The Real News of the Month

December 2001
Volume 8, No. 12

Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
   Print version: $44.95 per year; $85 for 2 years;
   trial subscription available for $19.95 (5 issues).
   E-mail subscriptions: $39.95 for 1 year ($25 with a
   12-month subscription to the print edition); $65 for
   2 years ($45 with a 2-year subscription to the print

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 1-800-513-5053. Allow
   4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.

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

  -> The Moving Picture (plus Exclusives to this edition)
  -> An Anniversary
  -> Ring for Jeeves
Letters to the Editor
Nuggets (plus Exclusives to this edition)
List of Columns Reprinted


The Moving Picture
(page 1)

     Since we can all use a bit of comic relief, this 
month's cover boy is P.G. Wodehouse. He is the subject of 
a short piece on page 6, and I trust that a few scattered 
quotations from him will provide levity elsewhere in the 
issue. (Here and there I have quoted from memory, but 
most selections are guaranteed verbatim.) 

*          *          *

     "Patriotism or Nationalism" (page 7) has been 
reprinted in a Moscow newspaper you may have heard of: 
PRAVDA.It's been under new management in recent years, of 
course. Still, I'm tickled to note that after beginning 
my career with a journal founded by Bill Buckley, I've 
moved on to one founded by Joe Stalin.  

*          *          *

     The aforementioned Bill Buckley has just written a 
column arguing that the United States should not use 
nuclear weapons in the current war. This puts him at odds 
with NATIONAL REVIEW's senior editor Jeffrey Hart, who 
has already produced two columns urging nukes. Neither 
man seems to have thought of the obvious reason not to: 
that it would mean mass murder.  

*          *          *

     The defamation campaign against Pope Pius XII 
continues, with yet another attack in COMMENTARY 
magazine. There's a simple answer to the charge that Pius 
didn't condemn Nazism strongly enough: by that standard, 
he didn't condemn Communism strongly enough either. Yet 
nobody doubts that Pius hated Communism, the mortal enemy 
of his own Church. Being neither a journalist nor a 
politician, he didn't go into detail, and never publicly 
excoriated either Hitler *or* Stalin by name. Even the 
most severe papal judgments are expressed in 
diplomatically general language. That's just how popes 
talk. Compare John Paul II's recent comments on the 9/11 
attacks. He deplored them firmly, but didn't mention 
Osama bin Laden. Will we one day hear that he was "bin 
Laden's Pope"?  

*          *          *

     Sad that Rush Limbaugh is losing his hearing, and 
revolting that his enemies are jeering about it. I do 
like Rush, and I hope he can carry on even with such a 
handicap. At the same time, he does go overboard as a 
Republican apologist. He's straining to blame even bin 
Laden on Bill Clinton and the Democrats!  

*          *          *

     A really great World Series this year, with Arizona 
beating the New York Yankees in the bottom of the ninth 
in the seventh game. Just my luck -- I'd dozed off two 
innings earlier and missed one of the most exciting 
moments in baseball history.  

*          *          *

     Farewell to our old friend Willie Casagranda, who 
died in October at 75. Some of our charter subscribers 
may recall him from our annual dinners, which were always 
enlivened by his presence. He was also a loyal friend and 
fierce supporter of Pat Buchanan, who will vouch that 
they don't come more lovable than dear Willie. 

Exclusive to the electronic version:

     The best witness to the Catholic Church, I always 
feel, is the unique hatred she still inspires. Why should 
this be, unless she is a threat to what man cherishes 
most -- his pride?  

*          *          *

     An honest liberal should respect and value the 
Church for providing this violently unstable world with 
some moral ballast. Is it really desirable that masses of 
men should throw over ancient traditions overnight?.

An Anniversary
(pages 3-5)

     The 9/11 attacks have so far failed to shake the 
American conviction that every religion is at bottom a 
"religion of peace." The tangled conflict among 
Christians, Jews, and Muslims, rooted in the Middle East, 
has now come to North America. Maybe it will someday soon 
sink into the American skull that credal differences are 
still taken seriously in some parts of the world.

     The date of the attacks -- September 11, 2001 -- 
just happened to be the 60th anniversary of another 
notable moment in American history, one that didn't cause 
quite as much shock or make quite as many headlines, but 
did reverberate for quite a while, and does have certain 
thematic links to recent events.

