The Real News of the Month

September 2003
Volume 10, Number 9

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

Address: SOBRAN'S, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617   Website:
Publisher's Office: 703-281-1609 or
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.

{{ Emphasis is indicated by the presence of asterisks 
around the emphasized words.}}

 -> The Bomb and Moral Clarity
 -> Peacetime Notes
 -> War and Worship
 -> Sodomy and the Constitution
Nuggets (plus Exclusives to this edition)
List of Columns Reprinted


   As I noted recently in THE WANDERER, an old 
controversy has taken a new turn: Did the United States 
really have to use nuclear weapons against Japan?

   Contrary to a consensus that has grown over the past 
few decades, Nicholas D. Kristof of the NEW YORK TIMES 
says yes. He cites the work of Japanese historians 
themselves, who have found that the militarist faction of 
the wartime Japanese government opposed surrender even 
after Hiroshima and Nagasaki were incinerated. In fact, 
these fanatics were willing to continue the war at all 
costs: even though they expected Tokyo itself to be nuked 
next, even though they believed the United States had a 
hundred more A-bombs ready for use, even though it might 
mean 20 million more Japanese deaths. Still, the Japanese 
peace faction, which included the emperor, Hirohito, was 
able to prevail after the first two nukings, with the 
prospect of many others to come.

   As Kristof puts it, "Restraint would not have worked." 
Victory would have required an invasion, at a cost of 
untold American casualties. I'm surprised to find this 
view in the liberal TIMES, but then World War II is still 
liberalism's holy war. Thus Kristof concludes that "the 
greatest tragedy of Hiroshima was not that so many people 
were incinerated in an instant, but that in a complex and 
brutal world, the alternatives were worse." Ah, good old 
complexity -- liberalism's warrant for state power.

   Actually, the situation seems simple enough to me: 
mass murder is not an option. A few years earlier, 
Japanese mass murder in China, including the aerial 
bombing of cities, had revolted the civilized world and 
fed the calls for U.S. intervention. But soon the Allies 
themselves were bombing German and Japanese cities with a 
deliberate cruelty far surpassing Axis bombing. It was 
part of the strategy of demanding unconditional surrender 
-- and it didn't "work."

   But even if it had worked, it was a complete violation 
of all principles of civilized warfare. And the 
development of the atomic bomb was only a cold-blooded 
extension of this monstrous policy. The whole idea of 
rules of warfare is to rule out certain atrocities, 
whether or not they achieve their goals. If they didn't 
sometimes "work," it wouldn't be necessary to ban them.

   The rule against attacking civilians means that it is 
forbidden even if it's the only way to win a war. Why is 
this so hard to grasp? At any rate, the United States had 
long since won the war by August 1945, even without a 
formal Japanese admission of defeat. Pearl Harbor had 
been avenged many times over; it couldn't be repeated. 
The Japanese had lost their conquests in Asia and the 
United States ruled the South Pacific. They no longer 
posed any threat to the United States.

   All that remained was a total U.S. conquest of the 
Japanese mainland itself. This was a long step beyond 
conventional military victory, but it was the way the 
U.S. Government had chosen to define victory in this war. 
The war would not be considered "won" until the enemy 
surrendered without conditions, throwing itself entirely 
on the mercy of the victors. Its reluctance to do this 
was quite understandable, given the devastation of its 
cities already. But the United States would settle for 
nothing short of enslaving Japan, no matter what the cost 
to both sides. Such mercy as it did show after the war 
must have come as a pleasant surprise to the Japanese.

   All this casts a strange light on recent American talk 
of "moral clarity." World War II is still called "the 
good war," one in which good and evil were clearly 
defined. But the continuing debate about whether mass 
murder was warranted for the sake of total conquest, as 
distinct from mere victory and defense, shows that 
Americans are still far from achieving moral clarity 
about themselves.

