tableware of a certain British manufacturer. But that flagrant product placement was the least that the grandson of Josiah Wedgwood could do for his trust fund.)

Unfortunately, the publisher rejected Darwin’s manuscript explaining “The English public has never been interested in food, but we do love an animal story. Perhaps if you rewrote your work with an emphasis on the finches–and without eating the more likable ones–I am sure that you can do for those plucky little fellows what you have done for barnacles.”

So adapting his work to the publisher’s whims, (How else can a writer survive?) Charles Darwin wrote “Origin Twist: The Evolutionary Adventures of Phineas Finch.”

All right, it did not quite happen that way…although the gentle Mr. Darwin might have found it a more congenial approach to introduce evolution to Victorian society. Darwin had no delusions as to the public reaction to “On The Origin of Species”: the outrage, the personal attacks and the less than flattering caricatures in Punch. At least, the Church of England could not burn him at the stake. In fact, the dread of the ensuing controversy had deterred Darwin for many years from publishing his research on evolution. He probably hoped to avoid it altogether, keeping evolution a secret among the scientific community.

Yes, Darwin did not discover evolution; he merely divulged it. By the 19th century, science had becoming increasingly skeptical of the Bible’s explanation for Creation. If nothing else, the growing variety of fossils was raising doubts and questions. Geologists discovered fish skeletons in rock layers on mountains. Genesis did not explain that. Biologists were finding ample evident of extinct species. Had Adam killed them all or had the animals drown in Noah’s Flood? But science preferred to regard the accumulating data as anecdotes on a ribald topic that would only shock the public.

If evolution was science’s dirty secret, then Charles Darwin was–to put it a Sixties’ context–the kid with the best collection of Playboys. With his studies on geology, British barnacles and the wildlife of the Galapagos, he was the acknowledged expert on “you-know-what.” Among his scientist friends, he was even sharing his theory of an underlying principle of (not to be said aloud) evolution. Of course, he knew and dreaded the reaction if his theory ever began public. Natural selection was tantamount to denying God’s precise blueprint of Creation. Darwin was an affable man of fragile health, so he lacked both the temperament and the strength for controversy. To avoid the uproar, he was quite content to keep his theory a secret among friends. It remained so for more than ten years until 1856, when Darwin found himself forced to choose between infamy and obscurity.

That year, Darwin learned that a young British naturalist in Borneo had arrived at a theory of evolution based on a natural selection of the fittest member of a species. This unexpected rival, Alfred Russell Wallace, could not have known of Darwin’s long-standing but secret theory; the two men did not frequent the same drawing rooms. However, using the same empirical perspective, Wallace simply had arrived at the same conclusion as Darwin. Furthermore, being young and unestablished, Wallace was not the least reticent about being the center of controversy. He contacted the British scientific societies about his proposed paper on evolution, and that news reached Darwin.

Even then, Darwin was loathe to react and risk any uproar. He first wanted to see what Wallace actually had to say. Ironically, within a year, he knew. Wallace had written to him with an outline of his ideas. In his communications with the scientific community, Wallace had been told of Darwin’s expertise in evolution. So, looking for guidance, the chicken wrote to the fox. In fairness to Darwin, he never discouraged or disparaged Wallace; he analyzed his rival’s work with a remarkable and laudable objectivity. Wallace actually appreciated Darwin’s help and continued the correspondence, never realizing that he had goaded Darwin into writing his own work on the subject.

Evolution was no longer going to be a secret. Darwin had long hoped to avoid the controversy, but he would be damned if Wallace’s research would take precedence over his. Resigned to the infamy, Charles Darwin finally published his findings, “On The Origin of Species”, on November 24, 1859.

As for Wallace’s barely remembered role in history, “survival of the fittest” apparently applies to scientists, too.

On This Day in 1503

Posted in General, On This Day on November 23rd, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 2 Comments

November 23rd

If you were reading the death notices in 1503, you would have been intrigued by Bona of Savoy’s obituary: she was almost Queen of England and sorta Duchess of Milan. Perhaps Bona (1449-1503) was born to be an underachiever and runner-up. She did have the abysmal timing to be a younger child in the Ducal House of Savoy. The older siblings got the properties and the better marriages. For instance, her older sister Charlotte was married to the King of France. True, he was old (20 years Charlotte’s senior), creepy and cheap; but he still had a status job. (He was also a superb king, but that would be of interest only to his subjects and historians.)

But then Prince Charming–or at least his ambassador–promised to rescue Bona. In 1464 the precariously throned Edward IV of England needed a wife, preferably one who could include a powerful ally in her dowry. The French had been lending support to Edward’s Lancastrian rivals, but a marriage to Bona might alter the Gallic bias. Edward’s chief advisors were encouraging the match, especially the Earl of Warwick. In fact, Warwick was in Paris to negotiate the marriage. Bona should have been enthusiastic about the prospective union. She would not only get a throne but a chance to finally outdo Charlotte. King Edward was young and said to be the most handsome man in England. Warwick, Bona and the French Court thought they had reached an agreement when some contradictory news arrived from London. The most handsome man in England had just married the most beautiful woman in England. Edward had affronted Bona, sabotaged a French alliance and betrayed the Earl of Warwick–and all for a penniless widow with a large, ravenous family.

France would continue to support the Lancastrians, and the Earl of Warrick was about to change sides. The next round in the Wars of the Roses was ready to begin.

