Sobran's --
The Real News of the Month

April 2001
Volume 8, No. 4

Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
   Print version: $59.95 per year; $100 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: 703-255-2211 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 1-800-493-3348. Allow
   4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue


The Moving Picture

     Ronald Reagan has turned 90, the sad fact of his 
senility preventing him from acknowledging the warm 
tributes to him. Many conservatives who praise him seem 
to have defective memories too. To hear some of them 
(Rush Limbaugh comes to mind), you'd think American 
history began with Reagan, or at least culminated in his 
presidency. The truth is that he didn't make a dent in 
the Democrats' socialist legacy, from Franklin Roosevelt 
to Lyndon Johnson, and didn't even challenge it. I liked 
him very much, but let's not kid ourselves. He allowed 
conservatives to *feel* they'd won, when his careful 
avoidance of basic principles was the surest evidence of 
their defeat.

*          *          *

     A country is in real trouble when even its 
conservatives have forgotten the past.

*          *          *

     George W. Bush quickly proved himself his father's 
son by dropping a few bombs around Baghdad. This day-long 
miniwar was barely noticed; as Bush said, it was 
"routine." There was no debate, no declaration of war, no 
time for protest. Just another day in the life of the 
empire that thinks it's a democracy.

*          *          *

     The Harvard-educated Bush, touting his education 
reform package, once again showed himself his father's 
son as he explained, "You teach a child to read, and he 
or her will be able to pass a literacy test." Seriously, 
folks, this was a far more literate country when it spent 
far less money on its schools. I'll say it again: in one 
century we went from teaching Latin and Greek in high 
school to offering remedial English in college.

*          *          *

     Bush's support for "faith-based initiatives" -- 
federal funding for private, religious social services -- 
has stirred the wrong debate: about the separation of 
church and state. The American Civil Liberties Union may 
shriek, but such "partnerships" between state and church 
don't amount to an unconstitutional "establishment of 
religion." They merely involve churches in 
unconstitutional, and improper, exercises of federal 
power. When you hear of a "partnership" between the 
government and any private institution, you should 
picture tentacles.

*          *          *

     An FBI counterspy, Robert Hanssen, has been charged 
with selling secrets to the Russians, dating back to the 
days when they were the Soviet Union. (Fran Griffin, my 
dear publisher, has known Hanssen for many years, from 
church and car pool, and is flabbergasted.) Once again 
it's hard to avoid feeling that our government is much 
better at keeping secrets from us than from other 
governments, though we get occasional glimpses of the 
truth. Only official secrecy and popular ignorance allow 
us to assume that the government performs espionage with 
more competence than it does any other activity. With the 
right veil, even an ugly woman can create a mystique.

*          *          *

     With every month that passes I become more convinced 
of the fraudulence of the Cold War. Horrible as Soviet 
Communism was, our government only pretended to be 
protecting us from it. The Cold War only served to 
justify a huge military establishment and the taxes 
necessary to sustain it; it also caused conservatives to 
resign themselves to a stupendous welfare state as a 
practical concomitant of the warfare state they thought 
we needed. (Liberals, by the same token, resigned 
themselves to the warfare state as a concomitant of the 
welfare state.)

*          *          *

     I've read many books about Abraham Lincoln lately, 
but the best of them is Richard N. Current's 1958 study 
THE LINCOLN NOBODY KNOWS. It's scholarly, but short, 
graceful, and readable. Current admires Lincoln, but 
corrects the popular idolatry at nearly every point, 
showing a skillful, cunning, and often ruthless 
politician. Without denying Lincoln's frequent personal 
kindness, Current notes that he approved some of the 
cruelest weapons available in his time: exploding musket-
balls that caused agonizing deaths with no corresponding 
military advantage (European countries had banned them) 
and incendiary bombs for use against cities.

*          *          *

     The other day I ran across a typical glancing 
reference to the corruption of "Renaissance popes." Which 
cause me to reflect that though some of them, like the 
notorious Alexander VI, were bad men, they were bad by 
*Catholic* standards. If they had been Roman emperors, 
they would be remembered as unusually humane for their 
times. (Liberal Catholics want ordinary Catholics to feel 
free to behave like the worst Renaissance popes.)

