With those famous words at the 1988 Republican National Convention, soon-to-be President George H.W. Bush promised there would be no new taxes. He kept his word. That is, we did not get taxes on taking showers, eating ice cream or going to baseball games. But he never promised he would not raise the existing taxes.

Now, the Demagogue-in-Office has resorted to the same trick. He ran for office, promising to get our troops out of Iraq by the end of 2010, and he has pretty much kept his word. He did not promise to get them out of Afghanistan. Last night, in a nationally televised speech, he boasted he kept his campaign promise. Since Obama does not take print journalism seriously, he solemnly said he is announcing that it is “official” – we are evacuating (combat) troops from Iraq. Since he also said that to the print media at least one week ago, apparently he didn’t regard that announcement as “official” as last night’s.

In any case, as a result of a large transfer of personnel from Iraq to the opium mountains of Afghanistan, we now have about 100,000 troops stationed in that godforsaken part of the world. US General David Petraeus, the commander of US and NATO forces in Afghanistan, said Tuesday that deployments would reach full strength of 150,000 within days.

The good news, if you are a fan of the Taliban, is that, In all, 1,270 American troops have lost their lives since the conflict began with the US-led invasion of Afghanistan, following the 9-11 attacks on New York and Washington in 2001.
Since as sports writers like to say, records are meant to be broken, 2010 is the worst year of all although it is not yet over. 322 deaths so far, and counting. Since this war – what the U.S. has dubbed OPERATION ENDURING FREEDOM is a joint effort, we should take notice of the sufferings of our “allies.” 788 “coalition military forces” have bitten the bullet since 2001. That’s almost 80 per year. In other words, if the “Coalition forces” could have been given a choice between being sent to Detroit and any of the other murder capitals in the U.S. or going to that safe haven in Rocky Mountain, Afghanistan, the selection would have been a no-brainer.

Have you ever heard of the Battle of Stones River? I doubt it because it is considered by Civil War historians as a minor skirmish, not worth writing much about. It came on the heels of the Union defeat at Fredericksburg, two weeks earlier. 1700 Union soldiers and 1300 Confederate troops lost their lives. Put this skirmish into perspective by noting that although the USA is many times larger today than it was 150 years ago, the total number of soldiers who died at Stones River is three times the number of fatalities we have suffered in eight years of fighting in Afghanistan.

We have no stomach for war any longer, and that is a good thing. Our casualties in Afghanistan are trivial but they overwhelm us emotionally. At least one very good reason for this is that we don’t know why we are fighting. Men are not dying for a cause they believe in. In fact, the average G.I.; does not know what the cause is. Neither do I.

We hear only platitudes and even our Administration is sick of them. Most of the rhetoric nowadays concerns when we will pull out of that godforsaken collection of rocks. Americans are not reluctant to fight when they have reason to. Our men showed their fighting spirit and willingness to die during World War II but we have not had a single war since then that was worth surrendering an American life for. Obama is finally getting the message. Our so-called allies understand this and most of them have pulled out some time ago.

We don’t even know whether that arch-villain Osama bin Laden is alive but if we must continue this madness even for one more day we should do so only with unmanned drones, supposing we can do that without causing collateral damage to innocent villagers. It doesn’t seem we are good at that so, probably, we should discontinue that, too.

Thank goodness, we have not repeated the Battle of Stones River for, had we had a disaster of those proportions, I, for one, would be happy to call for Obama’s immediate resignation.

It is not dishonorable never to have served in the U.S. military. It is not dishonorable to think we need a very aggressive military policy. However, when a person who did or continues to do all in his power not to serve in the military champions an aggressive military policy we have a fine example of what we call

HYPOCRISY

Here are a few names: Dick Cheney, the second President Bush, Bill Clinton, Douglas Feith, Daniel Quayle, Newt Gingrich, Rush Limbaugh, Pat Buchanan, Phil Gramm, Clarence Thomas, George Will, Tom Delay, Trent Lott, Dennis Hastert, Dick Armey, John Podhoretz, Bill Kristol, Fred and Bob Kagan, Richard Perle, Charles Krauthammer, John Mark Huckabee, David Huckabee, Paul Wolfowitz, Jed Bush, Karl Rove, Bill Frist, Ronald Reagan, Phil Gramm, Mitch McConnell, Bill O”Reilly, Rich Santorum, Eliot Abrams, Rahm Emanuel, John Ashcroft, J.C. Watts, and Barack Obama, who is the only recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize ever to speak out against pacificsm while making his Acceptance of the Prize speech.

