SOBRAN'S --
The Real News of the Month
December 2001
Volume 8, No. 12
Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
Print version: $44.95 per year; $85 for 2 years;
trial subscription available for $19.95 (5 issues).
E-mail subscriptions: $39.95 for 1 year ($25 with a
12-month subscription to the print edition); $65 for
2 years ($45 with a 2-year subscription to the print
edition).
Address: SOBRAN'S, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617 Website: www.sobran.com
Publisher's Office: 703-255-2211 or www.griffnews.com
Foreign Subscriptions (print version only): Add $1.25 per
issue for Canada and Mexico; all other foreign
countries, add $1.75 per issue.
Credit Card Orders: Call 1-800-513-5053. Allow
4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.
{{Material dropped from features or changed solely for
reasons of space appears in double curly brackets.
Emphasis is indicated by the presence of asterisks around
the emphasized words.}}
CONTENTS
Features
-> The Moving Picture (plus Exclusives to this edition)
-> An Anniversary
-> Ring for Jeeves
Letters to the Editor
Nuggets (plus Exclusives to this edition)
List of Columns Reprinted
FEATURES
The Moving Picture
(page 1)
Since we can all use a bit of comic relief, this
month's cover boy is P.G. Wodehouse. He is the subject of
a short piece on page 6, and I trust that a few scattered
quotations from him will provide levity elsewhere in the
issue. (Here and there I have quoted from memory, but
most selections are guaranteed verbatim.)
* * *
"Patriotism or Nationalism" (page 7) has been
reprinted in a Moscow newspaper you may have heard of:
PRAVDA.It's been under new management in recent years, of
course. Still, I'm tickled to note that after beginning
my career with a journal founded by Bill Buckley, I've
moved on to one founded by Joe Stalin.
* * *
The aforementioned Bill Buckley has just written a
column arguing that the United States should not use
nuclear weapons in the current war. This puts him at odds
with NATIONAL REVIEW's senior editor Jeffrey Hart, who
has already produced two columns urging nukes. Neither
man seems to have thought of the obvious reason not to:
that it would mean mass murder.
* * *
The defamation campaign against Pope Pius XII
continues, with yet another attack in COMMENTARY
magazine. There's a simple answer to the charge that Pius
didn't condemn Nazism strongly enough: by that standard,
he didn't condemn Communism strongly enough either. Yet
nobody doubts that Pius hated Communism, the mortal enemy
of his own Church. Being neither a journalist nor a
politician, he didn't go into detail, and never publicly
excoriated either Hitler *or* Stalin by name. Even the
most severe papal judgments are expressed in
diplomatically general language. That's just how popes
talk. Compare John Paul II's recent comments on the 9/11
attacks. He deplored them firmly, but didn't mention
Osama bin Laden. Will we one day hear that he was "bin
Laden's Pope"?
* * *
Sad that Rush Limbaugh is losing his hearing, and
revolting that his enemies are jeering about it. I do
like Rush, and I hope he can carry on even with such a
handicap. At the same time, he does go overboard as a
Republican apologist. He's straining to blame even bin
Laden on Bill Clinton and the Democrats!
* * *
A really great World Series this year, with Arizona
beating the New York Yankees in the bottom of the ninth
in the seventh game. Just my luck -- I'd dozed off two
innings earlier and missed one of the most exciting
moments in baseball history.
* * *
Farewell to our old friend Willie Casagranda, who
died in October at 75. Some of our charter subscribers
may recall him from our annual dinners, which were always
enlivened by his presence. He was also a loyal friend and
fierce supporter of Pat Buchanan, who will vouch that
they don't come more lovable than dear Willie.
Exclusive to the electronic version:
The best witness to the Catholic Church, I always
feel, is the unique hatred she still inspires. Why should
this be, unless she is a threat to what man cherishes
most -- his pride?
* * *
An honest liberal should respect and value the
Church for providing this violently unstable world with
some moral ballast. Is it really desirable that masses of
men should throw over ancient traditions overnight?.
An Anniversary
(pages 3-5)
The 9/11 attacks have so far failed to shake the
American conviction that every religion is at bottom a
"religion of peace." The tangled conflict among
Christians, Jews, and Muslims, rooted in the Middle East,
has now come to North America. Maybe it will someday soon
sink into the American skull that credal differences are
still taken seriously in some parts of the world.