*          *          *

     The word "community" is often stretched, but I was 
unprepared for a NEWSWEEK reference to the "autism 
community." While we're at it, how about "hermit 
community"? Or maybe "solipsist community"? But my all-
time favorite remains a solemn NEW YORK TIMES description 
of a subset of the city's "gay community" as "the S and M 

*          *          *

     Stanley Kramer, one of Hollywood's shrunken giants, 
is dead at 87. It's hard to believe now, but the 
producer-director once earned a reputation as a daring 
intellectual for such films as THE DEFIANT ONES, ON THE 
movies were chiefly distinguished by their heavy liberal 
morals, dramatizing such profound truths as that 
prejudice is bad, evolution good. In fairness, Kramer 
also produced HIGH NOON, though I've never quite 
understood why it was hailed as an allegory of 
McCarthyism; I always thought it was just a pretty good 
Western. His later films became increasingly preachy, 
trying to raise your consciousness while insulting your 

*          *          *

     In opposing tax and spending cuts, the Democrats 
have cultivated an interesting, not to say Orwellian, 
vocabulary. They call tax cuts "spending" and spending 
"investment." The second is especially amusing, since if 
there is one thing no wise investor would ever invest his 
precious capital in, it's a federal welfare program. 
Nevertheless, the Democrats continue to fight for 
profligacy, waste, and tyranny in the name of thrift, 
prudence, and balancing the budget. (If you close your 
eyes when Ted Kennedy talks, you'll think you're 
listening to Calvin Coolidge.) Also note that tax cuts 
are now "irresponsible." We "can't afford them." The 
Democrats never feel that *increases* in spending or 
taxes are irresponsible or unaffordable.

The Clinton Ethos
(pages 3-4)

     My apologies. In our last issue I made the rash, 
rash error of trying to sum up Bill Clinton's presidency 
before it was finished. That is, before the exact minute 
when his successor took the oath of office.

     In an age when many people are "reinventing" 
themselves, Clinton chose his last hours as president to 
outdo himself. It was a stunning performance. It left you 
feeling that you shouldn't have been surprised, even as 
it left you astounded -- astounded by its comic-infernal 
audacity. Would even Bill Clinton himself take his leave 
of us by being so brazenly, uninhibitedly Clintonian?

     The stage was set by a few preliminary reminders of 
what "Clintonian" meant. His self-congratulatory farewell 
address was upstaged by the scandal of his "spiritual 
advisor," Jesse Jackson, who turned out to have been 
squiring his pregnant mistress to the White House in 
1998, while he was "counseling" Clinton about his 
relations with Monica Lewinsky. In another Clintonian 
touch, Jackson had paid off his mistress with funds from 
his "charitable" organization.

     Then, on his last full day in office, Clinton became 
the first president to strike a plea bargain. He avoided 
prosecution for perjury and obstruction during the 
Lewinsky scandal by admitting that he had willfully given 
false testimony under oath, though he later tried to spin 
this by denying that he had actually lied.

     The fun was just beginning. The next day Clinton 
issued his final pardons, creating a new passel of 
scandals. The most scandalous of these was the pardon of 
Marc Rich, a "fugitive financier," as the press dubbed 
him, who had never even faced criminal charges because he 
had fled to Switzerland 17 years earlier. Meanwhile, 
Rich's flamboyantly busty ex-wife Denise had been making 
lavish donations to Clinton's campaigns, his presidential 
library, and the Democratic Party, while frequently 
visiting Clinton himself -- a hundred times in a single 
year. How the president of the United States found so 
much time for a single private citizen is hard to 
explain, though her generously exposed bosom, evident in 
most of her photos, invites speculation.

     The Rich pardon, like the others, turned out to be 
highly irregular. Clinton had avoided the usual 
procedures and channels, concealing his intentions in 
order to avoid a review by the Justice Department -- all 
the more remarkable in that that department, under Janet 
Reno, has been notoriously indulgent to him.

     The obvious venality of the pardons outraged even 
Clinton's former defenders -- or at least gave them an 
opportunity to recover a semblance of honor by 
repudiating him. Overtaking conservative "Clinton-
haters," liberals and Democrats reinvented themselves as 
scourges of both Bill and Hillary, not only for the 
pardons but also for appropriating for their new homes 
furniture and art works that had been donated not to the 
Clintons, but to the White House. The recent first couple 
found every man's hand turned against them. They found no 
audible defenders this time, not even Al Gore, who had 
once said his boss would be ranked among our greatest 
presidents. The moment Clinton departed, he found his 
flunkeys discovering their consciences. Meanwhile, Jimmy 
Carter, the last honest Democrat in memory, declared the 
Rich pardon "disgraceful."