Peacetime Notes
(page 2)

{{ Material dropped solely for reasons of space appears 
in double curly brackets. Emphasis is indicated by the 
presence of asterisks around the emphasized words.}}

     Arnold Schwarzenegger has my good will, but I'm 
afraid I must deny him my coveted endorsement. He 
forfeited that when he said he was seeking the 
governorship of his state because California has been 
good to him and he wants to "give something back." People 
who want to give something back should get *out* of 
politics, not *into* it. Arnold was making an honest 
living until he decided to get on the public payroll. 
He's already talking about creating new state programs 
for kids.

*     *     *

     Columnist Thomas Sowell wins this month's Wish I'd 
Said That award for calling gun control "OSHA for 
criminals." By depriving us of the means of self-defense, 
he explains, it guarantees safety in the workplace, as it 
were, for violent predators.

*     *     *

     "A new form of McCarthyism"? Not another one! This 
time the Democrats are being accused of anti-Catholicism 
for their opposition to Catholic judicial nominees who 
oppose legal abortion and consider Roe v. Wade bad law. 
Peter Beinart of THE NEW REPUBLIC scoffs at the charge, 
noting triumphantly that most of the Democrats on the 
Senate Judiciary Committee are themselves Catholic. 
Beinart is a clever lad, but he doesn't grasp that nobody 
hates a faithful Catholic like a liberal Catholic.

*     *     *

     Who needs a new form of McCarthyism, anyway? What 
was wrong with the old one? Such is the theme of Ann 
Coulter's new bestseller, TREASON, an all-out attack on 
liberalism that seems to excite special horror among 
neoconservatives: she has come under fire from Paul 
Greenberg, Arnold Beichman, and Anne Applebaum (and won 
praise from Pat Buchanan). I admire her pluck in 
defending McCarthy, but smoking out the neocons is a 
timely public service.

*     *     *

     As I write, the sex life of Jennifer Lopez is 
featured on the covers of several tabloids and gossip 
mags; {{ her nearly naked form adorns the cover of 
Esquire;}} and she's also the subject of an edifying 
success story on the cover of -- yea, is't come to this? 
-- the new, semi-hip, neoconservative READER'S DIGEST. 
That weird noise you're hearing may be the souls of the 
Wallaces squeaking and gibbering.

*     *     *

     THE PASSION, Mel Gibson's movie about the 
Crucifixion, is already the most harshly reviewed film of 
2003, and it won't even be released until 2004. It's 
suspected of -- what else? -- anti-Semitism. How can that 
be, you may ask, when it's an attempt to recreate, as 
literally as possible, the events narrated in the 
Gospels? Well, in case you haven't noticed, current 
Jewish ideology considers the Gospels themselves the fons 
et origo of anti-Semitism. That ideology's more 
uninhibited spokesmen blame Christianity itself for 
Nazism and the Holocaust. Ultimately, the term 
"anti-Semitism" *means* Christianity. Anti-Semitism, on 
this view, is the "original sin" of the West, staining 
its religion, culture, and literature.

*     *     *

     The aforementioned Arnold arrived in this country 
with a huge ambition for stardom and a genius for 
self-promotion. Not only did he develop an amazing set of 
muscles and parlay them into a sensational movie career; 
he also dealt shrewdly and energetically with the 
potential problem of a family embarrassment: back in 
Austria, his father had been a minor Nazi official. So a 
large part of Arnold's campaign for fame and fortune has 
consisted in getting right with the folks who count: he 
has been a generous donor to the Simon Wiesenthal Center 
and other Jewish causes. It worked. Result: today Arnold 
is completely kosher.

War and Worship
(pages 3-4)

     The Iraq war has produced no heroes. There were 
brief attempts to elevate General Tommy Franks to that 
status (I pass over the embarrassing Jessica Lynch 
episode), but it was hardly appropriate: he was more 
manager than warrior.

     For this was a modern war. It was won by superior 
machinery, not valor. Any courage on the American side 
was shown by obscure privates, not by officers. The 
outcome was never in doubt. Heroism wasn't going to make 
the difference. The United States in our time isn't about 
to wage wars that require heroes. Stonewall Jackson is as 
remote as Achilles.

