Sobran's --
The Real News of the Month

May 2001
Volume 8, No. 5

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
(pages 1-2)

The insufferable John McCain is pushing his pet project 
again: campaign finance reform. He can't see, or doesn't 
care, that it's unconstitutional on several grounds (see 
the First and Tenth Amendments). Worse yet, letting the 
government control its own opposition is a giant step 
toward tyranny. Happily, Democrats are losing enthusiasm 
for McCain-Feingold -- not on principle, of course, but 
because they've learned to beat Republicans in raising 
soft money. Thank you, Bill Clinton!

*          *          *

     After correctly pointing out that McCain-Feingold is 
unconstitutional, Rush Limbaugh is arguing that the 
federal government should stimulate the slowing economy 
by inflating the currency. And just where does the 
Constitution authorize that, Rush? The government is 
supposed to maintain the value of a dollar, not debase 
it. Arbitrarily increasing the quantity of paper money is 
sometimes called counterfeiting; and it's even worse when 
the government does it.

*          *          *

     According to new census figures, Hispanics may now 
outnumber blacks in the United States. Just one 
interesting result of the disproportionate number of 
abortions performed on black women.

*          *          *

     The neoconservative gadfly David Horowitz is giving 
the whole notion of reparations for slavery the 
disrespect it deserves. He's been placing hard-hitting 
advertisements against the idea in college newspapers 
across the country. Student editors, while grudgingly 
running the ads, are denouncing them for "bigotry." The 
charge is absurd, of course; but because Horowitz's 
arguments are hard to answer, the children use the time-
tested method of smearing rather than refuting. By the 
way, how would reparations apply to mulattos? Would they 
be required to pay reparations to themselves?

*          *          *

     The idea of term limits for politicians seems to 
have been pretty well killed off, but as a reactionary 
utopian (yearning to return to a better world that never 
quite existed) I find myself liking it better and better. 
It used to be called "rotation in office," but it didn't 
quite make it into the Constitution. Too bad. It might 
have prevented the existence of the career politician. 
I'm convinced that nobody should ever be reelected to 
*any* office. Not only would this limit the mischief 
officeholders could do; it would attract an entirely 
different breed of men to public office -- men content to 
serve briefly and go home.

*          *          *

     Scientists are feeling new qualms about cloning 
humans. It turns out that cloned animals are subject to 
unpredictable defects: gross obesity, heart and lung 
problems, erratic development, malfunctioning immune 
systems. The NEW YORK TIMES reports that "fewer than 
3 per cent of all cloning efforts succeed." Human clones, 
anyone? Having given us the hydrogen bomb, science should 
be content to rest on its laurels.

*          *          *

     Have you noticed that the media refer to homosexuals 
as "gay and lesbian Americans"? What a phrase! How about 
"pedophilic Americans"? Or "necrophilic Americans"? Then 
too, we should remember the "white separatist Americans," 
such as Abraham Lincoln.

*          *          *

     Speaking of Honest Abe, some bright high-school boys 
in Maryland have discovered that the state anthem, 
written during the Civil War, refers to the Great 
Emancipator as a "tyrant" and "despot." In fact the whole 
song expresses strong Confederate sympathies. I knew 
that, but I hoped nobody would notice. I suppose it was 
only a matter of time before "Maryland, My Maryland" was 
ratted out.

*          *          *

     And in Cleveland, the Cuyahoga County Public Library 
offers a brochure listing -- uh-oh -- "Diversity 
Resources." As you might guess, these are books and 
videos designed to raise your consciousness on such 
themes as "cultural diversity," "multicultural 
awareness," "strategies to defeat homophobia," "cultural 
stereotypes," "outdated notions of race and ethnicity," 
"lessons of bigotry," "gay teenagers," "environmental 
responsibility," and "young lesbian women." Sounds 
fascinating! Zzzzzz. In one animated video, PEACOCK IN 
THE LAND OF PENGUINS, "Perry the Peacock, his co-workers, 
and the penguins learn the value of diversity in the 
workplace." This would have to be a cartoon, because in 
the real world, with rare exceptions, neither different 
cultures nor different species can mix with others. 
People and animals alike instinctively preserve their own 
identities. Just try putting a peacock among penguins 
sometime; they'll either ignore it or peck it to death. 
Except in liberal fantasies, man and beast prefer their 
own kind.