The date of the attacks -- September 11, 2001 --
just happened to be the 60th anniversary of another
notable moment in American history, one that didn't cause
quite as much shock or make quite as many headlines, but
did reverberate for quite a while, and does have certain
thematic links to recent events.
On the night of September 11, 1941, the world-famous
aviator Charles A. Lindbergh gave a speech in Des Moines,
Iowa, that caused a national controversy and tainted
Lindbergh's name for the rest of his life. Lindbergh,
adored by millions as an American hero, had already put
his reputation on the line for what he saw as the
patriotic cause of keeping the United States out of World
War II. He was a leader of the "isolationist" America
First Committee, and in Des Moines he was addressing an
America First rally.
In his speech Lindbergh named the three chief groups
that were "agitating for war": "the British, the Jewish,
and the Roosevelt Administration." Guess which one caused
the uproar. The next day, Lindbergh was denounced coast
to coast as an anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer. He is so
described to this day.
The striking fact is that Lindbergh said nothing
derogatory about the Jews; on the contrary, he spoke
about them briefly and with sympathy:
It is not difficult to understand why
Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi
Germany. The persecution they suffered in
Germany would be sufficient to make bitter
enemies of any race. No person with a sense of
the dignity of mankind can condone the
persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But
no person of honesty and vision can look on
their pro-war policy here today without seeing
the dangers involved in such a policy, both
for us and for them.
Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish
groups in this country should be opposing it
in every possible way, for they will be among
the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance
is a virtue that depends upon peace and
strength. History shows that it cannot survive
war and devastation. A few far-sighted Jewish
people realize this, and stand opposed to
intervention. But the majority still do not.
Their greatest danger to this country lies in
their large ownership and influence in our
motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our
Government.
I am not attacking either the Jewish or
the British people. Both races, I admire. But
I am saying that the leaders of both the
British and Jewish races, for reasons which
are as understandable from their viewpoint as
they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons
which are not American, wish to involve us in
the war. We cannot blame them for looking out
for what they believe to be their own
interests, but we must also look out for ours.
We cannot allow the natural passions and
prejudices of other peoples to lead our
country to destruction.
This is the only public statement Lindbergh made
about the Jews. He treated them realistically and with
the same understanding he extended to the British. By
contrast, he excoriated the Roosevelt administration for
seeking to involve the United States in war by
"subterfuge" -- an entirely accurate charge. Whereas, in
his view, the Jews and the British were merely pursuing
their own legitimate interests as they saw them,
Roosevelt was betraying his own people. The bulk of his
address was an attack on Roosevelt's policy.
Yet the violent reaction to the Des Moines speech
didn't accuse Lindbergh of being "anti-British" or even
"anti-Roosevelt." He was accused of "anti-Semitism,"
"Hitlerism," of being "un-American," and (by Reinhold
Niebuhr, no less) of seeking to incite "racial and
religious strife."
Lindbergh himself had expected this. The first draft
of the speech included words he deleted in the actual
delivery: "I realize that in speaking this frankly I am
entering in where Angels fear to tread. I realize that
tomorrow morning's headlines will say 'Lindbergh attacks
Jews.' The ugly cry of Anti-Semitism will be eagerly,
joyfully pounded upon and waved about my name."
It was, and is. Yet Lindbergh hadn't attacked or
even disparaged the Jews. He had merely said that, aside
from a "far-sighted" minority, their own *perceived*
interests were at odds with the real interests of the
United States, a fact he regarded as tragic. But that was
enough. For six decades Lindbergh's reputation has been
defined by the distorted and defamatory reporting of his
Des Moines speech.
To this day, Lindbergh is vilified for telling the
truth by the same sort of people who praise Franklin
Roosevelt for lying. Roosevelt backed the huge smear
campaign against Lindbergh and even publicly insinuated
that he was a "Copperhead." When war broke out, he
rejected Lindbergh's offer to serve as a pilot; Lindbergh
managed to fly 50 combat missions anyway (without
publicity, of course). Say what you will, he never ran
out of courage, and by any measure he was a truer patriot
than the cynical fox in the White House.
Lindbergh was a hero. The real thing. Today it's
hard to remember how much courage it had taken, in 1927,
to fly across the Atlantic alone. But at the time he was
easily the most admired man in America, and maybe the
whole world. The enormous public adulation he received
embarrassed him, because he treasured his privacy. That
privacy was further insulted by press coverage of the
kidnap-murder of his little son in 1932, the most
sensational crime of its time.