     On the night of September 11, 1941, the world-famous 
aviator Charles A. Lindbergh gave a speech in Des Moines, 
Iowa, that caused a national controversy and tainted 
Lindbergh's name for the rest of his life. Lindbergh, 
adored by millions as an American hero, had already put 
his reputation on the line for what he saw as the 
patriotic cause of keeping the United States out of World 
War II. He was a leader of the "isolationist" America 
First Committee, and in Des Moines he was addressing an 
America First rally.

     In his speech Lindbergh named the three chief groups 
that were "agitating for war": "the British, the Jewish, 
and the Roosevelt Administration." Guess which one caused 
the uproar. The next day, Lindbergh was denounced coast 
to coast as an anti-Semite and Nazi sympathizer. He is so 
described to this day.

     The striking fact is that Lindbergh said nothing 
derogatory about the Jews; on the contrary, he spoke 
about them briefly and with sympathy:

            It is not difficult to understand why 
      Jewish people desire the overthrow of Nazi 
      Germany. The persecution they suffered in 
      Germany would be sufficient to make bitter 
      enemies of any race. No person with a sense of 
      the dignity of mankind can condone the 
      persecution of the Jewish race in Germany. But 
      no person of honesty and vision can look on 
      their pro-war policy here today without seeing 
      the dangers involved in such a policy, both 
      for us and for them.

            Instead of agitating for war, the Jewish 
      groups in this country should be opposing it 
      in every possible way, for they will be among 
      the first to feel its consequences. Tolerance 
      is a virtue that depends upon peace and 
      strength. History shows that it cannot survive 
      war and devastation. A few far-sighted Jewish 
      people realize this, and stand opposed to 
      intervention. But the majority still do not. 
      Their greatest danger to this country lies in 
      their large ownership and influence in our 
      motion pictures, our press, our radio, and our 

            I am not attacking either the Jewish or 
      the British people. Both races, I admire. But 
      I am saying that the leaders of both the 
      British and Jewish races, for reasons which 
      are as understandable from their viewpoint as 
      they are inadvisable from ours, for reasons 
      which are not American, wish to involve us in 
      the war. We cannot blame them for looking out 
      for what they believe to be their own 
      interests, but we must also look out for ours. 
      We cannot allow the natural passions and 
      prejudices of other peoples to lead our 
      country to destruction.

     This is the only public statement Lindbergh made 
about the Jews. He treated them realistically and with 
the same understanding he extended to the British. By 
contrast, he excoriated the Roosevelt administration for 
seeking to involve the United States in war by 
"subterfuge" -- an entirely accurate charge. Whereas, in 
his view, the Jews and the British were merely pursuing 
their own legitimate interests as they saw them, 
Roosevelt was betraying his own people. The bulk of his 
address was an attack on Roosevelt's policy.

     Yet the violent reaction to the Des Moines speech 
didn't accuse Lindbergh of being "anti-British" or even 
"anti-Roosevelt." He was accused of "anti-Semitism," 
"Hitlerism," of being "un-American," and (by Reinhold 
Niebuhr, no less) of seeking to incite "racial and 
religious strife."

     Lindbergh himself had expected this. The first draft 
of the speech included words he deleted in the actual 
delivery: "I realize that in speaking this frankly I am 
entering in where Angels fear to tread. I realize that 
tomorrow morning's headlines will say 'Lindbergh attacks 
Jews.' The ugly cry of Anti-Semitism will be eagerly, 
joyfully pounded upon and waved about my name."

     It was, and is. Yet Lindbergh hadn't attacked or 
even disparaged the Jews. He had merely said that, aside 
from a "far-sighted" minority, their own *perceived* 
interests were at odds with the real interests of the 
United States, a fact he regarded as tragic. But that was 
enough. For six decades Lindbergh's reputation has been 
defined by the distorted and defamatory reporting of his 
Des Moines speech.

     To this day, Lindbergh is vilified for telling the 
truth by the same sort of people who praise Franklin 
Roosevelt for lying. Roosevelt backed the huge smear 
campaign against Lindbergh and even publicly insinuated 
that he was a "Copperhead." When war broke out, he 
rejected Lindbergh's offer to serve as a pilot; Lindbergh 
managed to fly 50 combat missions anyway (without 
publicity, of course). Say what you will, he never ran 
out of courage, and by any measure he was a truer patriot 
than the cynical fox in the White House.

     Lindbergh was a hero. The real thing. Today it's 
hard to remember how much courage it had taken, in 1927, 
to fly across the Atlantic alone. But at the time he was 
easily the most admired man in America, and maybe the 
whole world. The enormous public adulation he received 
embarrassed him, because he treasured his privacy. That 
privacy was further insulted by press coverage of the 
kidnap-murder of his little son in 1932, the most 
sensational crime of its time.

