More great words from Joe Sobran.

The Monolithic State of America
by Joseph Sobran
Many of my favorite books are books that shook me up, even angered me, when I first read them. One of these is The Present Age, by the late Robert Nisbet.

I knew Bob Nisbet slightly, and he was kind to me, especially considering what a young fool I was. He had the wisdom to know that a young fool can often be transformed by time alone. Or, as the poet William Blake put it, “If the fool would persist in his folly, he would become wise.”

Nisbet, a distinguished sociologist and conservative philosopher, published The Present Age in 1988. Though he hated Communism, he harbored a profound skepticism about the Cold War. In 1988 I still didn’t see how a man could hold both attitudes at the same time. Yet I respected Bob Nisbet enough to listen when he said things I didn’t want to hear.

Chief among those things was this: If the Founders of the American Republic could come back today, they would be most astounded, among all the vast changes that time has wrought, by the militarization of the United States. Since World War I, this country has been totally transformed by war and constant preparation for war.

American militarism has been the chief force in changing a decentralized federal republic into a centralized, bureaucratic monolith. During World War I the United States underwent an amazingly swift metamorphosis. World War II accelerated the alteration.  The Cold War completed the transformation from isolated republic to global empire. We became inured to limitless government in the name of “defense” and “national security.”

Nisbet didn’t live to see it, but the new “war on terrorism” has, in just a few weeks, further compounded the constitutional evolution he warned against. The shock of September 11 has disposed countless Americans to accept, without demurral or reservation, the claim of new powers by the Federal Government – particularly by the executive branch.

But this disposition was made possible by a new tradition of equating patriotism with militarism, and militarism with “defense.” Most of us no longer recognize the new tradition as a break with our original tradition.  So we beg the Federal Government to protect us from terrorism, even if that means letting it usurp powers never assigned or allowed to it.

page 1

Page 2

Instead of asking ourselves the pragmatic question, “How can we defeat terrorism?” we should be asking ourselves the more basic question, “Is this the kind of situation we should let ourselves be maneuvered into?” How did a country that was once determined to remain aloof from the endless conflicts of the Old World manage to get itself embroiled in, of all things, the medieval Crusades?

But the original Crusaders were at least fighting for something defined and definite: the Cross of Christ.  They agreed that Christianity was right and Islam wrong.

President Bush would never say such an atavistic thing.  He insists (in effect) that we are fighting for Islam itself, because terrorism is a “perversion” of “true” Islam, which is a “religion of peace.” In other words, this is a war for liberalism and tolerance, which Mr.  Bush equates with “true” Islam.

Such nonsense is too much for the distinguished Zionist scholar of Islam Daniel Pipes, who reasonably asks by what authority a Texan Methodist can decide what is orthodox or heretical for Islam. In a purely secular sense, Islam is as Islam does.

It’s no concern of mine, in other words, whether Osama bin Laden speaks with the voice of authentic Islam (whatever that may be) or as a crank who happens to have a lot of followers who have the means and determination to kill people I love. Either way, I want him stopped.  The sooner the better.

But – and here’s the rub – stopping him may also create more like him. No doubt the U.S. military campaign will deter countless people from trying to emulate him, but it will also have the opposite effect on a few. And a few terrorists or guerrillas are enough to make a lot of trouble, as we have already seen.

The state of Israel has been cracking down on terrorism, hard, for thirty years. Has it worked? The problem is worse than ever. And that’s what we can expect over the next few decades if our own government follows Israel’s example. If we persist in our folly, will we become wise?

December 12, 2001

Joe Sobran is a nationally syndicated columnist. He also edits SOBRAN'S, a monthly newsletter of his essays and columns.
Copyright (c) 2001 by Griffin Internet Syndicate. All rights reserved.

Ending a sentence with a preposition is wrong?

Review this:

Consider the plight of yet another grammar hammering: "one must never end a sentence with a preposition." Again, this is a preposterous rule based on the Latin system. In Latin, the arrangement almost never occurs that a sentence ends with a preposition. It must be reiterated that English is a wholly different language with different and diverse demands from Latin. Sentences frequently end with prepositions in English, quite naturally. The simple fact is that to avoid a construction such as "I think it's the baking industry in particular that he's mad at," because it ends in a preposition, leads a frustrated speaker or writer to abandon this perfectly natural and understandable syntax in favor of periphrasis to work around the preposition, making a stilted and affected construction: "I think its the baking industry in particular at which he is mad." [b]This frustration gave rise to what is perhaps the most famous quote about grammar from all time, Winston Churchill's comment to his speech writer that the aggravating rule "[u]is the sort of bloody nonsense up with which I will not put[/u]."[/b] Descriptivists have hoped that Churchill's dismissive statement sounded the death knell for the silly rule. Unfortunately, it is still regarded as gospel of junior high school grammar. H.W. Fowler observed that the preposition rule is "a cherished superstition in spite of the incurable English instinct for putting [prepositions] late...an important element in the flexibility of the language." The Morrises paneled this usage and received such responses as:

"There is often no substitute for a preposition to end a sentence with."

Eric The(WhereIsThe'GrammarNazi'WhenYouNeedHim?)Hun[>]:)]

The Beat Goes On (By Idunnowho)



Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain
La-dee-da-dee-dee
La-dee-da-dee-da



Wait till you have reached the age
Blah blah
History has turned the page
Blah blah


We still want to hear a brand new thing
Uh huh
We still need a song to sing
Uh huh


And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on


Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain
La-dee-da-dee-dee
La-dee-da-dee-da


Love is a thirsting, lasting on my mind
From tomorrow until the end of time


And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on


And the beat goes


And the beat goes


And the beat goes on


Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain
La-dee-da-dee-dee
La-dee-da-dee-da


We still move to a rhythm just like this
We still dream of sharing our first kiss


And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on


Drums keep pounding rhythm to the brain
La-dee-da-dee-dee
La-dee-da-dee-da


Well our kids are turning faster everyday (everyday)
We still want to dance the night away


And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on
And the beat goes on...


(fade)

SHAME ON YOU, ETH!!!!!!!!!!!

There is ALWAYS another option for the Cardinal Sin of prepositionally ending a sentence.

"The devil made me end my sentence with a preposition."

Bull puckey.

This country is going to Helveltia in a handcart!!!!! Next you'll be spewing that double negatives are acceptable. And misplaced modifiers. Dangling participles and subject-verb disagreement.

"I think he's mad at the baking industry"  

"I will not put up with this sort of nonsense."

These seem like the simplest, most direct ways of rephrasing the above quotes.  

Back to the subject at hand, Sobran makes quite a few leaps of logic.  Especially when he says Isreal is cracking down on terrorism.  If they had 1. killed Arafat 20 years ago, and every terrorist leader since, 2. not given back the strip, heights and West Bank, 3.  shipped the "palestinians" off to their original nations, then I might agree with him.

TYPICAL LIBERAL BULLSHIT is TYPICAL LIBERAL BULLSHIT - asking questions, putting forth scenarios and providing "NO" ANSWERS.

What if 200 million American bought a "Tali-Whacker" from Tromix and flew first class to the Afghan how many Tali's could we whack ??

(See I too know how to be an idiot.)

How many tally whackers could a tally whacker whack if a talley whacker could whack tallys?