SOBRAN'S --
The Real News of the Month
December 2003
Volume 10, Number 12
Editor: Joe Sobran
Publisher: Fran Griffin (Griffin Communications)
Managing Editor: Ronald N. Neff
Subscription Rates.
Print version: $44.95 per year; $85 for 2 years;
trial subscription available for $19.95 (5 issues).
E-mail subscriptions: $39.95 for 1 year ($25 with a
12-month subscription to the print edition); $65 for
2 years ($45 with a 2-year subscription to the print
edition).
Address: SOBRAN'S, P.O. Box 1383, Vienna, VA 22183-1383
Fax: 703-281-6617 Website: www.sobran.com
Publisher's Office: 703-281-1609 or www.griffnews.com
Foreign Subscriptions (print version only): Add $1.25 per
issue for Canada and Mexico; all other foreign
countries, add $1.75 per issue.
Credit Card Orders: Call 1-800-513-5053. Allow
4-6 weeks for delivery of your first issue.
CONTENTS
Features
-> The Passion according to Gibson
-> The Passing Scene
-> Taxation through the Ages
-> Sacraments and Sodomy
Letters to the Editor
List of Columns Reprinted in This Issue
FEATURES
The Passion according to Gibson
(page 1)
{{ 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.}}
After following the months of controversy, I was
invited to attend a special preview screening of Mel
Gibson's film THE PASSION, a reenactment of the
Crucifixion, with Jim Caviezil as Christ and a large cast
of little-known actors speaking entirely in Aramaic and
Latin. The film {{ as I saw it }} was still incomplete,
awaiting final editing for its February release.
First, as to the controversy. One liberal Catholic
critic, who hadn't even seen the film, flatly predicted,
after reading an early script, that THE PASSION will
"incite violence" against Jews. Preposterous. It's the
most distressingly violent film I've ever seen, all
right; but virtually all the violence is directed against
its principal character. And far from inflaming the
audience, the film shows physical cruelty as unspeakably
ugly. {{ When the screening ended, the preview audience
sat in stunned, chastened silence. }}
Caviezil isn't the candied Christ Hollywood usually
offers, but an earthy and believable man. We first see
him in the dark garden of Gethsemane, praying in deep
anguish. He is in terror of the ordeal to come. But he
knows it must come. I was reminded of Chesterton's remark
that whereas other religions praise God for his infinite
power, goodness, justice, and mercy, only Christianity
has given him credit for courage.
After his arrest, we see Jesus brought before the
pompous, opulently dressed Sanhedrin, who are determined
to convict him on any pretext. He maintains his dignity
and speaks sharply. But of course the verdict is
foreordained.
Then we see him taken before Pilate, the most
complex character in the film. Bald and stocky, with
protruding ears, he seems a reasonable man who wants to
govern responsibly. He knows Jesus is innocent and he
doesn't like the situation; he must deal with unruly Jews
on both sides. Hoping to appease the mob without
capitulating, he orders Jesus to be scourged.
The whipping seems to go on forever, and is the most
painful part of the film to watch. The Roman soldiers
whip Jesus mercilessly, mocking him as they do their work
with relish and glee. {{ His back is in ribbons and the
floor is smeared with his blood. }} Just when it seems
that cruelty has reached its limit, the soldiers bring
out their nastiest whips, with metal-tipped thongs to
tear his flesh even worse. Then they place a crown of
thorns on his head, pounding it to draw blood from his
scalp.
Pilate is outraged at his men's excess, just as he
is disgusted by the Jewish leaders' legalism. He makes no
secret of his feelings, and you find yourself hoping he
will call a halt. But his appeasement hasn't worked, and
the crowd's mood is dangerous. Reluctantly, while trying
to disown responsibility, he collapses and turns the
exhausted Jesus over to be crucified.
Throughout, Gibson uses flashbacks to show Jesus in
childhood, in affectionate conversation with his mother,
and in familiar Gospel scenes, including the Last Supper.
The physical details are abundantly and arrestingly
observed. The world of the Gospels seems palpable, and
the false notes are few (maybe the final version will
correct some of them).