*          *          *

     When I visited the Soviet Union many years ago, I 
was struck by the way our Communist tour guide kept 
bragging about all the churches that had somehow been 
spared by the revolution that razed so many others and 
murdered so many Christians. Of course, no new churches 
had been erected since that revolution; but the Soviets 
took a curious pride in Russian cultural achievements 
that pre-existed their regime and fortunately managed to 
survive in spite of them. It took decades for me to 
notice a parallel at home.

*          *          *

     This just in, as we go to press. THE NATIONAL 
ENQUIRER scores again with a report that Jesse Jackson's 
latest child's mom is writing a tell-all book, revealing, 
inter alia, that at his request she'd aborted an earlier 
child she'd conceived by him. Taking a leaf from Monica 
Lewinsky, she also saved one of his used condoms (in her 
freezer) in order to gather DNA for a paternity test. And 
a furious Mrs. Jackson aimed a pistol at him in their 
home but a guest who was present grabbed it before she 
could fire. All in all (see "The Loose Leaf," below), 
Bill Clinton's spiritual advisor has had an exciting 
month. And this clown thinks *we* should be paying 

Exclusive to the electronic version:

     The case of the accused spy Robert Hanssen has 
caused much comment because he was apparently a devout 
orthodox Catholic, going so far as to become a 
supernumerary of Opus Dei. Liberals shouldn't gloat. The 
very incongruity of Hanssen's front merely underlines how 
hard it is to be at once a Catholic and a Soviet agent. 
By contrast, nobody finds anything incongruous in a 
Commie posing as a liberal, because liberalism provides a 
natural camouflage for Communism. Liberals hotly denied 
that Alger Hiss was a Soviet agent, but they couldn't 
pretend that there was anything outlandish about 
supposing that a Franklin Roosevelt liberal might be 
working on the sly for FDR's pal, "Uncle Joe" Stalin. 
Score one for McCarthyism.

(page 3)

     An Albuquerque man has been charged with a 1980 
kidnapping in New York. The 22-year-old victim is trying 
to save him from prison.

     In April 1979 Barry Smiley and his wife adopted an 
infant boy, three days old, in New York. In June 1980 the 
child's mother, whose parents had forced her to put him 
up for adoption against her will, got a court order that 
he be returned to her. Instead of complying, the Smileys 
fled to New Mexico, lived under the names Bennett and 
Mary Propp, and raised the boy in ignorance of the true 
story. But the New York authorities recently tracked 
Smiley down, and he turned himself in. The young man, 
Matthew Propp, says movingly, "I'm concerned about what's 
going to happen to my dad." That's how he thinks of 
Smiley: "my dad."

     There's another moving story here. Back in 1978, 
Matthew's real mother had become pregnant by her fiance, 
to the fury of her parents, who kept her under lock and 
key until she gave Matthew up for adoption. After doing 
so, she married her fiance, and they eventually spent 
more than $100,000 trying to find their son. They had two 
other children before they divorced.

     The Smiley story also reminded me of other 
situations I've read about. In parts of Africa some 
tribes used to raid other tribes' villages by night to 
steal their children, who were then raised as slaves. 
(Yes, slavery existed in Africa before the white man got 
into the act, and long afterward. It's still there.)

     Imagine growing up not knowing who your parents 
were, who *you* were. But were the slaves resentful and 
restive? On the contrary. They accepted their masters as 
their virtual fathers, even as benefactors. Among the 
slaves themselves it was considered disgraceful and 
ungrateful to run away from one's master; those who did 
so were shunned. There was no Marxian "class 
consciousness," let alone solidarity, among the 
oppressed. They exemplified what has been called "the 
captive mind."

