Losing My Religion

Maybe I was just dreaming, but....

George W. Bush Elected Pope, Calls Results a "Mandate."
MoveOn.Org Files Suit

In a move that caught even the most seasoned Vatican watchers by surprise, George W. Bush was elected Pope late today. Bush, a devout Protestant who attends the United Methodist Church in Midland Texas, becomes the 264th Pontiff of the Roman Catholic Church and succeeds the universally-loved Pope John Paul II, who died April 5, 2005. White House spokesman Ari Fleischman told a stunned press corps that the two-thirds majority Bush garnered from the College of Cardinals signaled a strong mandate for both his economic and domestic programs. Fleischman quoted Bush as saying "this election gives me the kind of religious capital I've been looking for and I intend to spend it." Fleischman said that Bush plans to adopt the name, John W. Paul II, when he is ordained as the Holy See later this week. Bush was elected on the third ballot.

MoveOn.org, the left-leaning political action committee that gained prominence during the 2004 U.S. presidential election, vowed to fight Bush's election. MoveOn spokesman Sheila Zeinstein claimed wide-spread election fraud was behind this surprising development.

"Right now we have lawyers on the ground, collecting affidavit after affidavit from nearly all of the 120 Cardinals in the conclave. To a man, they can't explain how Bush was able to secure this new appointment," Zeinstein said. "We have credible evidence that will demonstrate rampant fraud, the kind of fraud that will make the recent elections in Iraq look wildly legitimate by comparison."

On the advice of counsel, Cardinal Vito Salazano, Vatican spokesman declined to address the voter fraud allegations. Salazano did say, however, that "I suspect that this election will come as a mild surprise to the flock. I'm the one that got the results and had to send the smoke through the chimney signifying that a two-thirds majority had been reached. Thank God I wasn't drinking the Holy Blood at the time or I might have done a spit-take."

Seeking to make some sense of this, U.S. House Majority Leader Thomas DeLay said that the results signals a desire for the Catholic Church to better align itself with the burgeoning Christian majority that has taken a chokehold on American politics. "This is smart, damn smart, of them Catholics," DeLay said. "They were losing ground both here and abroad. I don't blame them for glombing on to the popularity of probably the single greatest president--ever."

Cardinal Szen Valcowicz of Poland disagreed with DeLay's assessment. "I don't see this result--assuming it's legitimate--as any attempt to leverage the popularity of a current political figure to assist the Church. It just makes good, philosophical sense. Look, being Pope is hard work, just hard work. You have to be able to stand resolute in the face of overwhelming opposition--whether it's opposition to an unjust war or opposition to ancient dogma that has little relevance in today's environment. I think Mr. Bush, excuse me, Pope W, will make a remarkable Pope. I believe John Paul II would be proud."

Asked if the Cardinals were concerned that the new leader was not Catholic, Valcowicz noted "Personally, I don't see that as a major problem. The United States is not all Republican and yet he is effectively leading that country. Just look at the respect it garners these days on the world stage." Salazano added that the Cardinals felt that this move represented a "bold new direction for the Catholic Church and a chance for us to bridge our differences with the Protestants, something we've not been able to accomplish in, like, 200 years."

Zeinstein, however, said that MoveOn.org plans to contest the election as soon as it can find a court to hear the case. "Right now we're just looking for a forum. We'll keep filing legal actions until we can get someone, anyone, to listen. We're confident that if we can just be heard, if the courts will just look at all of the evidence, this election won't stand," Zeinstein said.

DeLay, however, warned MoveOn.org against pursuing an agenda that sought to overturn the decisions of the Cardinals. "These are very personal and very private issues. As everyone knows, I simply have never believed that one should invoke the Courts in such disputes." DeLay said. DeLay further warned that should MoveOn.org persist, legislative or administrative intervention would not be out of the question.

"Those are certainly options we need to consider," DeLay said. Asked to elaborate, DeLay said "We need to look at legislation specifically tailored to denying fringe groups like MoveOn.org status to file legal actions. We also need to look at stronger regulations to close up the loopholes that allow these kind of anti-American groups to gain tax-exempt status. And we need more frequent tax audits of these groups. After all, that put the NAACP back in line, didn't it?"