{{ Jesus staggers and falls several times as he is
forced to carry his cross to Golgotha. The Crucifixion
itself, though also bloody, is relatively brief.
Gibson also shows, to great dramatic effect, the
agony of Mary as she watches her son being tortured to
death. We see the Apostles, terrified, demoralized,
bewildered, abandoning Jesus almost as if there is
nothing else they can do. They still don't realize that
this is what he was he was preparing them for all
along. }}
Nothing remotely like THE PASSION has ever been
filmed. I can only say that it leaves me at a loss for
superlatives.
The Passing Scene
(page 2)
In his November 6 speech to the National Endowment
for Democracy, President Bush proclaimed "a new policy, a
forward strategy of freedom in the Middle East." Equating
"democracy" with "liberty" and "freedom," he said America
will promote democracy throughout the region. The speech
is confusing to read, a melange of lofty generalizations
that would embarrass Woodrow Wilson; and of course Bush,
unlike Wilson, doesn't write his own speeches, which
makes it hard to gauge his sincerity. How much of this is
the ventriloquist, and how much the dummy? Nothing is
defined very well, but "democracy" is contrasted with
"dictatorship" in a rhetorical melodrama of ideas, in
which platitudes and half-truths mingle to encourage the
public to nod in numb assent. Bush said nothing about
weapons of mass destruction, barely mentioned terrorism
or national security, and avoided any reference to
Israel.
* * *
Good economic news: a recovery is under way. We're
told that this will boost Bush's chances for reelection.
And no doubt it will. But why is the Federal Government
-- and specifically the president -- responsible for
general prosperity? Shouldn't the market take care of
itself? Part of the Franklin Roosevelt myth is that the
New Deal ended the Depression, when in fact (as
conservatives used to agree) it aggravated and prolonged
it with its (unconstitutional) interference. Why does
everyone now assume that the state is in charge of our
economic life?
* * *
THE JESSICA LYNCH STORY, Rick Bragg's authorized
account of the ordeal of America's most famous and
beloved woman soldier, reveals that she was sexually
assaulted by her captors in Iraq. She disclaims being a
hero: "I'm just a survivor," she says modestly. Well,
thank God she did survive; but her experience vindicates
all misgivings about putting women in combat.
* * *
The elevation of the openly, actively homosexual
Gene Robinson to Episcopal bishop is tearing his church
apart. Should we be surprised? Two churches in New
Hampshire are already seeking to be transferred from
Robinson's authority to that of a New York diocese; a
Nigerian Anglican archbishop has announced that he won't
attend any future global conferences in which American
Episcopalians participate. It seems the worldwide
Anglican communion still includes many members who
openly, actively practice Christianity.
* * *
Partial-birth abortion, as it's called, is so
nakedly nasty that you marvel that anyone could defend
it: the child's brain is sucked out, its skull crushed,
on the verge of birth. Both sides agree on one thing: it
follows from the very logic of legitimating abortion. If
a mother has the moral right to have her unborn child
destroyed, she has that right from conception to the last
moment before birth. If she doesn't have the right then,
she doesn't have it at all. Give the abortion-lovers
their point: they are perfectly correct to fear that if
killing the child is banned in the ninth month, it may be
a slippery slope toward banning it at *any* moment after
conception.
* * *
The pro-war newsletter "catholic eye" features, in
its October 29 issue, insulting comments on Cardinal Pio
Laghi for reiterating the Vatican's opposition to the war
on Iraq. Since the cardinal was speaking for his boss,
shouldn't the sarcasm be directed against the old pope
himself? Come to think of it, why not rename the
newsletter "republican eye"?
Exclusive to the electronic version:
Howard Dean, seeking the Democratic nomination for
president, ran afoul of his rivals by saying in a
candidates' debate that he wants to broaden the party's
appeal to the South -- specifically, to "guys with
Confederate flags in their pickup trucks." All the other
candidates immediately agreed that it was a reprehensible
thing to say. Actually, it was the most refreshing thing
any Democrat has said in decades. If only he meant it.