However, our concern is Bona. Whether as compensation for the aggrieved or banishment of an embarrassment, the French Court now eagerly sought some acceptable marriage for her. The ruling family in Milan was receptive; the Sforza welcomed any class and legitimacy they could get. Francesco Sforza, a successful mercenary commander, had taken control of Lombardy in 1447. While his power could not be disputed, he was not acknowledged as the rightful Duke of Milan. (Of course, people addressed him as Duke to his face; if Al Capone demanded to be called Mayor of Chicago, would you have argued with him?) Francisco was illegitimate as was his wife; so the status-craving Sforza were eager to have an aristocrat–with royal connections–for a daughter-in-law.

Nonetheless, the negotiations took four years; the Sforza knew how to bargain. But in 1468 Bona became the wife of Galeazzo Sforza. He succeeded his father as the self-proclaimed Duke of Milan and showed himself to be a patron of art and torture. His assassination in 1476 may have been a surprise only to him. Galeazzo’s body was treated as a pinata, but the Sforza family was still in control. (They apparently did not miss him, either.) During the marriage, Bona had produced the prerequisite son, and the 7 year-old was now the sorta Duke of Milan. Bona was supposed to be Regent, but her brother-in-law Ludovico Sforza really was not one for formalities. After a short civil war, Bona was exiled and Uncle Ludovico established himself as regent for his nephew.

Would you be surprised that Uncle Ludovico outlived his nephew? Actually, to Uncle Lud’s credit, the young “Duke” lived for 18 years in comfortable confinement; those comforts included considerable latitude because the young man apparently died of syphilis in 1494.

As for Bona, she was a has-been at 31. Since she did not possess a conspiratorial nature, she was never involve in any political intrigues and so she also never had to hire a foodtaster. In the remaining two decades of her life, she was content to be a patron of the arts. And today’s museums would indicate that she had good taste.

p.s. What happened to the most beautiful woman in England? Her name was Elizabeth Woodville–England’s first queen Elizabeth–and in 1483 she found herself in a similar plight to Bona’s. Edward IV had died, leaving a young son as his heir and a fight-to-the-death over who would be the regent. Elizabeth also had a hostile brother-in-law; and her sons would not live long enough to get syphilis.

The Moderate Bunch

Posted in General on November 20th, 2010 by Eugene Finerman – 2 Comments

November 20th:  Mexico’s Revolution Day

Portfirio Diaz was the best President of Mexico that American business ever had. For just a reasonable–if continual–bribe, railroads, Standard Oil, and mining companies could exploit all that Mexico had to offer. Some of Diaz’s amassed fortune was trickling down to the populace, at least to his family, the crew of his yacht and the teenage girls who seemed to rejuvenate the elderly tyrant. However, that was not really a majority of Mexico’s population.

Diaz had been a war hero against the French in the 1860s; but 34 years of corruption seemed a sufficient veteran’s benefit. By 1910, Mexico was ready to overthrow the outrageous rascal, and the hopes and the grievances of Mexico would center around a most incongruous figure. As a revolutionary, Francisco Madero was the soul of well-mannered moderation. As a leader, he was innocuous rather than charismatic. The hope of Mexico’s impoverished masses was a wealthy aristocrat who had been educated everywhere but Mexico. But this education abroad had made him an admirer of societies that were neither feudal relics or shameless kleptocracies. Even if he did look upon Mexico from an Ivory Tower, it was with genuine compassion.

His liberal principles had earned him several bouts in a Mexican prison. However, having the advantage of being rich in the Diaz days, he could always bribe his escape. While in exile in Texas, Madero issued a call for the Mexican people to overthrow Diaz and reestablish democracy; it was on this day in 1910.

Rebellions began throughout Mexico, and even the army seemed loathe to defend the Thief-in-Chief. Six months later, Portfirio Diaz was on his yacht, cruising to Europe with his usual contingent of teenage girls; he lived happily ever after. Francisco Madero was the new President. On his private estates, he had genuinely improved his workers’ standard of living; he imagined that he could do the same with all of Mexico. Unfortunately, Mexico proved a little more difficult. Moderation seemed to please no one.

Revolutionaries wanted more drastic reforms than Madero was prepared to make. Conservatives wanted no reforms at all. Worse for Madero, his innocuous moderation terrified American corporate interests in Mexico. They evidently preferred paying bribes than taxes, and a scrupulous Mexican government might interfere with their business. The American Ambassador Henry Wilson, representing those business interests, initiated his own foreign policy: a military coup to overthrow Madero.

Assuming that everyone had his good intentions, Madero had not tried to purge the Mexican Army of Diaz’s cronies. Unfortunately, a number of generals proved quite nostalgic for the old kleptocracy and were eager to reestablish it. Ambassador Wilson had no trouble orchestrating the coup. Madero had entrusted his security to Gen. Victoriano Huerta. Huerta organized the firing squad.

If you have seen “The Wild Bunch”, “One Hundred Rifles”, or “Viva Zapata” you know what happened next. It was a free-for-all civil war. Any general could claim to be the President, and anyone could claim to be a general. The Conservatives fought the Revolutionaries, and the Revolutionaries fought each other. In hindsight, this probably was not the best environment for American businesses; it was impossible to keep track of whom to bribe.

By 1920, the civil wars had bled themselves dry, and Mexico had arrived at a political compromise that more or less has lasted to this day: a government of moderate thieves.

p.s.  Francisco Madero was a noble man by virtue, not lineage.    It seems that the family pedigree could not meet the exacting standards of Spanish aristocracy.  There was a reason why the ancestral Maderos settled in northern Mexico.

https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2010/09/20/learning-discretion/

https://finermanworks.com/your_rda_of_irony/2008/03/13/blue-blooded-fractions/