     The outcry forced Clinton to defend himself with a 
long op-ed piece in the NEW YORK TIMES, in which he again 
gaudily displayed his true colors. He said there had been 
"absolutely no quid pro quo" for the Rich pardon, arguing 
that there was "not a shred of evidence" of such. It was 
quite in character for him to cite the absence of 
conclusive proof of guilt as proof of his innocence -- 
the you-can't-prove-nothin' defense. He named three 
"prominent Republican lawyers" who he said had reviewed 
and approved the pardon; all three immediately and flatly 
denied it. He named another lawyer who had argued for the 
pardon, neglecting to mention that the man was Rich's own 
lawyer! Clinton's own former staffers rushed to attest 
that they had not been consulted or that they had opposed 
the shifty pardons.

     There was still more (there always is). In a comic 
touch, Bill's half-brother Roger, pardoned for drug 
dealing, was arrested for drunk driving, perhaps, one wag 
quipped, while "celebrating his pardon." NEWSWEEK also 
reported that Roger had been collecting money from his 
friends and acquaintances with promises to procure 
pardons for them too, but probably couldn't be 
prosecuted, since laws against selling pardons apply only 
to public officials, not to private citizens. Once again 
the law, in its majesty, had failed to anticipate the 
unprecedented challenges posed by the Clintons.

     On top of this, it transpired that Hillary's brother 
Hugh Rodham had been paid $400,000 to help win a pardon 
for a businessman and a commutation of a drug dealer's 
prison sentence. Bill and Hillary demanded that he return 
the money, professing themselves "deeply dismayed" by 
Hugh's practice, which, they said, they had known nothing 
about. In fact they may have been ignorant of it, but 
Rodham, like Roger, showed himself familiar with the 
Clinton ethos: government for sale.

     Playing the innocent woman who never knows what the 
menfolk are up to, Hillary tried to dissociate herself 
from both her brother and her husband. Her term as a New 
York senator was off to a rocky start. The publisher who 
had advanced her $8 million for her memoirs must have 
been writhing: not only will the book be ghostwritten, it 
will surely evade the questions readers will want 
answered, thereby ensuring meager sales.

     The pardons were only one ring in the Clinton 
circus. Still assured that he could milk his presidency 
for personal gain, Bill requested government funding for 
a posh office suite in midtown Manhattan -- at an expense 
far beyond any ever accorded to an ex-president. The 
indignant opposition this provoked forced him to back 
off; so he turned his sights on a humbler suite uptown in 
Harlem, where his popularity among blacks enabled him to 
bask in a hero's welcome. Grinning gamely, he acted as if 
a band were still blaring a peppy "Hail to the Chief" at 
his every appearance.

     The Clintons now became victims of the liberal 
hypocrisy that used to sustain them. They were denounced 
by the NEW YORK TIMES, the WASHINGTON POST, and other 
editorial pulpits of progressive opinion. The TIMES 
wondered how the abuse of the pardoning power could be 
prevented in the future, forgetting that it could easily 
have been prevented this time: by removing Clinton from 
office two years ago, when it became undeniable that he 
had committed perjury, subornation, and obstruction of 
justice -- crimes which liberal opinion had almost 
unanimously held fell short of "high crimes and 
misdemeanors" for the man chiefly charged with the 
faithful execution of the laws of the United States.

     You would never gather from these denunciations that 
they were being issued by Clinton's own enablers. None of 
his tardy repudiaters in the power media took any 
responsibility for his presidency. One of the most 
egregious of them, Albert Hunt of the WALL STREET 
JOURNAL, suggested that the idea that Clinton had sold 
pardons for campaign contributions was "too simple an 
explanation" -- as if there were something unfathomably 
complex about the White House's coarsest denizen ever.

     At the same time, prominent Democrats also tried to 
edge away from the Clintons, contending that the party 
must recover its "soul" and "the moral high ground," as 
if, after so many years of corruption, this could be done 
with a few gestures of regret. It recalled the way 
Clinton himself, when his sordid relations with Monica 
Lewinsky became impossible to deny, tried to recover his 
"credibility" with a single speech. In Washington a lot 
of people assume you can instantly erase a long record of 
bad conduct and bad faith.