Generals who are, of course, not pacifists, who have seen action and are now opposed to the particular war we are engaged in : Anthony Zinni, Norman Schwarzkopf, Colin Powell, Brent Scowcroft, Joseph Hoar, William Crowe, Merrill McPeak, John Baptiste, John Johns, Robert Gard.

Here a list of Democratic congressmen who belong in the Hall of Fame. If you can find me some REPUBLICAN names other than the first George Bush who belong here, please let me know.

* Richard Gephardt: Air National Guard, 1965-71.
* David Bonior: Staff Sgt., Air Force 1968-72.
* Tom Daschle: 1st Lt., Air Force SAC 1969-72.
* Al Gore: enlisted Aug. 1969; sent to Vietnam Jan.1971 as an army journalist in 20th Engineer Brigade.
* Bob Kerrey: Lt. j.g. Navy 1966-69; Medal of Honor, Vietnam.
* Daniel Inouye: Army 1943-47; Medal of Honor, WWII.
* John Kerry: Lt., Navy 1966-70; Silver Star, Bronze Star with Combat V, Purple Hearts.
* Charles Rangel: Staff Sgt., Army 1948-52; Bronze Star, Korea.
* Max Cleland: Captain, Army 1965-68; Silver Star & Bronze Star,Vietnam. Paraplegic from war injuries Served in congress.
* Ted Kennedy: Army, 1951-53.
* Tom Harkin: Lt., Navy, 1962-67; Naval Reserve, 1968-74.
* Jack Reed: Army Ranger, 1971-1979; Captain, Army Reserve’ 79-91.
* Fritz Hollings: Army officer in WWII; Bronze Star and seven campaign ribbons.
* Leonard Boswell: Lt. Col., Army 1956-76; Vietnam, DFCs, Bronze Stars, and Soldier’s Medal.
* Pete Peterson: Air Force Captain, POW. Purple Heart, Silver Star and Legion of Merit.
* Mike Thompson: Staff sergeant, 173rd Airborne, Purple Heart.
* John Murtha – Decorated Veteran. Vietnam.
* Bill McBride: Candidate for Fla. Governor. Marine in Vietnam; Bronze, Star with Combat V.
* Gray Davis: Army Captain in Vietnam, Bronze Star.
* Pete Stark: Air Force 1955-57.
* Chuck Robb: Vietnam.
* Howell Heflin: Silver Star.
* George McGovern: Silver Star & DFC during WWII.
* Jimmy Carter: Seven years in the Navy.
* Walter Mondale: Army 1951-1953.
* John Glenn: WWII and Korea; six DFCs and Air Medal with18 Clusters.
* Tom Lantos: Served in Hungarian underground in WWII. Saved by Raoul Wallenberg.

In 2002, 6 Republicans in the House of Reps voted NAY to going to war against Iraq: Duncan (R-TN), Hostettler (R-IN), Houghton (R-NY), Leach (R-IA), Morella (R-MD), Paul (R-TX). One senator voted NAY: Chafee (R-RI).

Actually, the post title is way off the mark because wartime deaths (my subject) diminishes by the second.