     A new book I've seen reviewed shows that slavery in 
the Muslim world was firmly entrenched, as it was in many 
societies. The very thought of abolishing so enveloping 
an institution rarely crossed anyone's mind. (One 
fabulously rich caliph owned more than 11,000 slaves.) 
Certain slaves, especially eunuchs, even rose to 
positions of considerable power.

     Like Matthew Propp, though with much less apparent 
reason, slaves often feel love and loyalty for their 
captors, especially when they remember no other life. 
During the Civil War Northerners marveled when slaves 
fought for the Confederacy; one of the purposes of the 
Emancipation Proclamation was to incite what was called 
"servile insurrection," but it never happened.

     In the same way, modern man seldom rebels against 
the modern state. He has learned to regard it with awe, 
gratitude, and hope, as the source of his safety, rights, 
and benefits. And no wonder, since it educates him and 
teaches him that everything he has, including his 
religion, exists by its benign sufferance. Without it, he 
is nothing. And he believes this implicitly. Thanks to 
state education, he remembers no other world, and he 
knows no other way of imagining the world. He may have 
read the Declaration of Independence in school, probably 
a state school at that, but the only lesson he derives 
from it -- or more precisely, from what he was told about 
it -- is that a good government (his) originated by 
throwing off a bad government (King George's). Certainly 
those who declared their independence from that good 
government in 1861 were traitors who got the whipping 
they deserved. After all, they believed in slavery!

     Yes, we have a Constitution, and modern man properly 
venerates it, but we also have a government to tell us 
what it means -- which passages authorize the government 
to take our income, which passages penumbrally guarantee 
the right to abortion, and which passages may be 
disregarded. He could never have figured this out for 
himself. It's a job he leaves to his masters. If it 
weren't for them, as they have patiently explained to 
him, he wouldn't be free. He has no suspicion that he and 
his country have been kidnapped.

     I suppose the lesson, on the evidence of history and 
our senses, is that man, with rather few exceptions, is a 
servile creature. Aristotle thought most men were slaves 
by nature. Even the cranky Socrates, according to Plato's 
CRITO, thought he owed it to the state, which had raised 
and educated him, to accept an unjust death penalty 
rather than flee when he had the chance. "He loved Big 

Shakespeare's Odds and Ends
(pages 4-5)

     "How many children had Lady Macbeth?" a Shakespeare 
scholar once asked, mocking the tendency of other 
Shakespeare scholars, notably A.C. Bradley, to take the 
plays as if they were literal historical accounts of 
their characters. The Macbeths seem to be childless, yet 
at one point Lady Macbeth recalls nursing a child:

                           I have given suck, and know
      How tender 'tis to love the babe that milks me:
      I would, while it was smiling in my face,
      Have pluck'd my nipple from his boneless gums
      And dash'd the brains out, had I so sworn as you
      Have done to this.

     The point is that Lady Macbeth, in this horrifying 
speech, is scolding her husband for his qualms about the 
regicide they have agreed on; she's not supplying us with 
biographical information. We never learn whether she had 
once borne a child, nor do we need to. The play never 
explains whether the child had died, whether she had 
borne it by another man before she met Macbeth, or indeed 
(whoever the father) whether it is still alive. If we 
insist on an explanation, the likeliest would be the 
first; in an age when infant mortality was common, no 
audience would find the child's absence baffling. But 
there's really nothing here for us to "know"; the 
impression this speech makes doesn't indicate a "fact" 
beyond itself. The playwright seems to want us to be 
uncertain about Macbeth's progeny, because Macbeth 
himself is tortured by the question whether he will 
become "father to a line of kings," as the Weird Sisters 
prophesy that Banquo will.