     President Bush, distinctly unheroic himself, paid 
the usual homage to "our brave men and women," but the 
phrase itself is a giveaway. If women's contribution to 
victory equals that of the men, war isn't what it used to 
be. Bush himself was cheered and praised for celebrating 
the victory in the garb of a fighter pilot. Why not? If 
we're going to pretend that this war needed heroes, we 
may as well go ahead and pretend that its commander in 
chief was one of them. In fact the civilian leaders, 
especially Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, struck more 
tough poses than the military men (and women).

     Most wars do require courage, and usually it makes 
some kind of sense to honor those who even set foot on a 
battlefield. Soldiers have to be tough, as a rule, and we 
can understand the cult of the individual warrior, even 
if we doubt that even an Achilles {{ or Hector  }} would 
have counted for much in any real war. The ancient 
celebration of the hero at least reflected the truth that 
the qualities ascribed to him were important and worth 
emulating. The possibility of earning glory made death 
seem worth risking, and the shame of cowardice to be 
avoided at all costs.

     If the traditional honors of war were absent this 
time, so were many of the traditional horrors. The 
victorious American soldiers didn't enjoy the immemorial 
spoils of victory, such as rape and looting; these have 
become unthinkable. For better and worse, the Iraq war 
was quite impersonal for the American participants. It 
wasn't even very clear what they were supposed to be 
fighting for, or against. Nobody took the official 
slogans -- about terrorism, freedom, democracy -- very 
seriously. Only the very unlucky shed blood, either 
during or after the war.

     Since Vietnam, no American politician has dared to 
take military action risking large numbers of American 
casualties or requiring serious sacrifices. It's only the 
propagandists and journalistic hawks who still pretend 
that the new, risk-free wars are heroic enterprises as of 

     In an obvious sense, the United States is in an 
enviable position. Its military superiority to the rest 
of the world is so absolute that it can afford to wage 
war almost entirely on its own terms. For the time being, 
at least, war has ceased to mean great loss and 
suffering. As one hawk put it, it's now a "cakewalk."

     The pretext for the Iraq war was that unless an easy 
war was fought sooner, we would face a much harder war 
later. That is what the words "preventive" and 
"preemptive" meant. When there was no real danger, Bush 
and the "intelligence community" would decide what was a 
"potential" threat.

     One of the stranger features of recent American 
political history is that conservatives have become 
synonymous with "hawks." In the age of Woodrow Wilson and 
Franklin Roosevelt, liberals waged wars in the name of 
utopian goals of which conservatives were strongly 
skeptical. But after World War II, the Cold War persuaded 
most conservatives that military power and outright war 
were necessary to defend America -- and the entire West 
-- from the Communist threat. Liberals, many of them 
pro-Communist, became "doves" during the Vietnam war.

     The two sides had traded postures, with 
conservatives even hurling the old charge of 
"isolationism" -- one of Roosevelt's pet epithets -- at 
liberals. In fact conservatives adopted what had 
previously been the staples of liberal rhetoric in order 
to justify military intervention around the world: 
Hitler, the "lessons" of Munich, the evils of 
dictatorship and genocide. They even adopted the Jewish 
state of Israel as their favorite ally. Most recently, 
Bush became a new Churchill, courageously standing up to 
the Arab-Muslim Hitlers of the Middle East.

     For the new, hawkish conservatism, war became much 
more than an occasional necessary evil; it became a test 
of patriotism, an opportunity for "national greatness." 
And therefore a positive good.

     This change was reinforced by a new component of 
conservatism, largely Jewish and pro-Israel 
"neoconservatism," which saw the power of the United 
States as a huge asset for Israeli interests. 
Neoconservatism was hardly conservative at all; it had 
little interest in any conservative philosophy or 
principles -- traditionalism, constitutionalism, limited 
government, free-market economics, or Christian 
civilization itself. It proved surprisingly easy for the 
neoconservatives to distract the bulk of Christian 
conservatives from their traditional causes by making 
jingoistic appeals to the martial spirit.