* * *
Pressure from angry conservatives has caused CBS to
cancel its movie THE REAGANS, a portrait of the marriage
of Ron and Nancy. Bits of the script quoted in the press
did sound unfair to the couple, and I can't blame Mrs.
Reagan for being upset. But with a pair of sensitive
performers like James Brolin and Judy Davis in the title
roles, how bad could it be? Sometimes I wish
conservatives would keep their shirts on.
Taxation through the Ages
(pages 3-5)
I've told this story before, but I'll tell it again.
In the summer of 1965, when I'd just finished my
freshman year in college, I was reading a little book
called THE LAW -- a long pamphlet, really -- by the
nineteenth-century French legislator Frederic Bastiat,
when I was riveted by a single sentence: "Look at the
law, and see if it does for one man at the expense of
another what it would be a crime for the one to do to the
other himself."
In Bastiat's view, government, beyond the strictest
limits of justice, became "organized plunder," a device
by which "everyone seeks to enrich himself at the expense
of everyone else." In other words, government itself
tends to become the very evil it is supposed to prevent:
crime. But it confuses people because it enacts criminal
acts under the forms of law.
The simple insight rocked me. It upset my faith in
my country and its basic justice. If Bastiat was right,
the United States was already profoundly corrupt. It took
me years to come to terms with this idea. Today it seems
to me almost self-evident. I marvel that anyone with
common sense thinks otherwise.
This means, for openers, that taxation is a gigantic
system of fraud, robbery, and extortion. Most taxpayers
receive nothing to justify the amounts they are forced to
pay. Yet it's the taxpayer, not the ruler, who is treated
as a criminal suspect and required to "confess" his
earnings and holdings. The ruler isn't penalized for
anything he does to the taxpayer.
This fact makes me wildly indignant, and I'm
frustrated and baffled that so few Americans share my
feelings. We are being robbed and cheated on an
astonishing scale.
Once, during a radio interview (I've been known to
repeat this story too), I was asked, "Why don't you ever
criticize big business the way you always criticize big
government?" I answered, "I'm not forced to do business
with General Motors. If I do so voluntarily, I get a car
for my money. But I am forced to do business with the
government. Every year I'm forced to pay it roughly the
price of a new car. And I've never seen that car. Someone
else gets it."
Bastiat, a devout Catholic, reasoned about the state
from a natural law philosophy. He concluded that the
state violates the most basic principles of natural
justice. Once you start thinking that way, you can hardly
avoid thinking of politics as a largely criminal
activity.
At some level, most people know this
intuitively. I think this accounts for the huge
popular appeal of THE GODFATHER. We are all taught
that the government is there to protect us from
criminals. THE GODFATHER audaciously reverses our
civics lessons: it shows us a benign master criminal who
will protect us from the corrupt government. This is
another sentimental myth, of course -- unlike real
mafiosi, Don Corleone never extorts "taxes" from
shopkeepers in the form of protection money -- but it has
enough truth to seize our imaginations.
But the state's myth still prevails, and we submit.
Most people see nothing questionable about state
taxation, and politicians complacently assume their right
to take our wealth.
Some Oklahoma politicians, for example, are
currently in a tax-boosting mood. They want to raise
taxes of all sorts -- income taxes, sales taxes, property
taxes, excise taxes, you name it.
According to the National Taxpayers Union, the
average Oklahoman *already* pays more in taxes --
Federal, state, and local -- than for food, shelter,
clothing, and transportation *combined.* This amounts to
26.5 per cent of per capita income.
How much is enough? What is the limit? At what
point, short of taking 100 per cent of our earnings, do
our rulers feel they are taking too much from us?
The obvious answer is that they recognize no limit.
The subject never comes up. They view the taxpayer as an
inexhaustible resource.
And why shouldn't they? The sad fact is that the
American taxpayer is a remarkably passive creature. He
merely grumbles at conditions far more oppressive than
the tyranny that drove his ancestors to rebel against
British rule in 1776.
One of the chief complaints of the American colonist
was that he was taxed without his consent. Yet by today's
standards, his taxes were amazingly low. Precise figures
are hard to come by, but in 1764, for example, the
average American was taxed by the Crown at the rate of
sixpence per year. That is not a misprint. Six pennies
per year. One penny every two months. Even adjusting for
inflation, that is a pretty light tax burden. Today's
children pay more than that in sales taxes.