     By 1941 Lindbergh could have enjoyed his success, 
his privacy, his reputation, and the love of his country 
for the rest of his life if he had simply retired from 
public view. Instead, he chose to put it all at risk by 
speaking out in defense of his country against its own 
president. He became the leading light of the America 
First movement.

     But his Des Moines speech shook the movement itself. 
Many of its leaders, including its president, John T. 
Flynn, disapproved of his mention of the Jews, regarding 
it as encouragement to the Jew-hating types they had 
tried to dissociate America First from. Some thought it 
horrifying; others saw it as perhaps true enough, but 
still a regrettable and needless distraction that would 
embroil the movement in a bitter controversy over a 
secondary issue.

     Lindbergh himself, a man who feared no thunderbolts, 
thought the Jewish question had to be faced. To him it 
was not a matter of prejudice or hostility, but an 
objective reality. Even granting that Jews could not be 
blamed for seeking war with Germany, he insisted that 
this Jewish interest was distinct from, and opposed to, 
the American interest in avoiding war. And the Jewish 
interest was powerful, especially in the media.

     Looking back, what seems remarkable is how strong, 
even in 1941, was the taboo against any public mention of 
this interest. Most of the angry condemnation of 
Lindbergh came from his own people, the Protestants who 
still dominated America (though some prominent Catholics 
as well as Jews joined the attack). His books were pulled 
from library shelves; streets and public monuments that 
had been named for him were renamed, even in his 

      But as far as I can tell from this distance in 
time, nobody directly denied what he said. Nobody 
contended that American Jews were as strongly opposed to 
war as most other Americans. (When Patrick Buchanan 
referred to Israel's "amen corner in this country," none 
of his furious detractors denied that there was such an 
amen corner: after all, they were it!)

     Lindbergh's recent biographer A. Scott Berg, a Jew 
who is both sympathetic and fair-minded, comments, 
"Lindbergh had bent over backward to be kind about the 
Jews; but in suggesting the American Jews were 'other' 
people and that their interests were 'not American,' he 
implied exclusion, thus undermining the very foundation 
of the United States."

     But what if a sizable number of Jews -- not 
necessarily a majority, but the practically preponderant 
number -- regard *themselves* as "other"? What do the 
many Jewish organizations, publications, lobbies, et 
cetera, signify, except that there are distinct Jewish 
interests -- interests not necessarily shared by most 
Americans and therefore requiring concerted Jewish 
efforts for their realization? And why should these 
interests (unlike those of farmers, labor unions, 
corporations, industries) be not only exempt from 
criticism, but barred from any public mention?

     It's as if we had to discuss the current war without 
mentioning Islam. Islam, however variously understood by 
both Muslims and non-Muslims, obviously has *something* 
to do with the conflict, and we can never grasp what that 
may be unless we can talk about it. Set aside the 
question of theological truth, though it is the most 
basic question of all. In order to understand recent 
events and to cope with the near future, we have to form 
some idea of how Islam defines the interests of the 
people we have to deal with. You can't play chess unless 
you can figure out how your opponent is thinking.

     Like Islam, Judaism is counted among what we call 
the great religions. Even Jews who neither believe nor 
practice their ancestral religion have been formed by it 
and are conscious of belonging to an ancient nation, 
compared with which the United States of America is a 
very recent (and probably temporary) upstart. If I were a 
Jew looking at this country, I think I would say to 
myself: "Here today, gone tomorrow." In key respects this 
country isn't even what it was two centuries ago; it has 
lost its original character. How can such an ephemeral 
and mutable thing command the deepest loyalty of a man 
whose memory spans millennia? To me the wonder is that 
American Jews are patriotic at all, though many of them 
certainly are.

     I can imagine how this country seems to a serious 
Jew or Muslim because I know how it seems to a serious 
Catholic -- that is, one who judges it by something 
outside itself, and more permanent than itself. The 
reason to raise the Jewish question is not that Jews are 
suspect; it is that they are presumably sane. Not that 
they don't make plenty of errors of their own; Lindbergh, 
who made his own errors, rightly predicted that the war 
would be disastrous for the Jews. And Israel, as a new 
Jewish state, may have seemed like a refuge in 1948, but 
today it is the one place on earth where Jews are least 
secure. And now this country is implicated in its fate.