     Personally, I was amazed by this. I was totally 
immune to the militarist appeal, but I'd never realized 
how unusual this was for a conservative. It had always 
seemed obvious to me that war, even when necessary, meant 
not only tragedy, but the interruption of civilized life 
and all the activities that made that life worthwhile. It 
was nothing to celebrate, and the evils it brought 
required strict justification. Among other things, it 
expanded the power of the state and endangered the 
liberty even of the victorious side.

     Modern war practically required the state to assume 
dictatorial authority over all of society. Everything 
that could be said against socialism applied with even 
more force to war: it was the ultimate in big-government 
spending programs. Even readiness for war was a huge 
expense, diverting and wasting huge amounts of wealth 
that might have been spent on productive, artistic, and 
charitable activities. When the Cold War ended {{ with 
the collapse of the Soviet Union, }} I rejoiced: America 
could finally, after two generations of military 
hysteria, return to normal.

     In particular, conservatives could resume their 
mission of restoring the limited federal system of 
government that had been so severely damaged by Wilson, 
Roosevelt, and Lyndon Johnson, with plenty of help from 
Republicans. We could focus our attention and energy on 
the huge task of repealing the New Deal and the Great 

     I assumed that other conservatives would -- of 
course! -- see it this way too. I couldn't have been more 
mistaken. They had been transformed, emotionally and 
philosophically, by the habits of the "activist" state, 
or what Michael Oakeshott called "teleocratic," as 
opposed to "nomocratic," government. They had no 
objection to the activist state, as long as it was 
shooting and bombing.

     It was as if we could no longer choose between 
statism and liberty. The only options, as far as most 
conservatives were concerned, were the warrior state and 
the socialist state. Peace was for "peaceniks." So 
conservatives, with the Soviet enemy out of the way, 
reflexively supported war against new enemies, such as 
Manuel Noriega of Panama and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. 
Nasty little fellows, to be sure, but war propagandists 
quickly promoted both of them to the rank of Hitlers. It 
was absurd.

     Conservatives, if you could still call them that, 
had abandoned a whole deep-rooted understanding of 
healthy and normal society. They had adopted the statist 
premises of their enemies, differing only in the style of 
statism they preferred: where liberals wanted to beat 
swords into socialist plowshares, conservatives wanted 
the state to keep -- and wield --- the swords.

     The new generation of conservatives -- and neocons, 
if there's still a difference -- are improbable warriors. 
Despite their verbal enthusiasm for war, few of them, 
particularly the desk-bound hawks of NATIONAL REVIEW and 
THE WEEKLY STANDARD, have ever seen military service, let 
alone combat. They compensate for this with their 
vociferous celebration of the martial virtues, of which 
they write with an air of battle-hardened authority. If 
this war produced no real heroes, it produced plenty of 
heroes manques, for whom war was not an interruption of 
civilized life but its fulfillment.

     What is most striking about this generation of 
conservatives is their thorough immaturity. Nobody who 
remembers Russell Kirk, James Burnham, and Richard Weaver 
can fail to be amazed by the falling-off to the boorish 
frat-boy tone of Richard Lowry, Jonah Goldberg, David 
Frum, and Mark Steyn. None of these new intellectual 
spokesmen displays anything like a coherent conservative 
philosophy; they and their peers don't seem to realize 
how remote they are from their forebears. In them 
conservatism has collapsed into a simplistic militarism. 
(War is fun!)

     As much as any socialist, these conservatives have 
an essentially militaristic conception of society. They 
think of the state as, ideally, in charge of social 
arrangements -- provided, of course, that people on "our" 
side, rather than liberals, are in charge of the state 
itself. They've never asked themselves the most basic 
questions, much less studied the answers earlier 
conservatives have given. They have no idea whether they 
are "teleocrats" or "nomocrats"; such categories mean 
nothing to them.

     But they feel that "we" are winning, and that's what 
counts. Never mind just who "we" are, or just what is 
being won.