     The Shakespeare plays are notoriously full of loose 
ends, and such questions may suggest the whimsical game 
of Sherlockiana: reading the Sherlock Holmes stories in 
the spirit of Holmes himself, with ingenious "deductions" 
to explain such anomalies as the fact that Watson's 
Christian name is, at various times, John and James. The 
joke, of course, lies in the playful presumption that the 
imaginary world of Holmes is an actual and coherent 
world, in which everything must fit. The premise of the 
game is that no inconsistency may be ascribed to the 
obvious real cause: the occasional carelessness of Arthur 
Conan Doyle.

     A delightful new book,HENRY V, WAR CRIMINAL? & OTHER 
SHAKESPEARE PUZZLES (Oxford World's Classics), takes up 
dozens of minor mysteries in the plays with great style 
and humor, unmarred by academic jargon. The authors, John 
Sutherland and Cedric Watts, don't, however, treat the 
subject as a mere joke; for all their lightheartedness, 
they raise serious questions and offer thoughtful 
answers. In some cases -- the famously anachronistic 
clocks in JULIUS CAESER -- it's clear that the dramatist 
goofed, whether because of ignorance or inattention or 
simple indifference. But other seeming inconsistencies -- 
Othello's clashing explanations of the fatal handkerchief 
-- may be deliberate clues to the character's nature and 
motives: Watts thinks the noble Moor is, in his creator's 
mind, a bit of a con man. This touch is subtly present in 
the play, but the effect would be spoiled if it were too 
explicit. The cynical Iago is not altogether wrong in 
saying that Othello has wooed Desdemona with "fantastical 
lies"; yet this is not the way Shakespeare wants us to 
perceive his hero. He wants us to see Othello chiefly as 
Othello sees himself. To reduce his romantic self-
portrait to braggadoccio would spoil the tragic effect.

     In the title essay, Sutherland notes that Henry V 
twice orders his soldiers to cut the throats of their 
French prisoners -- a war crime under the code of 
chivalry. Why twice? Wasn't it done the first time? It 
seems not. In fact it seems not to have been done the 
second time either. Why not? The play seems to glorify 
Henry, a national hero; the Chorus keeps praising him 
lavishly (the "mirror of all Christian kings," et 
cetera). Yet this official adulation is constantly 
undermined by Henry's own brutality. These touches are 
too subtle to destroy the dominant feeling of Henry's 
heroism, but they give him a depth and reality he would 
otherwise lack. And they make it clear that the Chorus 
isn't necessarily speaking for the author.

     In a complementary essay, Watts asks whether Henry's 
legalistic claim to the French crown is legally valid. He 
concludes that even Henry's unchallenged claim to the 
*English* crown is invalid, since his father usurped the 
throne from Richard II -- and Henry himself knows it, as 
witness his own order that prayers be said for Richard's 
soul. Watts is especially observant about Henry's 
tendency to pass the buck at every turn.

     The most exhilarating thing about this book is the 
way Sutherland and Watts notice details that nearly 
everyone else has overlooked. Some of these "Shakespeare 
puzzles" are well known -- the ages of Juliet and Lear, 
the nature of the Ghost in HAMLET, Lady Macbeth's 
apparent faint spell when the murder of Duncan is 
discovered. But most have eluded previous scholars. If, 
for example, Hamlet was studying at Wittenberg until his 
father's sudden death summoned him home to Elsinore, when 
could he have found time to court Ophelia? Polonius has 
learned that she has seen a good deal of Hamlet "of 
late," and she acknowledges his extravagant "vows"; when 
did all *this* happen? I've known the play almost by 
heart since my teens, but these questions had never 
occurred to me. It says much for Shakespeare's artistry 
that he can make us overlook so much.