We don’t kill and die as we did in the old days but sadness and despair are never in decline.
I give combat deaths first and total deaths second. Wounded third. Figures are from August 27, 2009.
American Revolution – 8000 – 25,000 – 25,000
War of 1812 – 2250 – 20,000 – 4505
Mexican-American War – 1733 – 13283 – 4152
Civil War – 212,097 – 625,000 – 282,881
Indian Wars – 919 – ? – 1025
Spanish-American War – 385 – 4196 – 1622
Philippine War – 1020 – 4196 – 2930
World War I – 53,402 – 116,516 – 204,002
World War II – 291,557 – 405,399 – 670,846
Korea War – 30,880 – 36,516 – 92,134
Vietnam War – 47,424 – 58,209 – 153,303
Persian Gulf – 39 – 39 – 467
Kosovo – 1 – 20 – 22
Afghanistan – 532 – 756 – 2379
Iraq – 3788 – 4328 – 46,132

Ranking deaths per population:

Civil War – 1.988%
American Revolution – 0.899%
War of 1812 – 0.345%
WW II – 0.307%
WW I – 0.110%
Mexican War – 0.057%
Vietnam War – 0.03%
Korea – 0.02%
Philippine War – 0.006%
Iraq – 0.001%

Actually, there are 45 official American conflicts but probably another 100 that don’t make the list because of slender or no casualties. (For example, the war between Michigan and Ohio in 1836.) The ones I show are simply the stars of stars – the superstars – the legends – or in the lingo of Michael Jackson fans, the ICONS.

American taste for war hangs in like an addiction:
Philippine War – 15 years 1898 – 1913. Longest ever on the Hit Parade
Vietnam War – 9 years
Afghanistan War – 8 years and counting. As of this post, the war is longer than the Vietnam conflict.
American Revolution – 8 years
Iraq War – 6 years

Adjusting for deaths per day, given the lengths of the war, we have the following champions:
Civil War – 599. World War II – 416. World War I – 279. The rest are too puny to be contenders for Platinum or Gold Grammies.
Korea – 45. War of 1812 – 31. Mexican War – 29.

You have a better chance of being killed on any day if you walk through the downtown sections of Juarez, Detroit, or Los Angeles. In Iraq, the daily rate dipped to 2 to per day over 6 years. As for the death and wounded totals of our “allies” (What allies?) in Iraq and Afghanistan, first cut off your hands and if you find any fingers remaining, incinerate them. Then count what’s left. That gives you a good ballpark estimate of their casualties. If you are a young Brit, enlist in the Army and ship off to Afghanistan. That increases your chances of staying alive for a few years.

As the figures show, we have lost our tolerance for heavy casualties, and our stomachs turn at even such low figures as we find for Iraq – 2 per day. Every night, the Lehrer News Hour gives a roll call of soldiers dying in Afghanistan and Iraq. Imagine if some news show had tried that during the Civil War or the two world wars. The announcers would have died of old age and then had themselves added to the roll call.

Because the percentage of soldiers who die is ever decreasing, the sponsors of the thirty or so 20th century wars (our government, our military-industrial complex, Philip Morris, Budweiser, contraceptives, Viagra, and anti-diarrhea medicines, among hundreds of others) don’t feel like villains. War is good fun and games and, anyway, no one is getting hurt much, any longer. Never mind those crybaby mothers whose sons and daughters come home in boxes. They cried while watching Lassie, Come Home and The Yearling.

[This article is reprinted from, with slight abridgments, from my other blog www.watchingpolitics.com and appeared on August 27, 2009. CLICK HERE.

Dear Reader,

You have no idea how I write this post with real trepidation. For 43 years Ed Erwin has been my Rock of Gibralter. On purely philosophical matters we are always allied, and I have learned much more from him than he from me. This is not flattery – I don’t care for that – and Ed would not like it. On matters political, I think we are usually on the same side but now we part company. I refer to my post “My Israeli wars and yours” and Ed’s comments on it. Initially, I said the post was not really about Israel but about me. That may have been a teeny bit disingenuous. Of course, I am on Israel’s side. In his tough critique of my post, Ed said that impartial observers, including especially, perhaps, the U.N. rapporteur, condemned Israel’s attack on the flotilla that caused the death of so many persons. In response, I said I was skeptical of the U.N.’s neutrality. A rather flaccid response. So I decided I owed it to all, most of all myself, to look into the history of U.N. positions on Israel. Here is what I learned from a website called christian action for Israel.org.