Sodomy and the Constitution
(pages 5-6)

     Suddenly, in midsummer, everyone from USA TODAY to 
the Vatican is talking about the same topic: homosexual 
marriage. This is a little strange, since nobody, give or 
take an eccentric Roman emperor or two, has ever talked 
about it before. It threatens to eclipse the war in Iraq.

     I feel a certain sympathy, almost a sense of 
solidarity, with sane homosexuals -- the silent majority, 
as it were. From time immemorial there have been men who 
have been chiefly attracted, erotically, to other men or, 
more commonly, boys. I don't quite get it, I can't regard 
it as anything but abnormal, I suppose one should 
disapprove of it, but there it is. I agree with C.S. 
Lewis, who, when asked about it, declined to discuss it 
at length because it wasn't among the temptations that 
assailed him.

     Of course this isn't necessarily rational: I'm not 
especially tempted to commit ax murder either, but I'm 
quite willing to condemn it, if anyone doubts that I 
oppose it in principle. I wouldn't want everyone to be an 
ax murderer, and if pressed I'll admit that I wouldn't 
want everyone to be homosexual. Our Creator has disposed 
most of us otherwise, and that's fine with me. As the 
woman in a James Thurber cartoon effuses to a startled 
male, "I just love the idea of there being two sexes, 
don't you?" Amen, lady. Where the opposite sex is 
concerned, I've always been inclined to swoon a bit.

     But even if I were otherwise inclined, I would 
still, I trust, see the point of there being two sexes. 
I'd recognize it as a shortcoming in myself that I was 
unable to respond to the other sex -- viz., the female -- 
in the way that nature seems to have ordained. And here, 
if I may presume to say so, I think that I speak for most 

     In the "gay marriage" debate, American public 
discussion has maintained its usual wretched level. And 
as usual, the liberals don't realize how silly they 
sound. There have been the routine complaints about old 
men in the Vatican trying to control others' sex lives, 
refusing to adapt to the times, lacking the charity 
enjoined by Christ, hypocritically ignoring the Church's 
own problem with pedophile priests, et cetera, et cetera.

     All this is miles off the point. Homosexuals already 
have the right to marry, even if they can't or won't 
exercise it -- that is, the right to marry someone of the 
opposite sex. This is supposedly a heartless thing to 
say, but what is being demanded now is not the extension 
of a right, but the total redefinition of a thing that 
existed long before the Catholic Church came along.

     The basic reason for marriage is neither religious 
nor romantic; it's practical. It connects a man with his 
children (and their mother), providing for their support, 
clarifying property rights, establishing inheritance, and 
so forth. Every society has some version of it.

     Every society also has homosexuality, especially 
pederasty, but even those societies most tolerant of 
different sexual practices have seen no need for same-sex 
"marriage," simply because it's an absurdity. To put it 
clinically, children are seldom conceived in the lower 
end of the digestive tract.

     So as not to prejudice the case, think only of 
non-Christian cultures: Chinese, Japanese, African, Arab, 
Viking, Aztec, Greek, Roman, Inca, Babylonian, Indian, 
Persian, Apache, Sioux, Eskimo, Hawaiian, as many as you 
like. Has the notion of same-sex marriage ever occurred 
to even *one* of them? Of course not, because it's a 
contradiction in terms. Which is really all there is to 
say about the matter.

     It isn't even necessary to disapprove of 
homosexuality in order to see that it can never have 
anything to do with marriage. This is where conservatives 
are getting as confused as liberals. Both sides think the 
issue is basically a moral one; a question of what kind 
of sexual behavior society is going to bless or condemn.

     But the case would be just the same if homosexuality 
were regarded as the healthy norm and heterosexuality as 
a shameful deviation. It would still be necessary to make 
arrangements for the offspring of all those filthy 
"breeders." It would be a question not of rights, but of 
responsibilities. In that case marriage might be 
inflicted as a sort of penalty, but it would be 
indispensable anyway. "You have to teach these people the 
consequences of their behavior."

