obit.rnWant to be a lady-writer? Step one:rntake some advanced comp classes atrnWellcsley. Step two: get out the liberalrnplay book on gay rights, governmentrnfunding of everything except the military,rnand especially whiny, wacky feminism.rnStep three: make everything introspective,rnemotional, and personal.rnUse your family as props, e.g., “I wasrnthinking about gay rights for an upcomingrncolumn, and as I tucked my fouryear-rnold baby-woman in the other night,rnshe turned to me and said, ‘Mommy,rnjust because a man wears a dress, whyrndon’t people like him like they likernmommies? Mommies wear dresses,rntoo.'” Awww … magnet that mother onrnthe refrigerator door. Jimmy Carter triedrnthat type of thing with Amy on nuclearrnbombs and it bombed, but it works forrnlady-writers.rnAnna Quindlen, the perky little liberalrnairbag who deploys a couple of times arnweek from the dashboard of the ‘limes,rnsays things like her toughest cfiallenge isrnto “raise feminist sons,” who will norndoubt turn out like the poufters some ofrnher sillier columns have been written on.rnThe screechy, petulant piece she threwrntogether when Magic Johnson flunkedrnhis lab test is probably on every refrigeratorrndoor in Greenwich Village.rn”I don’t want to hear any more aboutrnthe impropriety of clean-needle exchangesrnor the immorality of AIDS educationrnin the schools,” she raged. “Irndon’t want to hear any more about howrncondoms shouldn’t be advertised onrntelevision and in the newspapers.” Sherndoesn’t want to hear it, so we mustn’t sayrnit to her ever again, Quindlen and MollyrnIvins are from the same foot-stompingrnbranch of the gyno-journalism school.rnMagic Johnson, according to Anna, “alwaysrnlooks to me like a guy you shouldrnhug.” (His fellow NBA players quicklyrnpassed on that one.) Besides, Magic’srndisingenuous little speech inspired Anna’srn”eight-year-old” (one of the futurernfeminist sons) to “ask her about safernsex.” This stuff goes on the op-ed pagernof America’s “paper of record.”rnIt’s not a bad living, being a ladywriter.rnYou dip your pen in estrogen,rnwrite some really air-headed, emotionalrnthings, innocent of logic, throw in a couplernof fatuous Linda Ellerbee-style nonrnsequiturs, and step back and say, “Wow,rnam I irreverent, or what?” Hey, it works.rnSome people take Ellen Goodman seriously,rnand Anna Quindlen, to the shockrnand amusement of real journalists, actuallyrnwalked off with an Affirmative ActionrnPulitzer.rnI would suggest, however, that we putrnthis kind of stuff in the women’s section,rnthe way we used to, next to “Hintsrnfrom Heloisc” columns, crash diets, andrnMidol ads, and let the giris go at it on issuesrnlike Tailhook and tributes to ventilatedrnabortionists and why men are afraidrnof a really serious woman like Hillary.rnMolly Ivins seems to have just what itrntakes to cover these and other ladywriterrnissues with just the right frostingrnof pop-liberal pithiness. She’s going tornbe just peachy.rn—Will LanernCANADA’S roic in Wodd Ww ii wasrnrelived last year on Canadian nationalrntelevision via a mini-series entitled ThernValour and the Horror. The second partrnof the series, Death by Moonlight:rnBomber Command, was met by protestsrnso widespread as to cause the whole seriesrnto be placed on the agenda of thernCanadian Senate’s Subcommittee onrnVeterans Affairs. The senate hearings, atrnwhich historians and other witnesses testifiedrnto the film’s inaccuracies and distortions,rncoincided with the CBC (whichrnbroadcast the series) asking its ombudsman,rnWilliam Morgan, to prepare a report.rnMorgan’s report, which was cut fromrnits initial 60 pages to 13 before being releasedrnto the public, found that the seriesrnis “flawed as it stands and fails to measurernup to GBC’s demanding policiesrnand standards.” The senate subcommitteernfound that “the National FilmrnBoard, based on a brief statement of thernconcept, handed over $729,000 to thernfilmmakers and gave them the right of finalrncut. They made little or no attemptrnto check the accuracy of the filmmakers’rnresearch.”rnThe film soon became a media issue:rnBomber Command veterans vs. electronicrnand print media that closed ranksrnbehind the producers, Brian and TerencernMcKenna, and charged the veteransrnwith censorship and libel. At first,rnthe GBC’s chairman undertook to correctrnthe many errors on air, but this wasrnnot done. The National Film Board’srnpresident then refused to reply to veterans’rnprotests, and it was not until Januaryrn1993, when the government of Ontariornproclaimed the Class Proceedings Act,rnthat the issue could be moved from arnlargely hostile media to the courts.rnThe Bomber Harris Trust was formedrnto represent the 25,000 Canadian survivorsrnof Bomber Command Aircrewrnand, with the invaluable and voluntaryrnhelp of counsel (too young for the warrnbut a gentleman and a patriot), producedrna 221-page statement of claim inrna class-action suit against the CBC,rnNFB, et al, filed in Ontario Court lastrnJuly.rnThe claim lists 41 statements, dramatizations,rninferences, innuendos, depictions,rnand distortions that “are not true.”rnFor example, the film asserts that AirrnMarshal Harris refused to redirect his attacksrnto pre-inasion targets in support ofrnOverlord and that “in the end, Harrisrngot his way. His campaign to destroyrnGerman cities would continue, with arndevastating cost to his own aircrews.”rnBut the facts are that Harris gave his fullrnsupport to Overlord. From March tornJune, 1944, 83 percent of the command’srneffort was in direct support ofrnthe invasion. Aircrew loss rates declinedrnfrom 2.6 percent in 1943 to 1.9 percentrnin 1944 and 0.9 percent in 1945. Thernfilm features the “firestorm” of the Julyrn27/28,1943, attack on Hamburg and hasrnthe actor playing Harris say, “In spite ofrnall that happened at Hamburg, bombingrnproved a relatively humane method.rnThere is no proof that most casualtiesrnwere women and children.” This is followedrnby a picture of dead bodies, andrnthe narrator says, “In fact there is proof.rnThe Germans kept very careful records.rnFor every 100 men killed in Hamburg,rn160 women died. Of the 42,000 killedrnin Hamburg, 8,400 were children. Mostrnwere crushed, asphyxiated or roastedrnalive.” But Harris’s two sentences arernlifted from the beginning and end of arn228-word paragraph in his autobiographyrnthat is not about Hamburg; it is aboutrnbombing compared to, one, “the flowerrnof the youth of this country and our alliesrnbeing mown down by the military in thernfield, as it was in Flanders in the war ofrn1914-1918″; and, two, the estimatedrn800,000 deaths in Germany caused byrnthat war’s blockade—”naturally thesernwere mainly of women and children andrnold people because at all cost the enemyrnhad to keep fighting men adequatelyrnfed.” The words that actually precedernthe second, altered, sentence are: “It isrnnot easy to estimate what in effect werernthe casualties caused by Allied bombingsrnin Germany. German records werernincomplete and often unreliable, but thern6/CHRONICLESrnrnrn