Over the years, there have been 175 resolutions in the Security Council on matters pertaining to Israel. 74 were neutral, 4 were against the perceived interests of an Arab state, 97 were anti-Israel. In the General Assembly, the cumulative number of votes with/for Israel were were 7,938. The cumulative number of votes against Israel were 55,642. Between 1947 and 1989, the Council “called upon,” “demanded,” “requested” etc. Israel to “comply,” “desist,” “refrain” etc. 123 times. An Arab state, states or body was “called upon” or “ordered”or “requested” 65 times, or 47% less. The Council expressed its “concern,” “grave concern,” “regret,” “deep regrets,” “shock” etc. about Israeli actions 31 times. Regarding Arab actions, the Council never expressed negative sentiments.

The labor of the General Assembly makes the above numbers seem, by contrast, only mildly anti-Israel. Please see THIS LINK. I know just enough philosophy to know this is no proof of bias but it sure counts for something.

The United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) is an inter-governmental body within the United Nations System. It is noteworthy that a Reuters article says, “U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon told the organization’s widely-criticized Human Rights Council to drop rhetoric and bloc voting and get on with actually defending ordinary people from abuse.” He added that the Council’s members must rise above partisan posturing and regional divides. Of the eight special sessions on serious rights situations that the Council has held, four have focused on Israeli behavior in occupied Palestinian lands, only one of the sessions on Myanmar and its military rulers’ suppression of pro-democracy and nothing on North Korea. The Council has also held no discussion of Chinese policies on rights or on its role in Tibet. As of January 24, 2008, Israel had been condemned 15 times in less than two years. By April 2007, the Council had passed nine resolutions condemning Israel but toward Sudan, another country with human rights abuses as documented by the Council’s working groups, it has expressed “deep concern.”

In 2009, the UN Fact-Finding mission (headed by Richard Goldstone) released its report. The report found that there was evidence “indicating serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law were committed by Israel during the Gaza conflict, and that Israel committed actions amounting to war crimes, and possibly crimes against humanity.” Former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Mary Robinson criticized the resolution mandating the report as unbalanced and motivated by political concerns, saying: “the resolution is not balanced because it focuses on what Israel did, without calling for an investigation on the launch of the rockets by Hamas. This is unfortunately a practice by the Council: adopting resolutions guided not by human rights but by POLITICS. Richard Falk, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on “The situation of Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories Occupied since 1967″ drew a preposterous analogy: Israel’s “imposition of collective punishment had a certain resemblance” to what the Nazis had done in World War II. Francesca Marotta, a senior member of the UN staff that helped compile the Goldstone Report, was advertised as being the keynote speaker at a pro-Palestinian event in Switzerland. But Falk says the Goldstone people are “highly qualified and professionally respected.” A good case of the dog kissing its master.

Hillel Neuer is the executive director of the Swiss based NGO; UN Watch and first publicized Marotta’s speaking engagement. He argues that no one in her position should side with partisan political campaigns and says her actions undermine the UN’s authority and neutrality.

As to the four senior members who produced the report, Neuer points to a letter sent by future inquiry members Judge Richard Goldstone, Hina Jilani and the aforementioned Desmond Travers a full month before their appointment that protested Israel’s actions in Gaza. Neuer says, “Goldstone promised impartiality but the mission members had all made up their minds, adopting the Hamas narrative over Israel from the very start.”

There is much more but I will stop. I now turn to the Israel version of the flotilla incident.