By 1941 Lindbergh could have enjoyed his success,
his privacy, his reputation, and the love of his country
for the rest of his life if he had simply retired from
public view. Instead, he chose to put it all at risk by
speaking out in defense of his country against its own
president. He became the leading light of the America
First movement.
But his Des Moines speech shook the movement itself.
Many of its leaders, including its president, John T.
Flynn, disapproved of his mention of the Jews, regarding
it as encouragement to the Jew-hating types they had
tried to dissociate America First from. Some thought it
horrifying; others saw it as perhaps true enough, but
still a regrettable and needless distraction that would
embroil the movement in a bitter controversy over a
secondary issue.
Lindbergh himself, a man who feared no thunderbolts,
thought the Jewish question had to be faced. To him it
was not a matter of prejudice or hostility, but an
objective reality. Even granting that Jews could not be
blamed for seeking war with Germany, he insisted that
this Jewish interest was distinct from, and opposed to,
the American interest in avoiding war. And the Jewish
interest was powerful, especially in the media.
Looking back, what seems remarkable is how strong,
even in 1941, was the taboo against any public mention of
this interest. Most of the angry condemnation of
Lindbergh came from his own people, the Protestants who
still dominated America (though some prominent Catholics
as well as Jews joined the attack). His books were pulled
from library shelves; streets and public monuments that
had been named for him were renamed, even in his
hometown.
But as far as I can tell from this distance in
time, nobody directly denied what he said. Nobody
contended that American Jews were as strongly opposed to
war as most other Americans. (When Patrick Buchanan
referred to Israel's "amen corner in this country," none
of his furious detractors denied that there was such an
amen corner: after all, they were it!)
Lindbergh's recent biographer A. Scott Berg, a Jew
who is both sympathetic and fair-minded, comments,
"Lindbergh had bent over backward to be kind about the
Jews; but in suggesting the American Jews were 'other'
people and that their interests were 'not American,' he
implied exclusion, thus undermining the very foundation
of the United States."
But what if a sizable number of Jews -- not
necessarily a majority, but the practically preponderant
number -- regard *themselves* as "other"? What do the
many Jewish organizations, publications, lobbies, et
cetera, signify, except that there are distinct Jewish
interests -- interests not necessarily shared by most
Americans and therefore requiring concerted Jewish
efforts for their realization? And why should these
interests (unlike those of farmers, labor unions,
corporations, industries) be not only exempt from
criticism, but barred from any public mention?
It's as if we had to discuss the current war without
mentioning Islam. Islam, however variously understood by
both Muslims and non-Muslims, obviously has *something*
to do with the conflict, and we can never grasp what that
may be unless we can talk about it. Set aside the
question of theological truth, though it is the most
basic question of all. In order to understand recent
events and to cope with the near future, we have to form
some idea of how Islam defines the interests of the
people we have to deal with. You can't play chess unless
you can figure out how your opponent is thinking.
Like Islam, Judaism is counted among what we call
the great religions. Even Jews who neither believe nor
practice their ancestral religion have been formed by it
and are conscious of belonging to an ancient nation,
compared with which the United States of America is a
very recent (and probably temporary) upstart. If I were a
Jew looking at this country, I think I would say to
myself: "Here today, gone tomorrow." In key respects this
country isn't even what it was two centuries ago; it has
lost its original character. How can such an ephemeral
and mutable thing command the deepest loyalty of a man
whose memory spans millennia? To me the wonder is that
American Jews are patriotic at all, though many of them
certainly are.
I can imagine how this country seems to a serious
Jew or Muslim because I know how it seems to a serious
Catholic -- that is, one who judges it by something
outside itself, and more permanent than itself. The
reason to raise the Jewish question is not that Jews are
suspect; it is that they are presumably sane. Not that
they don't make plenty of errors of their own; Lindbergh,
who made his own errors, rightly predicted that the war
would be disastrous for the Jews. And Israel, as a new
Jewish state, may have seemed like a refuge in 1948, but
today it is the one place on earth where Jews are least
secure. And now this country is implicated in its fate.
The negative stereotype of the Jew is that he is a
double-talker who can't be trusted; and like most
stereotypes, this one contains some truth. As Raymond
Chandler once remarked, the Jews want to be Jews to
themselves but not to others; they are like a man who
refuses to give his real name and address but insists on
being invited to all the best parties. But the modern Jew
is an ambiguous figure even to himself. Israel's Knesset
holds bitter debates over the question of "who is a Jew."