     The truth is that Clinton committed the simple error 
of embarrassing his allies at the very moment when he 
became expendable to them. Now at last they saw their 
chance to distance themselves from his incredible 
venality, and they grabbed it. The more they had abased 
themselves for him in the past, the more fiercely they 
censured him now.

     One of the chief defenses of Clinton during the 1998 
impeachment debate was that his offenses were "only about 
sex." This assumed that political ethics was somehow 
separate from general morality. But much of Clinton's 
presidency, as well as the liberal-Democratic agenda, is 
"only about sex." With the fall of socialism, the 
progressive forces have placed most of their chips on the 
undermining of morality, chiefly in the promoting of 
abortion and sexual vice. This is the only area in which 
Clinton has been consistent and, in his perverse way, 
principled. And he is living proof that an immoral man is 
bound to be an unethical man. The campaign to save legal 
abortion, fanatical as it is, relies heavily on 
Clintonian lies and slippery semantics. "Who is to say 
when life begins?" is not very different from "It depends 
on what your definition of 'is' is." If you want to 
defend abortion, you are going to have to deceive. A 
party that is committed to evil has no right to act 
surprised when its leaders turn out to be mendacious 
criminals like Bill and Hillary.

The Big Bad Wolf
(pages 5-6)

{ Material dropped from this feature in the print 
edition or changed for reasons of space appears in curly 
brackets. }

     Ralph Waldo Emerson prophesied that the boasts of 
nineteenth-century civilization would one day be cited as 
proof of its barbarity. That remark struck me when I 
first read it forty years ago, and I've often pondered it 

     { Now and then I've cited the kindred story of the 
supposed Etruscan statue of a horse, which proved a 
forgery when a twentieth-century art expert noticed its 
nineteenth-century mannerisms -- mannerisms which had 
passed unnoticed in the nineteenth century itself. As the 
critic Hugh Kenner puts it, "The style of your own time 
is always invisible." But eventually the style of the 
forger "rose to visibility." A keen twentieth-century eye 
finally discerned the telltale marks of a period that had 
receded into the past. }

     How many strange things we take for granted only 
because we are inured to them! When we read about slavery 
in the Old South, we can hardly believe that so many 
people, white and black, saw nothing wrong with it. For 
me it's almost impossible to imagine "owning" another 
man, or treating him as if I did.

     Yet there were even cases of free blacks, in the Old 
South, owning their own black slaves. America's slaves 
had been purchased in Africa, where slavery was routine 
until recently (and still exists in a few places).

     But why not? After all, slavery, in various forms, 
has existed throughout most of history. Though Washington 
and Jefferson are now blamed for having owned slaves, 
nobody gets indignant that Aristotle and Cicero owned 
them too. In the Classical world the abolition of slavery 
was almost unimaginable. What is unusual is a 
civilization where the *evil* of slavery is assumed.

     And what features of our own civilization will the 
future recoil from, marveling that we saw nothing wrong 
with them? Nobody can say; but I hope that the chief evil 
of our time will be recognized in the state as we know it 
-- a social system of "organized plunder," as Frederic 
Bastiat called it, also prepared for organized homicide, 
armed to the teeth with terrible weapons capable of 
killing millions within minutes.

     Considering the scale of modern wars that have 
already occurred and the constant level of state plunder 
even in peacetime, I can only hope that men of the future 
will be astounded at our submissiveness. Instead of 
rebeling against the state for its enormous criminality, 
men in our time accept it as the most natural thing in 
the world -- a good and indispensable thing, without 
which we might be at the mercy of "robber barons"! The 
state, we are told, has saved us from the depredations of 
laissez-faire capitalism; in return for which it has 
claimed only a couple of hundred million lives, untold 
trillions of dollars, and most of the freedoms our 
American ancestors considered their natural rights.

     Modern man has drawn morals from his experience that 
are directly contrary to those he should have drawn. The 
worse the state treats him, the more convinced he becomes 
of its necessity and even beneficence. His faith in the 
state is far more profound (and irrational) than medieval 
man's faith in the Church. And he accepts it as natural, 
if not exactly right, that the state should continue to 
grow and to increase its claims on him, his liberty, and 
his wealth.