And the British were cautious about raising taxes.
Even a slight tax increase, as on a commodity like tea,
could bring the colonies to a boil.
The Americans knew that a principle was at stake.
Unlimited taxation could mean slavery. That is why they
tried, at every turn, to nip it in the bud.
Under slogans like "No taxation without
representation," Americans fought for independence and
established their own governments. They thought
self-government was their bulwark against tyranny and
overtaxation.
But the problem turned out to be more complex. Even
elected officials found it easy to abuse the taxing
power, and self-government could be as predatory as
foreign rule. Senator John C. Calhoun remarked that the
most surprising thing experience in government had taught
him was that it was easier to raise taxes than to cut
them.
The Lincoln administration imposed the first Federal
income tax to meet the costs of the Civil War. But again,
by our standards the rates were amazingly low: the basic
rate was 3 per cent, with a top rate of 5 per cent. Even
so, after the war the U.S. Supreme Court soon ruled that
a Federal levy on incomes was unconstitutional.
In 1913 the Federal Government surmounted this
obstacle by winning a constitutional amendment
authorizing taxes on incomes. No upper limit was set, but
most Americans were unaffected. "Incomes" were narrowly
defined; an unmarried taxpayer had to make about $50,000
(in today's money) to pay the tax at all; and the top
rate, a mere 7 per cent, reached only the very rich. It
wasn't until after World War II that most Americans paid
income taxes, but then the rates rose to their current
punishing levels. And in recent decades most states have
imposed income taxes too. Other taxes have also increased
at dizzying rates.
At nearly every step, the government has had its
way. Taxpayers have mounted only sporadic resistance, in
what are often called "tax revolts." The phrase is
significant. If our rulers are really our "servants," as
self-government implies, why are the wishes of the ruled
considered "revolts"? Can we "revolt" against our own
servants? Or have they really become our masters?
The question answers itself. We might also ask, At
what point does taxation become confiscation, theft, and
even involuntary servitude? Our rulers -- we may as well
say our masters -- never address this point. The Ruler of
the universe asks only 10 per cent of our wealth. Our
earthly rulers won't settle for such a modest share. They
consider us "greedy" for wanting to keep more of our own
money; they consider themselves "compassionate" for
wanting to take more of it -- 20 per cent, 40 per cent,
why not 80 per cent?
If the politicians had any respect for our rights,
our property, our liberty, even our dignity, they would
impose taxes only reluctantly, and they would acknowledge
some just limit. They would act as if the money they take
and spend is *our* money, to be used for the common good
of all, and not for buying the votes of special interests
and government dependents. In short, they would recognize
that taxation is a *moral* issue, not a mere political
convenience to be exercised arbitrarily and
irresponsibly.
I know of only one history of taxation, Charles
Adams's 1993 book FOR GOOD AND EVIL: THE IMPACT OF TAXES
ON THE COURSE OF CIVILIZATION. It's not a totally
satisfactory book; the writing is uneven, some of its
judgments are open to question, and the subject is far
too vast to cover in 530 pages. But it's about the only
book dealing with the topic for the general reader, and
it's full of fascinating information and anecdotes,
backed by a basic wisdom.
Adams isn't categorically against taxation. He
thinks there are "good" taxes as well as bad ones, and he
argues, for instance, that the Roman Empire fell because
it wasn't collecting taxes efficiently. He blames tax
evasion for its demise, but blames its policies for
fostering evasion.
Nevertheless, his narrative makes it hard to deny
that "organized plunder" has been the very lifeblood of
most states throughout history. In most times and places
taxation, like slavery, was simply taken for granted as
an inescapable fact of life; now and then there have been
tax revolts, just as there have been slave revolts; and
at times, especially since the Christian era, taxation
has been recognized as presenting serious moral problems.
Aside from the Roman Empire, Adams thinks states
have usually destroyed themselves through overtaxation.