     The negative stereotype of the Jew is that he is a 
double-talker who can't be trusted; and like most 
stereotypes, this one contains some truth. As Raymond 
Chandler once remarked, the Jews want to be Jews to 
themselves but not to others; they are like a man who 
refuses to give his real name and address but insists on 
being invited to all the best parties. But the modern Jew 
is an ambiguous figure even to himself. Israel's Knesset 
holds bitter debates over the question of "who is a Jew."

     In the old days this was no question at all. A Jew 
was one who observed the Law of Moses, or at least 
acknowledged his hereditary duty to do so. The ancient 
charges against the Jews were precisely the opposite of 
the modern stereotype: that the Jews were misanthropic, 
proudly and visibly aloof from the rest of the human 
race, thornily self-segregated. They weren't accused of 
stealthily blending into the general population while 
concealing their true loyalty to their own. Far from it. 
Their refusal to mix with pagans caused the pagans to 
resent their rude hauteur. Shylock wasn't trying to 

     But in modern times, the possibility of assimilation 
has resulted not only in real absorption, with many Jews 
virtually ceasing to be Jews (as in the old joke about 
the Jew who becomes a Methodist, is invited to give a 
sermon, steps into the pulpit, and begins: "Fellow goyim 
..."), but also in feigned assimilation and "dual 
loyalty." This may not even be "dual": an ostensible 
loyalty to the gentile majority often masks an actual 
loyalty to Jews and Israel.

     The older I get, the less I am inclined to blame 
Jews for their loyalty to their own; in fact, I am 
disposed to honor them for it -- but only up to a point. 
I like it to be out in the open, and I reserve the right 
to talk about it and take it into my calculations without 
being called a bigot. Of course this is the same right 
Charles Lindbergh thought he enjoyed 60 years ago.

     The bitterest quarrels occur when people are in full 
agreement. There was no real disagreement about what 
Lindbergh said. It was because he refused to engage in 
the prevailing tacit hypocrisy that all hell broke loose. 
He recognized the Jews as a remarkable race, but he also 
drew logical conclusions from their distinct status. It 
was obvious, it was *self-evident,* that the interests of 
Jews might clash with those of non-Jews, not because Jews 
were treacherous, or worse than other people, but because 
they were *comparable* to other people. You may even 
believe that the Jews are right and the gentiles wrong; 
but you can hardly deny that they are different.

     Why was it, and why is it still, so shocking to say 
the self-evident? Are we to sacrifice lives -- perhaps 
many, many lives -- to a false delicacy about profound 
differences between human groups? Whatever the reason, 
Doublethink, defined by Orwell as the ability to believe 
mutually contradictory propositions simultaneously, has 
become a civic duty.

     America is still a more or less Christian country, 
and Christianity and Judaism remain profoundly different 
religions, issuing in profoundly different cultures and 
interests. The specific interests of Israel and America 
are also very different. The existence of the pro-Israel 
lobby and "amen corner" of supporters in this country 
means not that the two countries' interests are the same 
(this is mere propaganda, Doublethink), but, on the 
contrary, that American interests are being sacrificed to 
Israeli interests. An honest reckoning of the price for 
Americans is long overdue; we got a glimpse of it on 
September 11.

     There have to be limits. It defies reason to suppose 
that the two countries always have identical interests, 
or that Americans aren't bearing most of the burden; 
after all, there is no pro-American lobby in Israel, and 
Israeli politicians aren't for sale to Americans. Prime 
Minister Ariel Sharon was recently quoted as boasting: 
"We control America." It certainly would appear so.

     Such plain truths need to be said. It's a pity you 
can only say them at your own risk, 60 years after 
Lindbergh learned this lesson the hard way. Or does 
American support for Israel depend entirely on the 
maintenance of Doublethink?

Ring for Jeeves
(page 6)

     I've found only two cures for the post-9/11 blues: 
Mozart's operas and P.G. Wodehouse's Jeeves stories, 
featuring two great comic characters, Bertie Wooster and 
Jeeves. (His first name is technically Reginald, but 
nobody ever calls him anything but "Jeeves.")

     Jeeves is Bertie's valet, or "gentleman's 
gentleman," and also, fortunately for Bertie, his polar 
opposite. In every story Bertie, a brainless fop, gets 
into an embarrassing scrape, and Jeeves rescues him with 
some brilliant stratagem. No writer since Sophocles has 
so fully exploited the dramatic potential of social 
embarrassment as Wodehouse does, though Bertie's mishaps 
tend to revolve around broken engagements rather than 
Oedipal marriages.