An Israeli commando said that upon descending into a boat with ropes, he was immediately attacked by a group of people. “They beat us up with metal sticks and knives,” he said. “There was live fire at some point against us… They were shooting at us from below deck.” Some of the soldiers were tossed from the top deck to a lower deck by the activists, and jumped in the water to save themselves, he said. He added, “Activists grabbed soldiers and tried to hold them hostage, stripping them of their helmets and equipment. About 30 activists, all speaking Arabic, carried out the attack”

Israel says there is no need for an international inquiry into the incident, insisting that its own will meet the “highest international standards”. Of course, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) voted earlier to set up an investigation. In the light of what I have said about the UNHRC, this is not surprising. Ron Golan writes that he has heard a recording of the Israeli commander talking to his troops during the operation. “You hear him say they should use stun grenades and either tear gas or smoke but when the soldiers report they are being shot at, they are given permission to shoot back.”

The U.N. should investigate despite Israel’s saying it has no reason to do so. We can be pretty sure, however, that it won’t investigate Turkey’s role in the fiasco.

There is still the question why Israel went after the ship in the first place. We do know that Turkey was the source of the alleged humanitarian supplies and it is fair conjecture that military aid was on the ship. It is also a fair conjecture that Turkey aimed to provoke a hostile reaction on the part of Israel. Don’t expect any condemnation of Turkey.
**********************************
I have gone on much too long, I suspect. I want to give Ed the right to a last word on the matter. Believe me, I won’t be surprised if he makes out a good case against the attack. To this end, I invite him to submit a full-blown post because a mere comment may go unnoticed. If he wishes to say more, he should send me something by private e-mail and I promise to publish it uncensored.

And when I say “into the fray,” I don’t mean, as usually used, “into the wars” but into the unraveling edges of my mind. Last night, when I read Ed Erwin’s keen analysis of the Israeli conflicts, I had just come from a hectic evening spent with three of my grandchildren. In my post I said that while the Israeli conflicts seemed to energize a certain one of my friends, (at the time I did not mention it was Ed), they succeeded only in enervating me. But that enervating effect is nothing as compared with going a round or two with or against a squadron of youngsters aged 3 to 8 who put Israeli jet fighter pilots to shame. I could have done a little better but this new post is not an attempt to persuade readers that israel has Good and Right on its side.

The post was more about me than about Israel. It stated, however feebly, that Israel has caused me much grief over the last 60 years, mostly in the nature of cognitive dissonance because I am never sure to believe and, yet, I want badly to believe that Israel is always the good guy. Nothing can succeed in that grandiose aim for “always” is quite a stretch and Ed would slay the dragon who took on that quixotic goal. Ed has two things going for him: he is a master of debate and he makes it a habit to be on the right side. However, before I concede the whole kit and kaboodle, readers should know that on related issues, he did battle against the very powerful Shirley Soffer in an exchange of letters and in my view was bested by her. So, if she has any interest left in the matter, I invite her to plunge in and salvage the Jewish cause.

I take note of the fact that Ed says that while he disapproves of Netanyahu and Likud generally, he is a fan of Israel and the Israeli people. I think I said I am not. For one thing, they reject the Yiddish culture within which I grew up. They even detest the Yiddish language which, in my infancy, was my mother tongue. I said a couple other nasty things. So it is a bit odd that he is on Israel’s side while I am hopelessly conflicted about it all. I don’t like the fact that Jews, especially Israeli Jews, are convinced of what seems to me the crazy proposition that Jews are genetically superior to Moslems and all Arabs in brains and aesthetic talent.

Ed makes much of the point that impartial observers think Israel has behaved reprehensibly in the latest Gaza skirmish, but I don’t find that to be a proof because I am skeptical of their neutrality. Only skeptical, not sure they are not neutral. About all I am sure of is that Israel has faced down giants who are devoted to ending its existence. For that, I think there is pretty good evidence and I think it is natural for any nation to overreact when dealing with such foes.

With that, I take leave of the field. More might be said but this Journal is not about politics except in incidental ways. That being said, I do not intend to cut off debate if Shirley, Ed and others want to continue.