     Some libertarians reckon that the average American 
now works nearly half the year for the state. But when 
President George W. Bush proposed a modest reduction in 
tax rates, the statist opinion cartel reacted with scorn 
and outrage. It was "too much"; it would threaten "the 
economy"; the state (alias "we") "can't afford it"; 
"lobbyists" and "special interests" were, as TIME 
magazine put it, going "Oink, oink." It was *piggish* of 
people to want a reduction of the state's claims on them. 
The state, it goes without saying, is never greedy. There 
is no limit to what it may justly demand. The question of 
justice to the taxpayer is never raised.

     In opposition to Bush, congressional Democrats 
staged a little show-and-tell scene, featuring a shiny 
new Lexus and a muffler. Under Bush's plan, they said, 
"the rich" would get the Lexus, while "working families" 
would get only the lousy muffler.

     The appeal to envy is a reliable feature of 
democratic (i.e., demagogic) politics. What it carefully 
avoids mentioning, of course, is that tax cuts don't 
give; they give *back.* You can't get the price of a 
Lexus back unless you are already paying the price of a 
Lexus in taxes. If you've only paid the price of a 
muffler, you can only get the price of a muffler back. 
And as long as income tax rates are graduated, tax cuts 
will inevitably most benefit those who have been the 
chief targets of democratic plunder. And any measure of 
justice to "the rich" will be portrayed as "unfair" to 
everyone else.

     The Republicans are too timid to point out that the 
greediest men in America today are the Democrats, who 
assume a boundless right to seize other people's wealth. 
Income taxes, even more than other taxes, are money taken 
by force and collected by a police-state apparatus. There 
is no way to impose them "fairly" because they are evil 
in principle. They amount to slavery. And the slaves are 
piggish when they want their freedom.

     Like the slaveowners of old, the Democrats are not 
aware of the least effrontery or presumption in 
themselves when they claim others' money. They really 
feel they own us. And the whole debate over tax cuts 
accepts the premise that the state is entitled to decide 
how much we may keep. We are all statists now. The state 
doesn't have to establish its right, let alone its need, 
to claim the lion's share of what we earn and own. 
Whatever it currently takes is the baseline for further 

     The most successful tax-cutting argument of recent 
years has been the "supply-side" approach of the early 
Reagan years: that tax cuts were justified because lower 
rates would give the state *more* revenue! Yet even when 
that turned out to be true, the liberal Hive rejected the 
lesson. The revenues increased dramatically, but federal 
spending outstripped the revenues and the resulting 
deficits were said to prove the failure of supply-side 
economics. The Hive instinctively disliked any decrease 
in the taxing power, even if the state gained by it, 
because the Hive -- the socialist oversoul, so to speak 
-- favors maximum state power over the individual, just 
as a matter of principle. It felt it had been tricked 
into relaxing its grip, though at some point high taxes 
become, even from the state's point of view, self-
defeating. Which is why socialist economies always fail, 
in economic terms, though they succeed in their real goal 
-- monopolizing power.

     How much should we really be paying in taxes? If we 
assume that the U.S. Government should be bound by the 
U.S. Constitution, that the Constitution itself is valid, 
and that a government may justly impose taxes to pay for 
its proper functions, we are paying at least ten times as 
much as we should.

     A little rough arithmetic may help. The federal 
government is now spending about $2 trillion per year (it 
was about $2 *billion* when Franklin Roosevelt became 
president in 1933). With a population of about a quarter 
of a billion people, that comes to $8,000 per year. Is 
that "fair"? Not in terms of what any honest man receives 
in government services. (Some men, it is true, get many 
times that amount in government money.)

     By far the greatest part of the federal budget goes 
for three purposes: redistributive programs, the armed 
forces, and interest on the federal debt. The "social" 
programs should not exist at all; they are both 
unconstitutional and immoral burdens on productive 
prople. Most "defense" spending is unrelated to "the 
common defense of the United States," which does not 
require this country to maintain military bases around 
the world and most of its advanced weaponry; any truly 
defensive needs could be met for a small fraction of the 
expense of the U.S. empire. The federal debt, around 
$6 trillion, is simply the scandalous cumulative result 
of wildly excessive spending over many years. It has been 
calculated that every American child born today will be 
taxed $100,000 to pay interest on the current debt, which 
he had no say in running up -- a telling reflection on 

     The "budget" problem is really a constitutional 
problem. Thanks to the quasi-constitutional federal power 
to impose limitless taxes on personal incomes, and to the 
ability of the federal government to change the meaning 
of the Constitution to expand its powers as it pleases, 
there are no controls on that government's spending, 
least of all self-control. The numbers speak for 
themselves. In the 1830s the federal government actually 
ran a *surplus,* of about $35 million. Today that figure 
seems comically trifling. { Of course we now have to 
judge such things in "constant" dollars, a fact which is 
itself a comment on the government's debasement of money. 
That debasement is nearly as astounding as the increases 
in spending. }