In the old days this was no question at all. A Jew
was one who observed the Law of Moses, or at least
acknowledged his hereditary duty to do so. The ancient
charges against the Jews were precisely the opposite of
the modern stereotype: that the Jews were misanthropic,
proudly and visibly aloof from the rest of the human
race, thornily self-segregated. They weren't accused of
stealthily blending into the general population while
concealing their true loyalty to their own. Far from it.
Their refusal to mix with pagans caused the pagans to
resent their rude hauteur. Shylock wasn't trying to
"pass."
But in modern times, the possibility of assimilation
has resulted not only in real absorption, with many Jews
virtually ceasing to be Jews (as in the old joke about
the Jew who becomes a Methodist, is invited to give a
sermon, steps into the pulpit, and begins: "Fellow goyim
..."), but also in feigned assimilation and "dual
loyalty." This may not even be "dual": an ostensible
loyalty to the gentile majority often masks an actual
loyalty to Jews and Israel.
The older I get, the less I am inclined to blame
Jews for their loyalty to their own; in fact, I am
disposed to honor them for it -- but only up to a point.
I like it to be out in the open, and I reserve the right
to talk about it and take it into my calculations without
being called a bigot. Of course this is the same right
Charles Lindbergh thought he enjoyed 60 years ago.
The bitterest quarrels occur when people are in full
agreement. There was no real disagreement about what
Lindbergh said. It was because he refused to engage in
the prevailing tacit hypocrisy that all hell broke loose.
He recognized the Jews as a remarkable race, but he also
drew logical conclusions from their distinct status. It
was obvious, it was *self-evident,* that the interests of
Jews might clash with those of non-Jews, not because Jews
were treacherous, or worse than other people, but because
they were *comparable* to other people. You may even
believe that the Jews are right and the gentiles wrong;
but you can hardly deny that they are different.
Why was it, and why is it still, so shocking to say
the self-evident? Are we to sacrifice lives -- perhaps
many, many lives -- to a false delicacy about profound
differences between human groups? Whatever the reason,
Doublethink, defined by Orwell as the ability to believe
mutually contradictory propositions simultaneously, has
become a civic duty.
America is still a more or less Christian country,
and Christianity and Judaism remain profoundly different
religions, issuing in profoundly different cultures and
interests. The specific interests of Israel and America
are also very different. The existence of the pro-Israel
lobby and "amen corner" of supporters in this country
means not that the two countries' interests are the same
(this is mere propaganda, Doublethink), but, on the
contrary, that American interests are being sacrificed to
Israeli interests. An honest reckoning of the price for
Americans is long overdue; we got a glimpse of it on
September 11.
There have to be limits. It defies reason to suppose
that the two countries always have identical interests,
or that Americans aren't bearing most of the burden;
after all, there is no pro-American lobby in Israel, and
Israeli politicians aren't for sale to Americans. Prime
Minister Ariel Sharon was recently quoted as boasting:
"We control America." It certainly would appear so.
Such plain truths need to be said. It's a pity you
can only say them at your own risk, 60 years after
Lindbergh learned this lesson the hard way. Or does
American support for Israel depend entirely on the
maintenance of Doublethink?
Ring for Jeeves
(page 6)
I've found only two cures for the post-9/11 blues:
Mozart's operas and P.G. Wodehouse's Jeeves stories,
featuring two great comic characters, Bertie Wooster and
Jeeves. (His first name is technically Reginald, but
nobody ever calls him anything but "Jeeves.")
Jeeves is Bertie's valet, or "gentleman's
gentleman," and also, fortunately for Bertie, his polar
opposite. In every story Bertie, a brainless fop, gets
into an embarrassing scrape, and Jeeves rescues him with
some brilliant stratagem. No writer since Sophocles has
so fully exploited the dramatic potential of social
embarrassment as Wodehouse does, though Bertie's mishaps
tend to revolve around broken engagements rather than
Oedipal marriages.
The comedy lies in the total contrast between these
two characters. Bertie, though good-natured, is vain,
foolish, and rash, given to absurd overstatements; Jeeves
is impeccably proper and reserved, full of savoir-faire
to the gills, as Bertie might say. Bertie is forever
ascribing phrases from Shakespeare to Jeeves, from whom
he has heard them; sometimes Jeeves tactfully corrects
him. Bertie regards Jeeves as a genius, though he also
clashes with him over Bertie's fondness for loud attire
-- purple socks, yellow cummerbunds, even a moustache.