Nearly all my life Israel has caused me nothing but headaches. I have been irrationally pro-Israel from Day One. It makes no sense. I can’t remember whether I gave up belief in Mosaic miracles or Santa Claus at an earlier age. I am as Jewish as an Irish gremlin and, at the same time, as Jewish as an ultra-Orthodox rabbi. I’ve got an identity crisis, that’s for sure. I suffer from cognitive dissonance, emotional dissonance and, if there is such a thing, physical dissonance. In fact, I think I can tell you what that is but I’ll be going too far afield for my purposes just now.

For over 60 years, whenever I have heard news reports in which Israeli news agencies say one thing and Arab news agencies report the opposite, I have regarded it as obvious as who is lying – the Arabs, of course. What’s it all about? Why am I like this? I grew up in an all-Jewish world but, as I see things, Israelis are not Jewish. They don’t go shuls but to synagogues, they call the sabbath “Shabbat” with an accent on the 2nd syllable. It ought to be “Shabbes.” They pronounce “Yom Kippur” crazily, too. They have everything screwed up. They don’t even like Yiddish, they despise it, calling it a gutter language. Thanks, guys. It just happens to have been the native tongue of my parents and, until I was 3 and 1/2 years old and entered the world, it was mine.

Yet, when I get those rabid bulletins from friends, I am so proud. I get scorecards: musical geniuses – Jews, 1 trillion; Arabs, zero. Nobel Prize winners – Jews, 500 billion; Arabs, zero. Wow! We’re good; they’re not. It hints – in fact, it screams – of racism but I take perverse pleasure in it. And who are the “We” in “We’re so good”? This Jewish stuff is, like it or not – and I definitely don’t – in my bones. Could anything be more stupid than to suppose that, because he converted, Sammy Davis was more Jewish than I am? The thought of drinking milk while eating meat still makes my head spin and I have to grasp tight to something solid when I see Christians consuming that bizarre combination. Did that ever happen to Sammy? Did the Jewishness evaporate from my bones because I refused to have a Bar Mitzvah (thereby surrendering dozens of fountain pens – the de rigueur gift all celebrants of my era received)? When I was in the Army, I could have hidden my Jewish parentage but I did not, and that caused me much suffering. I am glad it did. It was just plain good to suffer with the really Jewish kids. And, although I had not a tinge of sympathy for the Warsaw Jews when I first heard of them and did not give a hoot about the Holocaust, today that stuff matters to me and shakes me to my core.

What’s it all about, Alfie? Give me some help, old buddy. Israel has been battling against the Islamic nations since 1947 or so – actually much earlier, but that date will do. “Mongol hordes swept down from the north.” I read that several thousand times in history books and it seems to me that, but for the direction, Islamic hordes have been sweeping down on poor Israelis. They are wild, uncivilized and bent on destruction. Can that really be? It seems not to make sense but that doesn’t mean I am not convinced it is true. In fact, I am unalterably convinced. One of the best friends I have in the world, sends me letters telling me that Israel’s prime ministers are criminals, pretty much in the Attila the Hun mold. I fight back but my heart is not in it. He seems energized by the conflicts; mine is enervated.

The other day all the world was talking about the Israeli military forces that swamped a boat heading for Gaza with humanitarian supplies and they killed ten people who were aboard. Everybody is condemning Israel and the whole tragedy makes me sick. But I don’t believe it, either. I heard the Israel ambassador to the U.S. on the Lehrer News Hour last night and he gave the events a different spin. I believe him – and I don’t. It is always that way. I am stuck in a news warp. Israel ought to mean nothing to me – a bunch of ravenous Hebes preying on American Jews for money. I give nothing but am glad other Jews do.

These wars seem destined to outlive me and, though I am a political junkie, I try not to pay close attention because all I get for my troubles are cognitive, emotional and physical dissonance. So now I must get back to Don Quixote. I am just two pages from the finish line and I can make it in two or three more days.

Today is, as I don’t have to remind you, the 579th anniversary of the roasting of the Maid of Orleans. Her story is now one of the best known legends of French history. Under divine guidance, she led a French army into battle during The 100 Years War when she went down for the count at age nineteen after proving herself a superstar.