"But," DeLay said, "however it plays out, should there be judicial intervention to overturn this decision, the wrongdoers will be made to pay. Believe me, the men responsible for this kind of unwarranted legal activism will be held responsible for their actions," DeLay said.

In a separate development, a small earthquake, measuring 1.3 on the Richter scale, rumbled near the Vatican shortly after the announcement made. No injuries were reported, although the caskets of the previous 263 popes buried beneath St. Peter's Basilica were reportedly turned completely askew.

Help A Brother Out

Far be it from any of us to doubt the sincerity of someone of the stature of Tom DeLay, the U.S. House majority leader. When he threatens judges with retribution for their blatant judicial activism in response to his House-led unwarranted legislative activism in the Terri Schiavo tragedy, it is rather doubtful that he is serving any personal interest. Certainly, DeLay would stand to benefit from a suddenly timid judiciary should he be indicted as a result of the on-going investigation in Texas that has already ensnared three DeLay associates. But who are we to connect those dots? No, DeLay couldn’t possibly be that transparent. Perhaps his motives are much more nefarious—like an on-going agenda to perform an Extreme Makeover on the Constitution by eliminating such clutter like checks and balances. While DeLay may be able to bully his way into rewriting House rules in order to avoid further wrist slaps for his ethical violations, fortunately it’s doubtful he’ll have as much success bullying his way to eliminating a separate judiciary, but who knows? I never thought Paris Hilton’s "reality" show would be renewed for a second season either.

Rather than ponder DeLay’s motives, it’s much more sporting to spot the inconsistencies in his approach. Think of it as a civics lesson version of finding the hidden objects in the picture at the back of Children’s Highlights magazine. For example, wasn’t it DeLay, as the New York Times reported, who was part of pulling the plug on his old man when he was terminally ill? There was no dramatic photo-op request for federal intervention then. But much more deliciously ironic is his panting for the intervention of the evil trial lawyers by encouraging more litigation in the name of the sanctity of life? I know, everyone hates lawyers, until of course we need them to further the Christian right’s agenda.

While context might not be his strong suit, that still doesn’t explain how DeLay missed this case. Recently, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Pennsylvania threw out a case brought by the heart of DeLay’s power base--the hillbilly redneck faction. It seems that the particular hillbilly redneck in question wouldn’t remove the Confederate bumper stickers from his pick-up, which ultimately got him fired (Storey v. Burns International Security Services). Curtis Blaine Storey was employed as a security guard by Burns International. Burns, trying to convey an image of diversity intolerance as they were embarking on a hiring program, asked Curtis-Bob to remove the stickers from his pickup. Like any good gun-toting hick still fighting the Civil War, Curtis-Bob said no and was called in to explain his reticence. When he refused, again, to remove the stickers, he was tossed out, no doubt by the hair on his back. If you’re like me, you probably thought his defense went something like "What in tarnation are y’all doing? I just got my ride up off of the cinder blocks in front of my trailer and them there stickers are the only thing holding it together." But Curtis-Bob, with the help of the kind of trial lawyer who is just as likely to file the kind of endless, frivolous pleadings we saw in the Schiavo case, was more creative. He claimed his termination was national origin discrimination. His national origin? "Confederate Southern-American." As Dave Barry would say, "I’m not making this up." For good measure, he threw in that "the Confederate flag is a religious symbol because it incorporates the cross of Saint Andrew, a revered religious symbol."

The Third Circuit, exercising the kind of judicial activism we’d all like to see more of, summarily tossed this loser suit out.