     Another example: "Cleopatra -- deadbeat mum?" 
Sutherland reminds us that ANTONY AND CLEOPATRA makes 
several distinct allusions to Cleopatra's children: her 
son Caesarion by Julius Caesar and several others (three, 
to be historically precise) by Antony. But we never think 
of her, nor does the play encourage us to do so, as a 
mother. She is always the enchantress, the seductive 
serpent, the witch, even the whore. As soon as we focus 
on her as a mother, she seems heartless, irresponsible, 
repulsive -- which is why Shakespeare, using all his 
legerdemain, never lets us see her in that light. By 
killing herself, she exposes her children to the tender 
mercy of Octavius Caesar, who has threatened, credibly, 
to kill them unless she submits to him. (The historical 
Octavius did kill Caesarion, but seems to have spared her 
children by Antony.) But her maternal duty is the 
furthest thing from her mind, and from ours. As with 
Othello, we are, as it were, tricked into seeing her as 
she sees herself.

     Not least among Shakespeare's gifts is his 
management of the illusion of passing time. Watching 
OTHELLO, we forget that Desdemona hasn't even had time to 
commit adultery with Cassio once, let alone (as her 
hysterical husband charges) "a thousand times." But I 
think Sutherland is the first to deal with the curious 
fact that in RICHARD II Bolingbroke -- later Henry IV -- 
is "young" in Act I yet by Act V has a son (the future 
Henry V) old enough to be carousing with Falstaff & Co. 
This is no mistake by the playwright, but on the 
contrary, Sutherland argues, a case of his marvelous 
craft in controlling the audience's attention. There is 
time, and there is Shakespearean time. Likewise Lear 
gives his age as "fourscore and upward," but he's still 
vigorous enough to hunt, to kill Cordelia's hangman, and 
to carry her corpse. He also seems to revel long o' 
nights with his unruly retinue, as Goneril complains. 
Thanks to Shakespeare, we never bat an eye at all this.

     I hate to cavil with so charming a book, but I do 
bridle when Watts calls LOVE'S LABOR'S LOST "for its 
times, a strikingly feministic play." In the first place, 
it's no more "feministic" than any other Shakespeare 
play. No writer has ever loved women more profoundly, or 
created such a variety of great female characters: it's 
staggering that the same man could imagine women as 
different as Juliet, Cleopatra, Cordelia, Beatrice, 
Rosalind, Lady Macbeth, Ophelia, Cressida, Desdemona ... 
Does Watts think he's adding a cubit to Shakespeare's 
stature by congratulating him on anticipating the fads of 
our own time? A generation ago the dramatist was hailed 
as an existentialist (remember existentialism?) in a 
trendy book called SHAKESPEARE, OUR CONTEMPORARY. If you 
rummaged through an old library you'd no doubt run across 
musty volumes enthusiastically titled SHAKESPEARE THE 

     And Sutherland goes out of his way to take a whack 
at the Oxfordian theory, which "rests on ignorance [and] 
a deplorable and unpleasant snobbery." If he'd read the 
Sonnets with the same care as he reads the plays, he'd 
have noticed a lot of odd details that don't jibe with 
the Stratfordian story, but do match what we know of the 
17th Earl of Oxford. The poet is aging and worried about 
death, he's preoccupied with his own disgrace, he hopes 
his name will be "buried where my body is," he wants to 
be "forgotten" when he's gone. He also describes himself 
as "lame," the same word Oxford used of himself in 
several of his surviving letters of the 1590s, when the 
Sonnets were probably written. And if the "lovely boy" he 
addresses is, as seems most likely, the young third Earl 
of Southampton, there is an obvious reason why he should 
urge him to marry: in the early 1590s Southampton was 
being pushed by Lord Burghley to marry Oxford's daughter 
Elizabeth Vere. I hope I haven't just said anything 
ignorant, unpleasant, and snobbish.

     But never mind. This is one of those rare books that 
make you see Shakespeare in a new way, and with increased 

The Loose Leaf
(page 6)

     The CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE has won one in Ohio, 
where a federal appeals court has ruled that the state 
motto -- "With God all things are possible" -- doesn't 
violate the U.S. Constitution. +++ Hoping to "bring all 
Virginians together," Governor JAMES GILMORE has replaced 
the state's traditional tribute to Confederate History 
Month with a bland salute to both sides in the Civil War 
(with a pious denunciation of slavery, of course). +++ 
STEVEN SPIELBERG's people dent reports that he's planning 
a movie showing ABE LINCOLN as a manic-depressive racist. 
How about showing Honest Abe as a war criminal?