She was just a peasant girl when she got word from Higher Ups, direct emissaries of God, that she was needed to restore King Charles VII to his rightful place on the throne of France. At first, she was greeted by French generals with, “Are you kidding?” but after a few glorious victories, they saw the light.

The war had raged on and off for about 90 years when little Joan came on the scene. The Brits pretty much had the better of it by then, so Chuck 7 had little to lose by allowing this teenager to take charge of his armies. What the hell. Better to fight like a girl and lose like a man then to fight like a man and lose like a girl. (Or something like that – my brain may be all twisted up.) In any case, the Brits had, (to coin a phrase), laid siege to Orleans, the last obstacle in their path to control of northern France (if that is where Orleans is).

Disguising herself as a lad, Joannie gained entrance to visit the King. She told the King that the voice of God told her she could turn the tide if given the chance. Since Chuck was in dire straits (too often confused with the Straits of Magellan for my taste), he said in a booming voice, “Sure, go for it. Go forth and do good deeds.” She donned heavy armor, a shield and all those things and went forth to do battle with the lousy Brits. Actually, the teenager did not understand. She thought she was commanded to go fourth, and not to rush into battle prematurely. In some way or other that I don’t understand, the delay was the key to her victory at Orleans.

By force of her dynamic personality, Joannie girl (the French like to call her Jeanne d’Arc, but this is patently ridiculous, and I won’t say why), changed the war from a secular conflict over who succeeds whom in the never-ending game of Who Gets to Be in Charge, which is all that wars were about in olden days, into a religious war between ???? Well, I don’t know, because Luther wasn’t born yet. Still, I have read lots of times that, under Joan, the war became a religious conflict.

After a nice round of victories, Joan was finally captured and tried for heresy. She was accused of claiming to have acted under God’s grace and the Brits wanted to know how the hell she had the right to think that. What audacity. What temerity. What gall. WHAT CHUTZPAH!! Thus, the charge of heresy was leveled on her. The Brits kept her under guard by male soldiers although inquisitorial rules specified she should have been guarded by nuns. So it is very likely that, keeping with a time-honored tradition of British soldiers, she was raped repeatedly.

At last, the trial took place and produced the expected result. Joan was tied to a stake and burned for heresy. Officially, Joan was roasted because she galloped around in men’s clothing, but to kill someone for that seems a bit weird. The simple fact is that Joan was a cross-dresser and if that were illegal today, tens of millions would be fried, zapped, gassed or dispatched in special ways only cross-dressers deserve. [I, myself, have a certain predilection for 5" high-heeled shoes - but that's a story for another day.]

What is most important about Joan, from a contemporary perspective, is that she really and truly did have conversations with God. Only crass and stupid atheists are skeptical of this. Almost as important, she really did change the course of world history. She has rightly been made a saint and shines with virtue with resplendent and therefore doesn’t give a rap for having once been a defendant. [And don't lie to people and say I plagiarized the preceding line from Billy Gilbert.] Joan was a hero to dozens of people who wrote biographies of her, all using the unimaginative pseudonym, Anon, to Napoleon, who worshipped the ground she walked on, to G. Bernie Shaw, to Maxie Anderson, to Bertold Brecht, to Pete Tchaikowsky, to Freddy Schiller, and to Lucky Besson. She was an inspiration to the very hot Alida Maria Laura Altenburger, the Baroness von Marckenstein und Frauenberg (a.k.a. Alida Valli). Hmm, hmm, good.

All this gives rise to two of the Four Big Questions that have been bugging the hell out of me since about 1944: Why, on this night, when Joan got all burned up, do we hide and eat the Afikomen? And why are we dipping our food twice tonight? What’s it to her?

Sorry, but I will not quit my anti-Obama tirade.   For my latest, see http://watchingpolitics.com/?p=6819

We bring you, now in its 700th consecutive season, the very worthy successor of Joey Addison and Dick Steele’s The Spectator, which ran out of steam in 1712.   I mean, of course, that Idiot’s Delight, Consumer Reports. I, of course, have been reading it nonstop for over half a century.  But what does that prove that you didn’t know already?