     So why, after so many millennia, has this weird 
subject suddenly come up now? Only in America, one sighs. 
For one thing, there are many material incentives -- 
employees' benefits and government entitlements for which 
spouses are eligible -- to get married, and these are 
also incentives to broaden the definition of marriage; 
that is, to apply the word "marriage" to domestic 
partnerships that aren't really marriages at all.

     And in today's liberal culture, any basic social 
distinction can be stigmatized as "discrimination" -- not 
discrimination in the old and sane sense of keeping 
unlike things separate, but in the current punitive sense 
of discriminating "against." If you suffer any 
disadvantage from the ability of others to tell things 
apart, you now become a "victim" of discrimination, and 
the state must do something about it.

     Which brings us to the practical nub of the present 
issue. It can be summed up in two words: Anthony Kennedy.

     When Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy of the U.S. 
Supreme Court wrote the majority opinion striking down a 
Texas sodomy law at the end of the Court's last term, 
liberals and conservatives alike saw the handwriting on 
the wall. Kennedy objected to that law on grounds that it 
"discriminated" against homosexuals as a class or group.

     It didn't take a wizard to foresee the next step: 
Kennedy and his colleagues will very likely rule, in the 
fairly near future, that all laws based on the 
traditional and universal definition of marriage are also 
unconstitutionally "discriminatory."

     Kennedy may not think very clearly, but nobody can 
deny that he thinks big. Overthrowing marriage itself 
would be a "historic" judicial act, sure to win liberal 

     Naive people may wonder just where the Court gets 
off, redefining marriage. Well, why not? The Court has 
already redefined human life.

     And how do such things come about? We owe it all to 
the Fourteenth Amendment. And thereby hangs a tale.

     Ratified under duress after the Civil War, the 
Fourteenth forbids any state to "deny to any person ... 
the equal protection of the laws." These few words have 
produced more judicial mischief than all the rest of the 
U.S. Constitution.

     Originally their meaning was narrow and specific. 
After the war, the Republican Congress wanted to pass a 
civil rights act to protect Southern Negroes, newly freed 
from slavery, from being denied the normal rights of 
citizenship. But the Federal Government had no authority 
to pass the act: under the federal principle as laid down 
in the Tenth Amendment, this was an area reserved to the 
separate states. The Fourteenth would provide a 
constitutional basis for the act.

     There is a huge historical irony here. The 
Fourteenth was necessary because Congress and the Federal 
judiciary still took the Tenth seriously. But over time, 
the judiciary has used the Fourteenth to nullify -- and 
in effect repeal -- the Tenth. To adapt a phrase of 
Justice Antonin Scalia, the Equal Protection clause is 
the clause that devoured the Constitution.

     The first great milestone in the Supreme Court's 
liberal activism was its 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of 
Education. There it held that there can be no such thing 
as "separate but equal": "Separate facilities are 
inherently unequal." Logically, this was dubious (it 
would rule out separate restrooms for the sexes, for 
example). But the Court was feeling its oats, and ever 
since then it has constantly broadened the meaning of 
"the equal protection of the laws." Countless state and 
local laws have been struck down on this pretext -- so 
many that we can safely say that *all* state laws now 
exist only by sufferance of the Court. Today, no powers 
are firmly "reserved to the states, or to the people," 
because there is no effective check on the judiciary. The 
other two branches have abdicated.