     The comedy lies in the total contrast between these 
two characters. Bertie, though good-natured, is vain, 
foolish, and rash, given to absurd overstatements; Jeeves 
is impeccably proper and reserved, full of savoir-faire 
to the gills, as Bertie might say. Bertie is forever 
ascribing phrases from Shakespeare to Jeeves, from whom 
he has heard them; sometimes Jeeves tactfully corrects 
him. Bertie regards Jeeves as a genius, though he also 
clashes with him over Bertie's fondness for loud attire 
-- purple socks, yellow cummerbunds, even a moustache. 
Bertie is also immensely proud of his noble ancestry; he 
often repeats that the Woosters broke all records for 
valor and chivalry during the Crusades, and he boasts of 
the Wooster blood, despite his own thorough cowardice (he 
is intimidated by everyone he meets, especially women). 
He considers his relation to Jeeves to be one of feudal 
fealty on both sides. One of his compliments for a job 
well done is "Very feudal of you, Jeeves."

     In JEEVES AND THE FEUDAL SPIRIT, Jeeves returns from 
a vacation to find that Bertie has grown a moustache; 
anticipating a "clash of wills," Bertie gets drunk, or, 
as he prefers to say, "suave": "I cannot put it better 
than by saying that, as the fire coursed through my 
veins, Wooster the timid fawn became in a flash Wooster 
the man of iron will, ready for anything." Servant and 
master confront each other at last:

            "Something appears to be arresting your 
      attention, Jeeves. Is there a smut on my 

            His manner continued frosty. There are 
      moments when he looks just like a governess, 
      one of which was this one.

            "No, sir. It is on the upper lip. A 
      dark stain like mulligatawny soup."

            I gave a careless nod.

            "Ah, yes," I said. "The moustache. That 
      is what you are alluding to, is it not? I grew 
      it while you were away. Rather natty, don't 
      you think?"

            "No, sir, I do not."

            I moistened my lips with the special, 
      still suave to the gills. I felt strong and 

            "You dislike the little thing?"

            "Yes, sir."

            "You don't feel it gives me a sort of 
      air? A ... how shall I put it? ... A kind of 

            "No, sir."

            "You hurt and disappoint me, Jeeves," I 
      said, sipping a couple of sips and getting 
      suaver all the time. "I could understand your 
      attitude if the object under advisement were 
      something bush and waxed at the ends like a 
      sergeant-major's, but it is merely the 
      delicate wisp of vegetation with which David 
      Niven has for years been winning the applause 
      of millions. When you see David Niven on the 
      screen, you don't recoil in horror, do you?"

            "No, sir. His moustache is very becoming 
      to Mr. Niven."

     Despite his stupidity, Bertie is a fountain of 
inspired phrases. He lives in dread of his formidable 
Aunt Agatha, who "chews broken bottles and wears barbed 
wire next to the skin." His speech is a farrago of 
cliches (often botched), big words he's unsure of, crazy 
similes, and school slang. Here is his account of a 
friend's violent attack on a mouthy brat:

            Just what occurred then I couldn't 
      exactly say, but the next few minutes were a 
      bit exciting. I take it that Cyril must have 
      made a dive for the infant. Anyway, the air 
      seemed pretty well congested with arms and 
      legs and things. Something bumped into the 
      Wooster waistcoat just around the third 
      button, and I collapsed on the settee and 
      rather lost interest in things for the 
      moment. When I had unscrambled myself, I 
      found that Jeeves and the child had retired 
      and Cyril was standing in the middle of the 
      room snorting a bit.

     Later, when the brat mouths off again, Cyril 
"started to get pink in the ears, and then in the nose, 
and then in the cheeks, till in about a quarter of a 
minute he looked pretty much like an explosion in a 
tomato cannery on a sunset evening."

     Such is Wodehouse: a writer who wrote only to 
delight. Chided by critics for portraying a world that no 
longer existed, he retorted cheerfully that he was "a 
historical novelist -- like Sabatini."

Letters to the Editor
(page 2)

BRACKETS [[ thus ]].)

Mr. Sobran -- I will ask you, as I have asked every 
pundit/student of history who has commented on America's 
decline into empire: Are you aware of any empire in 
history that reverted to its republican roots, without 
civil war, collapse, or secession? What gives you any 
cause to hope that you or anyone else who detests the 
current state of "our" government has any power to 
reverse the course of events? There are not enough of us 
remnants. America has us, the ones who understand her 
founding principles, but are we enough? I am an optimist. 
I believe that Liberty is the inevitable destiny of human 
society. All civilizations progress toward that end, at 
greater or lesser rates of speed. Nevertheless, I suspect 
that the Republic is too far gone to save. The Romans had 
Cicero, and Cato, et al., and look what happened to them.