     If, then, the Constitution is our yardstick, the 
average American should be paying less than a $1,000 (in 
today's money) in annual taxes. If the dollar had 
retained its former value, that amount would be less than 

     It is not enough to say that we are not now getting 
our money's worth for our taxes; we are paying the 
government for tyrannizing. The hostages are forced to 
subsidize their captors. How does a hostage get his 
money's worth? The "services" and "defense" we allegedly 
receive are themselves evils we -- or at least the honest 
men among us -- would be better off without. Today 
government is the wolf at the door.

     The Land of the Free is long gone. Of all our 
patriotic myths, one of the most irksome is that we owe 
our freedom to this country's government and the wars it 
has fought. Those wars have in fact been ruinous to 
freedom. With each one since at least the Civil War, the 
government's powers have expanded. When was the last time 
a country won a war and emerged with a more limited 
government than it had had *before* the war?

     Some traces of the Constitution do survive, but no 
thanks to our rulers. And our most basic freedoms are 
relics of Anglo-Saxon law: the right to a jury trial, the 
privilege of habeas corpus, the presumption of innocence. 
If these things had not existed already, it is a 
certainty that the modern state would never have 
established them. Would Lincoln or Franklin Roosevelt or, 
for that matter, George W. Bush have introduced the 
concept of habeas corpus? The question answers itself. 
Yet we are constantly assured that we somehow owe our 
freedom to our rulers { and to the wars they have 
plunged us into. } After all it has done to us, the 
state still expects our gratitude.


FEELTHY MUSIC: Thank heaven for the rap star Eminem. 
Being white, he makes it possible to say that rap is crap 
without incurring the charge of racism. I dare not say he 
is even worse than his black colleagues, since rating 
rappers is a task not for the gourmet but for the dung 
beetle; but he is worthy to dominate a genre which seems 
to have been created expressly for those who have no 
talent or taste whatever. (page 8)

WORDS TO LIVE BY: Any tax break worthy of the name should 
favor the rich. (page 9)

THE CURRENT SITUATION: "The good news," I recently 
assured an anarchist friend, "is that we already have 
anarchy. The trouble is, it's unenforceable." (page 9)

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL NOTE: You might say I'm a cradle lapsed 
Catholic. My parents were both lapsed Catholics, as was 
my stepfather, whom my mother married after she divorced 
my father. I think of lapsed Catholicism as the faith of 
my fathers. (page 11)

FREE SPEECH AS WE KNEW IT: Today you could get arrested 
for saying the things you can hear in any old movie. 
Recently I was tickled by a line Gary Cooper spoke in an 
innocent 1940s Western: "You've seen what they do to 
white women!" Tell it like it is, Coop! (page 12)

Exclusive to the electronic version:

FEELTHY PICTURES (CONTINUED): Another (ho-hum) art 
controversy at the Brooklyn Museum. It conforms to that 
institution's dreary familiar formula for creating an 
instant cause célèbre: First the tax-funded museum 
features a sacrilegious objet d'art. The "artist" lacks 
the skill to draw Mickey Mouse, but knows how to 
juxtapose sacred images, preferably Catholic, with 
obscenity and/or elephant poop. (Ah, the mystery of 
inspiration!) Then taxpayers, especially Catholics, howl. 
Then the "artistic community" complains of censorship. 
Then the "artist" gets a halo and a lot of publicity.

VEEP MEDICAL UPDATE: Vice President Dick ("Healthy as a 
Horse!") Cheney has left the hospital after his umpteenth 
non-heart attack. A spokesman assured the nation that 
Cheney had dropped by the intensive care unit for a 
"routine checkup" and had decided to take the occasion 
for a few quick outpatient repairs, including a minor 
organ transplant. 


* Education Presidents (February 1, 2001)
* Unasked Questions (February 6, 2001)
* Israeli Semantics (February 15, 2001)
* Shall We Watch? (February 20, 2001)
* Personalized Government Service (February 27, 2001)
* One-Eyed Jacks (March 1, 2001)


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) 2001 by the Griffin Internet 
Syndicate, All rights reserved.