Bertie is also immensely proud of his noble ancestry; he
often repeats that the Woosters broke all records for
valor and chivalry during the Crusades, and he boasts of
the Wooster blood, despite his own thorough cowardice (he
is intimidated by everyone he meets, especially women).
He considers his relation to Jeeves to be one of feudal
fealty on both sides. One of his compliments for a job
well done is "Very feudal of you, Jeeves."
In JEEVES AND THE FEUDAL SPIRIT, Jeeves returns from
a vacation to find that Bertie has grown a moustache;
anticipating a "clash of wills," Bertie gets drunk, or,
as he prefers to say, "suave": "I cannot put it better
than by saying that, as the fire coursed through my
veins, Wooster the timid fawn became in a flash Wooster
the man of iron will, ready for anything." Servant and
master confront each other at last:
"Something appears to be arresting your
attention, Jeeves. Is there a smut on my
nose?"
His manner continued frosty. There are
moments when he looks just like a governess,
one of which was this one.
"No, sir. It is on the upper lip. A
dark stain like mulligatawny soup."
I gave a careless nod.
"Ah, yes," I said. "The moustache. That
is what you are alluding to, is it not? I grew
it while you were away. Rather natty, don't
you think?"
"No, sir, I do not."
I moistened my lips with the special,
still suave to the gills. I felt strong and
masterful.
"You dislike the little thing?"
"Yes, sir."
"You don't feel it gives me a sort of
air? A ... how shall I put it? ... A kind of
diablerie?"
"No, sir."
"You hurt and disappoint me, Jeeves," I
said, sipping a couple of sips and getting
suaver all the time. "I could understand your
attitude if the object under advisement were
something bush and waxed at the ends like a
sergeant-major's, but it is merely the
delicate wisp of vegetation with which David
Niven has for years been winning the applause
of millions. When you see David Niven on the
screen, you don't recoil in horror, do you?"
"No, sir. His moustache is very becoming
to Mr. Niven."
Despite his stupidity, Bertie is a fountain of
inspired phrases. He lives in dread of his formidable
Aunt Agatha, who "chews broken bottles and wears barbed
wire next to the skin." His speech is a farrago of
cliches (often botched), big words he's unsure of, crazy
similes, and school slang. Here is his account of a
friend's violent attack on a mouthy brat:
Just what occurred then I couldn't
exactly say, but the next few minutes were a
bit exciting. I take it that Cyril must have
made a dive for the infant. Anyway, the air
seemed pretty well congested with arms and
legs and things. Something bumped into the
Wooster waistcoat just around the third
button, and I collapsed on the settee and
rather lost interest in things for the
moment. When I had unscrambled myself, I
found that Jeeves and the child had retired
and Cyril was standing in the middle of the
room snorting a bit.
Later, when the brat mouths off again, Cyril
"started to get pink in the ears, and then in the nose,
and then in the cheeks, till in about a quarter of a
minute he looked pretty much like an explosion in a
tomato cannery on a sunset evening."
Such is Wodehouse: a writer who wrote only to
delight. Chided by critics for portraying a world that no
longer existed, he retorted cheerfully that he was "a
historical novelist -- like Sabatini."
Letters to the Editor
(page 2)
(TEXT OMITTED FROM THE PRINT EDITION BECAUSE OF
SPACE LIMITATIONS IS INCLUDED HERE IN DOUBLE
BRACKETS [[ thus ]].)
Mr. Sobran -- I will ask you, as I have asked every
pundit/student of history who has commented on America's
decline into empire: Are you aware of any empire in
history that reverted to its republican roots, without
civil war, collapse, or secession? What gives you any
cause to hope that you or anyone else who detests the
current state of "our" government has any power to
reverse the course of events? There are not enough of us
remnants. America has us, the ones who understand her
founding principles, but are we enough? I am an optimist.
I believe that Liberty is the inevitable destiny of human
society. All civilizations progress toward that end, at
greater or lesser rates of speed. Nevertheless, I suspect
that the Republic is too far gone to save. The Romans had
Cicero, and Cato, et al., and look what happened to them.