Bob Lallier
Lodi, California


     I can't say I'm an optimist; rather, a hopeful 
pessimist. At times -- and this may be such a time -- all 
the lover of liberty can do is keep his head and refuse 
to give up that last sanctuary. If a certain number of us 
can at least keep the memory of freedom alive, it will 
remain a possibility. What has existed before (however 
imperfectly) may exist again -- unless men forget that it 
could, and did, once exist. The only thing that really 
scares me about this country is its amnesia. Most 
Americans have lost touch with their own ancestors.


Mr. Sobran -- What you say in your October 30 column (see 
page 10) about the deceit (and naivete) of FDR in 
bringing the United States into World War II, and in 
developing the atomic bomb, is sadly all too true. Also 
true is your dictum that when a nation goes to war it can 
never know what the ultimate result will be and that it 
is usually far different from what anyone envisioned. But 
you seem to say that if America (a) had not entered World 
War II, and (b) had not developed the atomic bomb, that 
particular threat would not now haunt us. You cannot mean 
to imply this. For you know that Nazi Germany was itself 
working on developing the atomic bomb and might have done 
so in time -- time they would have had in plenty if the 
United States had not entered the war.

     [[ Some people argue that the Nazis were not even 
close to developing the bomb. Maybe, maybe not. But the 
point is, ]] even if Nazi Germany didn't develop the 
atomic bomb, somebody would surely have developed it 
sometime. [[ So how that would have played out in time is 
a fearsome guess. But come out of its bottle this 
diabolical genie surely would have in time, ]] whether it 
took another 20 years or 50. And the most likely nations 
to develop such weapons of horror are always those with 
the most malevolent designs. Thus it would have loomed 
over us today in any event -- if we had not already been 
obliterated by it by some other nation that did develop 

     Further, whether the United States entered the war 
or not, it had been going on for more than two years 
before Pearl Harbor. And it would have continued to go on 
with or without America. [[ Just how it would play out 60 
years later no one could then foresee. ]] All that men of 
goodwill -- in America and across the globe -- could do 
was try to make it play out for the best, by the best 
lights such men might have. However it played out, the 
world was going to be very different when it ended. And 
America would still be a part of that world, atomic bomb 
and all, whether we like it or not.

     The sand of this world is shallow and hard. We 
cannot bury our head in it no matter how much we might 
like to and no matter how hard we try.

James Minarik
Annandale, Virginia


PGW: My dear, you look like Helen of Troy after a good 
facial. (page 7)

PGW: It was one of those clear evenings you get in 
summer, when you can hear a snail clear its throat a mile 
away. (page 8)

PGW: I felt so darned sorry for poor Bingo I hadn't the 
heart to finish my breakfast. I told Jeeves to drink it 
himself. (page 9)

PGW: As far as the eye could reach, I found myself gazing 
on a surging sea of aunts. (page 9)

PGW: Unseen, in the background, Fate was quietly slipping 
the lead into the boxing glove. (page 10)

PGW: In this life it is not aunts that matter but the 
courage which one brings to them. (page 10)

PGW: Jeeves was in the other room hanging holly, for 
Christmas would soon be at our throats. (page 11)

PGW: He, too, seemed disinclined for chit-chat. We stood 
for some moments like a couple of Trappist monks who have 
run into each other by chance at the dog races. (page 11)

PGW: Our host, the young Squire, was none too chirpy. The 
brow was furrowed, the eye lacked that hearty sparkle, 
and the general bearing and demeanour were those of a 
body discovered after being several days in the water. 
(page 12)

Exclusive to the electronic version:

PGW: Freddie had mooned about with an air of crushed 
gloom that would have caused comment in Siberia.

PGW: I dislike Long Island. There are 48 hours in the 
day, there is nothing to do, and you can't sleep at night 
because of the bellowing of the crickets.

PGW: I don't know if you've ever been alone in a houseful 
of aunts, all of them glaring at you with their red eyes 
and lashing their tails.

PGW: It is never difficult to distinguish between a 
Scotsman with a grievance and a ray of sunshine.. 


* Patriotism or Nationalism? (October 16, 2001)

* Weighing the Costs (October 23, 2001)

* Belloc's Prophecy (October 25, 2001)

* Roosevelt's Ultimate Legacy (October 30, 2001)

* What Is "Defense"? (November 6, 2001)

* The Lesser Evil (November 8, 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 reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate with permission.