     The Tenth Amendment was finally destroyed in 1973 by 
Roe v. Wade, which announced -- again citing the 
Fourteenth Amendment -- that the states didn't even have 
the constitutional authority to protect unborn children 
from violent death. If the Court could strip the states 
of even that basic power, federalism in America was truly 
defunct. But though the ruling spawned a powerful 
anti-abortion movement, nobody proposed to discipline the 
Court itself. Everyone saw the moral and practical upshot 
of Roe, but hardly anyone saw the constitutional 

     Thanks to its expansive interpretation of the 
Fourteenth Amendment, the Court's most arbitrary word is 
law. And Americans have passively accepted this. The 
Court routinely usurps vast powers without resistance or 

     Now Justice Kennedy has served notice that the 
Fourteenth can be invoked to redefine marriage itself, 
under the Equal Protection Clause. He and perhaps a 
majority of his colleagues are plainly disposed to find 
traditional marriage laws unconstitutionally 

      Republicans in Congress, apparently supported by 
President Bush, want to amend the Constitution to define 
marriage as a union between a man and a woman. That is, 
they want to amend the Constitution to *anticipate* a 
grotesque misinterpretation of it and *prevent* an 
assault on marriage overwhelmingly opposed by the 
American people. But this approach is totally 
wrong-headed and inadequate. It accepts the Court's 
usurpations as legitimate, without challenging the 
Court's authority to commit them.

     Now, if ever, is the time to hit the Court where it 
lives. Kennedy and his colleagues must be told that they 
are flirting with impeachment and removal from office, if 
they dare to tamper with the institution of marriage. 
Nothing less will do; the rule of law itself is at stake. 
It's long past time for the Court to be stripped of its 
immunity from constitutional remedies. 


RACIAL NOTES: In California, Arnold's toughest rival may 
be Lieutenant Governor Cruz Bustamente. Pundits assume 
that Bustamente will enjoy virtually unanimous support 
from his fellow Hispanics. Not that there's anything 
wrong with voting by race! Unless, of course, you're 
white. Then it's called "hate." (page 8)

THE STATE'S NEW CRUSADE: "Public Policy Targeting 
Obesity," the local rag informs us. "We have focused on 
smoking; now it is about time we fight obesity," says a 
New York assemblyman who wants to tax fatty foods, movie 
tickets, video games, DVD rentals, and other forms of 
sedentary enjoyment in order to fund nutrition and 
exercise programs. Is there anything left that *isn't* 
the state's business? (page 9)

EQUAL BUT SEPARATE: I've always been amused by the 
self-segregation of the American liberal. Writing in THE 
ATLANTIC MONTHLY, neocon David Brooks agrees. For all the 
pious cant about "diversity," he notes, "people want to 
be around others who are roughly like themselves"; and 
this is as true of liberal academics as of rednecks: 
"elite universities are amazingly undiverse in their 
values, politics, and mores." Brooks's solution? 
"National service." My solution? To recognize that 
there's no problem. (page 11)

ON THE OTHER FOOT: Regrettable as the Northeast Blackout 
undoubtedly is, at least it gave a lot of New York hawks 
a healthy taste of what life is like in liberated 
Baghdad. I never saw the hand of Allah so clearly in 
anything. (page 12)

Exclusive to the electronic version:

Iraqis took a bit of glee in our blackout. Of course ours 
lasted for only a few hours in 90-degree weather; they've 
been without electricity for months, with some days as 
hot as 125. One Iraqi urged Americans not to expect much: 
"If the American government is involved, you must be 
prepared to be patient. They work very slowly." The 
cruelest cut came from another: "Saddam had the 
electricity back two months after the last war." How do 
you like that? We save these people from the world's 
worst tyrant, and we only make them miss him! Next 
they'll be building new statues of him.

A LITTLE TOUCH OF HARRY: The September issue of VANITY 
FAIR features a profile of Britain's Prince William with 
a touchingly funny anecdote. When William was 7, he told 
his mother, Princess Diana, "Mummy, when I grow up I want 
to be a policeman so I can protect you." His little 
brother, Harry, 5, crowed, "You can't! You have to be 

(pages 7-12)

* The Meaning of Brotherhood (July 24, 2003)

* A Gay Man's Manifesto (July 29, 2003)

* Bush, Sodomy, and Marriage (July 31, 2003)

* Is the Pope Square (August 5, 2003)

* No Respect (August 7, 2003)

* The New Rules of Usage (August 14, 2003)


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. 
or for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.

Copyright (c) 2003 by The Vere Company -- 
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate with permission.