Greed is almost the defining mark, not of the capitalist,
but of the state. Ingenious rulers have found a thousand
ways, from slavery to debasing money to tariffs to
exacting tribute, of appropriating others' wealth. At the
same time, they fail to foresee how their own oppression
will breed tax resistance.
Adams finds abundant records for this. In fact, many
important archeological discoveries have been of tax
inventories. The fabled Rosetta stone is essentially a
tax record. "A large percentage of all ancient documents
are tax records of one kind or another," he writes. "The
day may come when historians will recognize that tax
records tell the real story behind civilized life....
They are basic clues to the way a society behaves." After
reading his swift review of history, you can hardly doubt
it.
Taxation has always been big business, the biggest
business of government. Hebrew complaints about the
"oppression" of the Egyptian pharaohs seem to have been
chiefly about the taxes imposed on them, which often
amounted to, and were hard to separate from, slavery.
(The Egyptians were cruel taxers, even sending scribes
into every home to make sure people weren't preparing
their food with untaxed cooking oil!) Sometimes we hear
of taxation so casually that we hardly notice it, as in
the Gospel accounts of Joseph and Mary going to Bethlehem
to submit to a great Roman tax census.
As Adams sees it, history is largely the story of
men's constant efforts to get the wealth produced by
other men, with politics and the state as the main means
of acquisition. It's amazing that this ever-present
dimension has been so slighted in most history books. Men
have fought for power for many reasons, but the strongest
has always been their own enrichment. It's hardly too
much to say that the story of taxation is the story of
mankind.
Adams sees Old Testament history as the constant
struggle of the weak Jews against powerful predatory
neighbors, Egyptian, Babylonian, Persian, Assyrian,
Greek, and Roman. Losing a war, or avoiding one, meant
paying tribute. (We tend to read words like "tribute"
without grasping their concrete meaning.)
In the often deadly game of politics, tax exemptions
and immunities as well as taxes were key weapons.
Exemptions were irresistible privileges and definers of
social class; Islam owed much of its original appeal to
its offer of tax immunity to converts. This sufficed to
lure the great majority of Christians and Jews in the
Middle East, still heavily taxed by the dying Roman
Empire, to the Muslim faith. But in time, Muslim rulers,
having run out of taxable infidels, became eager taxers
of their own people, and Islam lost its zeal even in its
own domains. "Islam ceased to spread when converts were
not offered a tax break." Conversion had become a tax
"loophole" that worked only too well.
In the Middle Ages, struggles between Church and
state were usually over taxes and the authority to tax.
Stern moral limitations inhibited taxation, especially
new and "unheard of" taxes ("exactio inaudita"). Rulers
who raised taxes were widely regarded as wicked tyrants
who "incurred sin and would be punished by God." But
churchmen sometimes had greater taxing powers than
secular rulers.
Like Rome, argues Adams, the mighty Spanish Empire
finally broke down because it taxed too many too much and
was unable to enforce its demands on a resentful
population. But one of his most original chapters says
that Aztec Mexico fell to the tiny forces of Cortes
because of its own short-sighted greed in taxing its
provinces.
Adams likewise sees taxation, not chattel slavery,
as the issue that precipitated the American War Between
the States. His sharp reading of Lincoln's first
inaugural address confirms this. (He has developed the
argument further in another book.)
Only one country, as Adams tells it, has gotten it
right: Switzerland. The Swiss have kept their government
under control pretty well, in great part because they
have had the wisdom to keep the taxing power and the
spending power under separate agencies. He says this
practice also preserved English liberty for a long time,
but the vaunted American constitutional separation of
powers overlooked this crucial distinction. The U.S.
Congress taxes *and* spends. So we lack checks and
balances where we most need them. Moreover, the Swiss
federal government can't raise taxes without a popular
majority, which is usually denied. The Swiss taxpayer,
unlike the American, has learned to defend himself.
According to Adams, America's downfall may come
gradually through its failure to control and limit the
taxing power. A nominally "federal" system is in vain
when the spending and taxing powers are combined and
centralized. It's at least a provocative idea; but if his
book teaches anything, it's that Swiss wisdom isn't
contagious.