     My old friend TAKI, who writes for the London 
SPECTATOR, is the most hilarious gossip columnist alive. 
In fact I once went out on a limb and called him the 
greatest Greek writer since AESCHYLUS (a judgment I see 
no reason to modify, with all due respect to SOPHOCLES, 
SPECTATOR's publisher, CONRAD BLACK, has accused Taki of 
"anti-Semitism" and even a "blood libel" for his recent 
remarks about BILL CLINTON, MARC RICH, and crooked 
Israeli officials like EHUD BARAK. Taki's comments were 
in fact eminently reasonable, though phrased in his 
inimitably flamboyant style. That's probably his real 
offense: when you write about Jewish matters, you're 
supposed to walk on eggshells, and I can only pity the 
eggshell that gets under Taki's shoes. Sometimes I think 
he's the only free spirit left in the modern world. Soon 
it will be illegal to possess a personality. +++ 
Meanwhile, Black's Jewish wife, BARBARA AMIEL (who admits 
that she speaks no Hebrew), has written that Judaism 
without Israel is "pointless." This strikes me as an 
absurd libel on an ancient religion, which has sustained 
the Jews for millennia with and without a Jewish state. 
Not that her husband is apt to complain.

     Just in case you think I'm not hip, I note that the 
hip-hop celeb SEAN (P. DIDDY [formerly PUFFY]) COMBS has 
beaten the rap (no pun intended, though it's the same pun 
everyone else is making) on gun possession and bribery 
charges, leaving us to wonder how a woman on the scene of 
the Alleged Incident got shot in the face. The episode 
cost P. Diddy (who was represented by JOHNNIE COCHRAN) 
one prized possession: his girlfriend JENNIFER LOPEZ 
(J-LO, as we hip folk refer to her) has called it quits. 
+++ Ever the selfless public servant, HILLARY CLINTON has 
rented a New York office suite at $514,149 (that's your 
money, not hers) per annum. It's more than any other U.S. 
senator spends on office space. +++ Her EXECRABLE SPOUSE, 
meanwhile, has received an award from a student group at 
Cardozo Law School. He can't practice law for the next 
five years, but that doesn't say he can't accept honors 
from law students. Back in Arkansas, he has created a 
furor by seeking to having "living quarters" (which, 
being interpreted, is "bachelor pad") built into his 
presidential library. +++ Guess who our most peripatetic 
president was? The same Bill Clinton, who spent 229 days 
abroad, many of them while facing impeachment. Estimated 
cost: more than half a billion dollars. (And they griped 
about the $50 million KENNETH STARR spent!) +++ In the 
wake of the Clintons' latest scandals, I'm having second 
thoughts about my recent book, HUSTLER: THE CLINTON 
LEGACY. Its chief flaw is the glued binding. It should 
have been loose-leaf, so it could be updated every few 
weeks. +++ Speaking of Clinton: if you have a reputation 
as a good liar, you're probably not *that* good.

     One man's opinion: Conservative columnist CAL THOMAS 
may have taken historical revisionism too far when he 
wrote in March that the Roman emperor CONSTANTINE was 
succeeded by NERO. +++ The best-movie Oscar to 
GLADIATOR,the only one of the five nominees I saw, is 
reassuring. If that was the best film of the year, I'm 
not missing anything +++ The silly-gory movie HANNIBAL is 
inspiring more deep-thinking palaver than any film since 
FORREST GUMP. +++ Yours truly just saw ALFRED HITCHCOCK's 
NORTH BY NORTHWEST for the umpteenth time. What a 
preposterous story! And thanks to Hitchcock and CARY 
GRANT, what a joy! (If you listen carefully, you'll even 
hear a mention of my home town: YPSILANTI, MICHIGAN.)