Bob Lallier
Lodi, California
REPLY
I can't say I'm an optimist; rather, a hopeful
pessimist. At times -- and this may be such a time -- all
the lover of liberty can do is keep his head and refuse
to give up that last sanctuary. If a certain number of us
can at least keep the memory of freedom alive, it will
remain a possibility. What has existed before (however
imperfectly) may exist again -- unless men forget that it
could, and did, once exist. The only thing that really
scares me about this country is its amnesia. Most
Americans have lost touch with their own ancestors.
JS
Mr. Sobran -- What you say in your October 30 column (see
page 10) about the deceit (and naivete) of FDR in
bringing the United States into World War II, and in
developing the atomic bomb, is sadly all too true. Also
true is your dictum that when a nation goes to war it can
never know what the ultimate result will be and that it
is usually far different from what anyone envisioned. But
you seem to say that if America (a) had not entered World
War II, and (b) had not developed the atomic bomb, that
particular threat would not now haunt us. You cannot mean
to imply this. For you know that Nazi Germany was itself
working on developing the atomic bomb and might have done
so in time -- time they would have had in plenty if the
United States had not entered the war.
[[ Some people argue that the Nazis were not even
close to developing the bomb. Maybe, maybe not. But the
point is, ]] even if Nazi Germany didn't develop the
atomic bomb, somebody would surely have developed it
sometime. [[ So how that would have played out in time is
a fearsome guess. But come out of its bottle this
diabolical genie surely would have in time, ]] whether it
took another 20 years or 50. And the most likely nations
to develop such weapons of horror are always those with
the most malevolent designs. Thus it would have loomed
over us today in any event -- if we had not already been
obliterated by it by some other nation that did develop
it.
Further, whether the United States entered the war
or not, it had been going on for more than two years
before Pearl Harbor. And it would have continued to go on
with or without America. [[ Just how it would play out 60
years later no one could then foresee. ]] All that men of
goodwill -- in America and across the globe -- could do
was try to make it play out for the best, by the best
lights such men might have. However it played out, the
world was going to be very different when it ended. And
America would still be a part of that world, atomic bomb
and all, whether we like it or not.
The sand of this world is shallow and hard. We
cannot bury our head in it no matter how much we might
like to and no matter how hard we try.
James Minarik
Annandale, Virginia
NUGGETS
PGW: My dear, you look like Helen of Troy after a good
facial. (page 7)
PGW: It was one of those clear evenings you get in
summer, when you can hear a snail clear its throat a mile
away. (page 8)
PGW: I felt so darned sorry for poor Bingo I hadn't the
heart to finish my breakfast. I told Jeeves to drink it
himself. (page 9)
PGW: As far as the eye could reach, I found myself gazing
on a surging sea of aunts. (page 9)
PGW: Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping
the lead into the boxing glove. (page 10)
PGW: In this life it is not aunts that matter but the
courage which one brings to them. (page 10)
PGW: Jeeves was in the other room hanging holly, for
Christmas would soon be at our throats. (page 11)
PGW: He, too, seemed disinclined for chit-chat. We stood
for some moments like a couple of Trappist monks who have
run into each other by chance at the dog races. (page 11)
PGW: Our host, the young Squire, was none too chirpy. The
brow was furrowed, the eye lacked that hearty sparkle,
and the general bearing and demeanour were those of a
body discovered after being several days in the water.
(page 12)
Exclusive to the electronic version:
PGW: Freddie had mooned about with an air of crushed
gloom that would have caused comment in Siberia.
PGW: I dislike Long Island. There are 48 hours in the
day, there is nothing to do, and you can't sleep at night
because of the bellowing of the crickets.
PGW: I don't know if you've ever been alone in a houseful
of aunts, all of them glaring at you with their red eyes
and lashing their tails.
PGW: It is never difficult to distinguish between a
Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine..
REPRINTED COLUMNS (pages 7-12)
* Patriotism or Nationalism? (October 16, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/011016.shtml
* Weighing the Costs (October 23, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/011023.shtml
* Belloc's Prophecy (October 25, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/011025.shtml
* Roosevelt's Ultimate Legacy (October 30, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/011030.shtml
* What Is "Defense"? (November 6, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/011106.shtml
* The Lesser Evil (November 8, 2001)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/011108.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All articles are written by Joe Sobran
You may forward this newsletter if you include the
following subscription and copyright information:
Subscribe to the Sobran E-Package.
See http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml
or http://www.griffnews.com for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.
Copyright (c) 2001 by The Vere Company -- www.sobran.com.
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate
www.griffnews.com with permission.
[ENDS]