A version of this piece was presented as a
speech to the Oklahoma Council of Public
Affairs (www.ocpathink.org) in September 2003.
Sacraments and Sodomy
(page 6)
{{ 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.}}
Andrew Sullivan has established himself as the most
eloquent voice of "gay" Catholics in the American media.
He recently wrote a piece on the op-ed page of the NEW
YORK TIMES to bewail what he {{ chooses to call }} the
Church's "hostility" to homosexuals.
"How can I worship at the altar of intolerance?" he
asks. "For the first time in my own life," he goes on, "I
find myself unable to go to Mass." He insists that he is,
and will always be, a Catholic. Still, "It would be an
act of dishonesty to enable an institution that is now a
major force for the obliteration of gay lives and loves;
that covered up for so long the sexual abuse of children
but uses the word 'evil' for two gay people wanting to
commit to each other for life." He speaks of his "tears
of grief and anger," his "distress," his "anger and
hurt." "There are moments in a spiritual life," he
concludes, "when the heart simply breaks."
The immediate provocation for all this was the
expulsion of a homosexual couple from a parish choir in
the Bronx after they had gotten a civil marriage license
in Canada and announced their union in the TIMES. That
is, they had broken some long-standing rules of the
Church and had publicized the fact. So the Church, in its
intolerance and cruelty, had excluded them. "Gay people
are the last of the untouchables. We can exist in the
church only by silence, by bearing false witness to who
we are." Gay people are denied "any outlet for their
deepest emotional needs." Sullivan concedes that "this
will not change as a matter of doctrine," but that
doctrine was "never elaborated by Jesus."
How can one fail to sympathize? Sympathy is called
for. But so is reason. You must certainly pity the man
whose sexual desires doom him to a life of loneliness,
frustration, and social disapproval. This is also true of
the pedophile to whom Sullivan adroitly and tactfully
alludes (though without facing the analogy, which could
be fatal to his case).
You might even extend a bit of sympathy, if you've
any left to spare, for the Church authorities, whose
duties include enforcing ancient standards of moral
conduct, which have suddenly come under attack. These
standards apply to everyone; they aren't particularly
aimed at homosexuals. But the bishop who does apply them
to homosexuals, in today's climate, can expect to be
publicly accused of "intolerance" and "hostility," in the
pages of our newspapers, by lugubriously self-dramatizing
dissenters.
{{ Not all desires are "needs." Does a pedophile
"need" sexual relations with children? Was the woman
taken in adultery satisfying a "need"? What led or drove
her to adultery? Was her husband cruel and unfeeling? }}
Of course Jesus didn't specifically condemn sodomy.
He had no reason to. The moral standards, the ones it
still falls to Catholic bishops to preach and enforce,
were known to everyone. Sexual relations were confined to
marriage. {{ Nobody suggested it should be otherwise. }}
It was taken for granted that the sexual appetite was
unruly, but it was up to each person to practice
self-control.
What is new and insidious is the custom of
discussing people of a particular inclination as a
persecuted minority. Sullivan falls into this habit
without explaining why homosexuals should be an anomaly.
No doubt it pains him that the Church still frowns on
sodomy, but why should moral law yield to hurt feelings?
Over the centuries, Catholic moral theologians have
tried to figure out how the moral law applies to all
sorts of situations. It's not as if *only* homosexual
acts were singled out for censure, though this is just
the impression Sullivan tries to create -- or rather, he
makes it sound as if Church teaching were directed
against homosexual *persons,* which of course it never
was. Catholic doctrine, large and impersonal, was never
determined by mere "hostility." It's childish to suggest
that it was. You might as well accuse the Church of
"hostility" to masturbators.
But that, finally, is the problem with Sullivan's
argument: its utterly self-absorbed childishness. He
can't admit that a principle may be at stake; he demands
that the moral law {{ itself }} be altered to accommodate
homosexuals. The "doctrine" he objects to, he says, "was
constructed when gay people as we understand them today
were not known to exist." Actually, they *didn't* exist.