     The NEW YORK TIMES describes California's Governor 
GRAY DAVIS as a "cautious Democratic centrist" -- pretty 
much what the TIMES used to call STALIN and CASTRO. +++ 
JESSE JACKSON is getting lots of critical press attention 
-- at last! -- for his shakedowns of corporations. As a 
blackmailer, he could give ABE FOXMAN lessons. But if the 
IRS checks him out, he may wind up losing his chauffered 
pimpmobile -- a sad indignity for a man of the cloth.

Exclusive to the electronic version:

     Much speculation on whether Bill and Hill will 
finally split. She once said she was no little ol' TAMMY 
WYNETTE, standing by her man. Maybe now that she doesn't 
need him, she'll adopt another Tammy hit: 

<< Material dropped from features or changed for reasons 
of space appears in double angular brackets. >>

(see below) typifies the way the media try to discredit 
conservative causes by focusing on their wilder fringes. 
On the other hand, they avoid giving any attention to the 
fringes of "progressive" movements -- e.g., the 
pedophiles who are welcomed by the homo-lesbo movement. 
The major media harped for months on the murder of a 
single homosexual by a pair of thugs, but haven't even 
reported the murder of a 14-year-old Arkansas boy by a 
pair of sodomites. News stories are increasingly selected 
for the ideological messages they convey. << If they 
don't serve the right causes, they ain't news. >> It's as 
if the mailman decided which letters to deliver. (page 5)

STRAWS IN THE WIND: Do I detect a quiet decline in 
Hitler-bashing lately? Maybe it's subtly sinking in that 
Der Fuehrer wasn't radically different from other modern 
rulers, including his nemeses, Roosevelt and Stalin. Like 
them (and many others), he stood for teleocracy -- the 
state-directed society -- as against nomocracy -- neutral 
government, impartially applying the rule of law. He 
assumed the state's sovereignty over all a nation's 
wealth. He made war on civilian populations. Among his 
peers, he was a pretty regular guy. (page 8)

CREDO: I'm strongly inclining toward anarchism, on 
pragmatic grounds. The way I look at it, if the 
government can't protect property rights, outlaw 
abortion, and burn heretics, what's the point of having 
it at all? (page 11)

THOSE DEADLY PRO-LIFERS: HBO has just produced a 
documentary, SOLDIERS IN THE ARMY OF GOD, showing anti-
abortion extremists who kill nice abortion doctors. 
<< That was the intended impression, anyway. >> Actually, 
the "extremists" came across as conscientious people who 
don't like resorting to violence, but don't know what 
else to do when the government licenses the slaughter of 
the innocent. The "abortion doctors" were shown as kindly 
humanitarians who only want to serve others. No mention 
of whether they accept money for their benefactions. 
(page 12)

Exclusive to the electronic version:

COME HOME, AMERICA! An American spy plane has collided 
with a Chinese jet off the coast of China, forcing the 
American plane to land on China's Hainan Island. As I 
write, the details are unclear and the dust hasn't 
settled, but the massive U.S. military presence in and 
around Asia reminds us that the Monroe Doctrine isn't a 
two-way street. The Western Hemisphere is "our backyard," 
off-limits to the powers of the Eastern Hemisphere. But 
"we" are entitled to interfere everywhere on earth, 
whether it be in the name of our "vital interests" or 
universal "human rights" or the "international 
community." Just imagine if Chinese reconnaissance planes 
were buzzing around Los Angeles and Miami, with huge 
Chinese fleets floating off the coasts. 


* Can We Afford a Tax Cut? (March 6, 2001)

* Shakespeare and DNA (March 8, 2001)

* A New Beethoven (March 15, 2001)

* The Hanssen Shocker (March 20, 2001)

* Beware of "Reform" (March 22, 2001)

* Conquering Israel (March 29, 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 Vere Company. All rights
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate with permission.