Have you ever noticed that CR has a fetish with interior paints and latex?   Hot diggity. I am swelling – and I don’t mean with pride……..Oh, let’s not get vulgar.  Here’s what is happening in the March issue.

1. Letters to “Ask Our Experts” - “How do I know whether I should start annual mammography at 40?”   Just in case you have been on an extended journey to Mars for the last 40 years, I am going to tell you the CR answer:  ”Talk with your doctor about your needs and concerns.”  Okay!  Now, we’re getting somewhere.

2. Next letter: “The batteries for my cordless drill are dying.  What do I do?”   Oh, no.  Let’s move on to another section.

3. “What’s the best bread?”  CR will tell you.   Me?   I won’t.

4. “Okay.  Will you tell me whether I should buy Glad bags or Hefty?”   No, screw you.  Go buy your own subscription.   My advice?   Talk with your doctor about your needs and concerns.

5. “I think I saw a headline on a news stand on a corner of McLean Avenue in the Bronx or Yonkers or Mumbai.   It went like this –  ”The lowdown on high-fructose corn syrup.”   I am begging you, Gendin, tell me about this one.  Oh my oh my, the Lowdown.”    Okay. You’re out of luck if you are trying to decide from among Heinz Tomato Ketchup, Wishbone Deluxe French Dressing, and Dannon “Fruit at the Bottom” Yogurt.     All will kill you.

6.  Now for something a little different AND important.  Your local bank is probably paying you 3/4 of 1% interest on deposits, but Colorado Federal is offering 1.5%.   I checked with Fibonacci of pi fame and he assures me that is double.    So, if you keep $5,000 in your account then, after 30 years, you should have at least an extra $1200 via Colorado.   Not much, you say?   Just watch Harry Connick and hot Kelli O’Hara show how wrong you are when they sing “7 and 1/2 cents isn’t a helluva lot” from Pajama Game.

7. What’s it going to be?  Vicks 44 or Robitussin Maximum Strength?    More lowdown.  Save your money.  Just drink warm liquids.   This magazine IS GREAT!

8.  For how long have you been pondering the Hamlet-like question, “Bagged salad or not bagged salad?”    Well, forget Consumer Reports on this one (although, naturally, it has its own answer).  No sane person eats lettuce, whether from a bag or not.  That’s strictly for Hazel of Watership Down fame.  And where did it get him?   A trip to rabbit heaven in the final two pages.   Sans 72 virgins.

9.  Any coffee fans out there?   Believe me, if you worked in Yonkers, NY along with the rest of the CR staff, you would drown yourself in the stuff.   Chills go up and down my spine every time I drive past McLean Avenue on the Major Deegan Highway.   In order to fortify themselves, the staffers sampled 100 brands.  Sure enough, they liked some more than others.  You don’t care, I don’t care and even they didn’t care, so why should I report the results?

10.  Interior paints in this issue?    Of course.  Read all about them pp 41-42.

11. Yes, Virginia, there is a difference among carpet cleaners.  So long as CR continues to exist and so long as it is devoted to the highest beauty and joy, you know to whom you can turn for true knowledge.  Your little friends are wrong to be skeptical.  We should have no enjoyments without a clean carpet.  The eternal light with which childhood fills the world would be extinguished.   Not believe in clean carpets! You might as well not believe in fairies!   Please turn to page 44 all the way through 49 and discover the joy of freshness.

12. TVs and cars?  Yes, they are all there.    Cars speak for themselves, especially Toyotas, but you need to know your pixels and resolutions when buying a TV set.  Do you want 120 hz or will only 240 Hz do?    And how about 1080p vs. 720p?   Do you really need a high-priced HDMI cable?   Do you even know what that is?    After CR gets finished with you, you will know.    Will it be plasma or ….?  [Sorry, I forgot the other type.]

As Abby Hoffman advised, STEAL THIS MAGAZINE.

***********

This post is cross-listed under “This and That” and “War.”