There was no such thing as a {{ vocal }} "gay community,"
and people didn't use such phrases as "multiple sexual
partners." (Imagine your grandfather referring to Grandma
as his "sexual partner"! Worse yet, imagine her
reaction.)
Sullivan doesn't quite demand that the Church
recognize "gay marriage," but he clearly resents its
strong opposition to it. But again he fails to say what
social end, besides sparing homosexuals' hurt feelings,
would be served by blessing such unions, which, in the
nature of things, aren't really marriages at all. As
Lincoln is said to have asked, how many legs does a dog
have if you count its tail as a leg? Four -- because
calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.
If Sullivan is really as attached to the Church as
he says he is, he might reflect that one reason for its
hold on him, and millions of others, is precisely that it
refuses to follow the absurdities of fashion. It claims
no *authority* to call a tail a leg. To do so would be,
in fact, an act of the very arbitrary authority he
accuses it of exercising now.
NUGGETS
SHARED PRINCIPLES: Urged on by President Bush,
Republicans in Congress have cut a deal with the
Democrats on prescription drugs for seniors that would be
the biggest expansion of Medicare, ever. "We have come to
an agreement on principles," says Senate majority leader
Bill Frist of Tennessee. Exactly. (page 5)
SILVER LINING: Let's not lose our perspective when
Federal spending, deficits, and the total debt are
reckoned in trillions of dollars. Trillions may sound
like a lot, but at least we aren't talking about *real*
dollars. (page 8)
GIFT IDEA: The Massachusetts court's ruling in favor of
same-sex matrimony has inspired dire predictions from
conservatives. Here's mine: henceforth gerbils will be
offered as wedding presents. (page 9)
WHODUNIT? JFK's murder is still, in the opinion of
millions, unsolved. For me the key fact is that Lee
Harvey Oswald didn't flatly deny all involvement in the
crime; he called himself a "patsy," suggesting that he
knew he'd been used. (page 11)
Exclusive to the electronic version:
RETROSPECT: It's now 40 years since John Kennedy's
assassination! The JFK mystique remains amazing. Popular
polls still rank him a "great" president, despite his
short and undistinguished tenure. Me, I'll go so far as
to rank him the least obnoxious of the Kennedy brothers.
UNLIKELY LIBERALS: Four former heads of Shin Bet, the
Israeli security forces, have denounced the hard-line
tactics of Prime Minister Ariel Sharon against the
Palestinians, which they call futile, immoral, and
dangerous to Israel itself. Having had to do Sharon's
dirty work, they agree that it's failed even on its own
terms.
JUDICIAL REVOLT: The supreme court of Massachusetts has
ruled that the state legislature must revise the legal
code to certify same-sex unions as marriages. A lawyer
for the victors calls the decision "common sense." I
guess it is, in Massachusetts. Unless, that is, the
lawmakers can finally summon the nerve to do a bit of
impeaching.
JUDICIOUS REVIEWS: The NEW YORK POST has published the
reactions of five viewers to an advance screening of THE
PASSION. Four of the five -- two Jews (one a rabbi), two
Catholics (one a priest) -- found it anti-Semitic. The
fifth, a young black woman (presumably Protestant), found
it fair and said it had "an incredible impact" on her.
REPRINTED COLUMNS
(pages 7-12)
* Limbaugh the Lawbreaker (October 14, 2003)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/031014.shtml
* "Compassion" and Talk Radio (October 16, 2003)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/031016.shtml
* Clarifying Premises (October 21, 2003)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/031021.shtml
* Airbrushing History? (October 23, 2003)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/031023.shtml
* Lansky's Complaint October 28, 2003)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/031028.shtml
* Implied or Usurped? (October 30, 2003)
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/031030.shtml
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
All articles are written by Joe Sobran
You may forward this newsletter if you include the
following subscription and copyright information:
Subscribe to the Sobran E-Package.
See http://www.sobran.com/e-mail.shtml
or http://www.griffnews.com for details and samples
or call 800-513-5053.
Copyright (c) 2003 by The Vere Company -- www.sobran.com.
All rights reserved.
Distributed by the Griffin Internet Syndicate
www.griffnews.com with permission.
[ENDS]