Strangely, and I checked, Brother DeLay was no where to be found. No friend of the court brief in support of ol’ Curtis-Bob. No emergency amendment to Title VII to clarify that hilljack, I mean, "Confederate Southern-American" is a protected national origin. No Sunday evening taxpayer-financed presidential helicopter delivering George W to the Rose Garden to put his stamp of approval on any new legislation. I know that DeLay is busy fending off the enemies of freedom trying to derail his career by holding him to the same ethical standards that he accused Hillary of violating, but certainly he could have freed one of the lawyers on his ever-expanding legal team for a few minutes to help a brother out. I’ll be he would have had Curtis-Bob had the dough of, say, Jed Clampett.
Hey, I know it’s been a little frustrating trying to demonstrate, on a macro level, to the Confederate Southern-Americans among us the evil that these men are trying to inflict on this country. But if all politics are local, then, hopefully, it will be these personal slights to the likes of the Curtis-Bob that will be their undoing. Now get me some muskrat. I’m a hankering for some viddles.

Wake Me When Something Important Happens

While it may not have a coherent energy policy, give the Bush administration credit for at least having a policy of unending energy--the better to wear down the rest of the country who, by visual evidence, is mightly struggling with obesity and laziness. How else to explain the collective yawn and slumber that greets each new outrage that is foisted upon the masses?

Exhibit 1,264 on the ever expanding list is the recently released, but suspiciously overdue, latest report on the massive intelligence failures that were used to justify the imperialistic and deadly march into Iraq and beyond. To this we first won't dwell on the slight of hand the administration performed to switch the debate from Al-Qaeda's attack on our soil to the supposed threat that the evil and decadent Saddam Hussein posed to these shores. Of course, we already knew that Saddam was an unmitigated abuser of basic rights. But we also knew, didn't we, that Saddam's greedy insticts manifested itself more in the form of an incessant need to build 10 more summer homes in and around Baghdad than in a need to control the world, or even his little corner of it. Like a pale imitation of Michael Corleone, whom he admired, Saddam spent most of his time since the first Gulf War skimming the profits from the United Nation's oil for food program, as if it were the Tropicana. But he did so more as part of a 10-year plan to encrust his bed sheets in diamonds than he did to arm his zombie-like followers, if the ease with which we went through Iraq is any barometer (and it is).

While this seemed obvious to even George Sr., who eschewed a further drive into Iraq when he had a better chance and more justification, by the time this administration worked its magic on us, we were simply worn out to challenge by the onslaught from damn near everyone in the administration but the pool that Saddam was sitting on anything more elaborate than a gold-plated toilet. But for those few brave soles who could stay awake, we watched as the administration pulled out its trump card, hidden in its ever-lengthening sleeve. Using the likes of hatchet men like Tom DeLay and Bill Frist, they labeled them "unpatriotic." And here I thought hunting for the traitors among us had died with McCarthy.

Now of course comes that prickly report, well into the third year of our occupation of Iraq--an occupation that has brought untold heartbreak and grief on thousands of families across the land--that essentially concludes, "oops." While it is more likely that Jessica Simpson will get admitted to Mensa than it is for the country (let alone the world) to get an apology from the Bush administration for this colossal screw-up, the least they could do is pretend they're sorry. Instead, and not surprisingly, we get the kind of spin that makes Michael Jackson's handlers sound positively candid by comparison. Rather than be embarrased (for which it has no such capacity), this administration sees the report as vindication for their claim that "hey, we got bad info too and it wasn't our fault." They feign frustration while hoping that we won't notice that they are responsible in the first instance for getting the right information or that it was their own brand of reverse engineering of the intelligence gathering process that created this mess in the first place.

The report claims that no one in the administration influenced the intelligence process. While that calls for a "fill in your own punch line here" sort of conclusion, isn't the real trick all in how you ask the question? And does anyone really think that anyone in the administration ever asked an objective question in their lives? To our "patriotic" friends on the right, there is a difference between a question that asks for the status of Iraq's arms capabilities and one that asks how soon can we expect Iraq to launch its weapons of mass destruction.

But lest anyone think that this report will make any meaningful difference, keep in mind that there no credible exit strategy from Iraq has been articulated and the administration has already begun laying the ground work for their next excellent adventure--target Iran--with even less intelligence or understanding of any potential threat they might impose beyond bad fashion. If the hallmark of our foreign policy is trust but verify, we too should demand that of this administration. But that appears unlikely. They just plain have more energy than we do and, frankly, whatever we have left is being consumed trying to determine the next American Idol.