Joseph Sobran, R.I.P.
We are sad to announce that Joe Sobran has passed away. In the comments attached to this post you will find some brief remembrances of our friend and colleague from the editors of, and contributors to, Chronicles. Grant to your servant, O Lord, blessed repose and eternal memory.
—The Editors
102 Responses »
Trackbacks
- More on Sobran « James’ Ramblings
- Criticism of The American Conservative’s Handling of Joseph Sobran’s Death | Conservative Heritage Times
- Sobran Roundup | Conservative Heritage Times
- Daily Reading (and open thread) | Conservative Heritage Times
Entries(RSS)
Wasting a half hour on the internet, I have looked at some of the obituaries posted online. The New York Times obit should be read by every writer who wants to learn the old Pravda style. Before putting any facts on the table, the writer conveyed the paper's judgment: Joe was created by Bill Buckley who quite properly repudiated him for his anti-Semitism. Then we get a few facts, some tepid compliments on his style, and a big finish on Joe's marital difficulties. The writer on the American Conservative goes the Times on better. Admitting he did not know Joe at all, Mr. Dougherty goes on, in the midst of a good deal of gush, to hint at his Olympian disdain for Joe's more eccentric views, as if anyone in the world cared a straw about anything Brendan Michael Doughterty would think about anything. This is the same BMD who damned the late Sam Francis with a similar faint praise. That performance was especially galling, since I had believed his dishonest reassurances that he would not do go after Sam on the race issue and, with several of Sam's friends, I vouched for the writer's bona fides, which proved to be very much mala fides. Knowing Dougherty is out there waiting to urinate on their graves, conservative writers would do well to lose weight, quit smoking, and lay off the double Martinis. (Note to self, lose weight, quit smoking, and lay off the double Martinis.)
I often disagreed with Joe on everything under the sun, from Shakespeare to political theory. He was a man worth disagreeing with. Second only to the late Mel Bradford, Joe was also a man without guile or malice. Far from hating his enemies, he reveled in them. It was only the treachery of his friends that got him down. He was a great speechifier, and he could, with a small handful of note cards, make an audience laugh, then weep, then actually think. For speakers, he was a terrible act to follow or precede. I once did a terrible thing. I made him match me drink for drink during dinner until he could barely stand, much less perform. Even operating on 2 or 3 cylinders, though, he still got a standing ovation. Nobody had a readier wit or a better gift for the one-liner, but his jokes were not, typically, mere jokes, but paradoxes that opened the listener's mind to a deeper mystery.
But Joe's greatest strength was not his gift for language but his warmth of heart. I cannot imagine how any honest person who had ever met him for a moment could mistake his criticisms of Israel or the Jewish lobby for bigotry or hatred. He was the kindest of men, wildly, imprudently, foolishly kind, and that is what makes those who attacking him--or him damning with faint praise--so contemptible.
Thomas Fleming,
Will the next Chronicles have a Joe tribute cover, much like Francis got?
The recollections and comments above -- esp. those of Thomas Fleming and Scott Richert -- are worth more than the official obituaries.
I shall miss Joseph Sobran's style, insight and courage.
I have to agree with Dr, Fleming about the obituaries at the New York Times. I thought that because they hadn't called him another Hitler that it was a fair obit. I reread it and saw all the points Dr. Fleming was talking about. The obit in the American Conservative is disgraceful. I wrote that it was disgraceful on their webbsite. I also wrote that I was a long time subscriber and tore them apart. I must have been good. They removed it from the site.
American Conservative (sic) is itself disgraceful. Aside from one or two decent writers, it is indistinguishable from any other vulgar libertarian rag.
Does anyone know details of his funeral? Where was it held, who officiated, and where is he buried?
Coming late to the readership, I regret never having read a book by Mel Bradford or Sam Francis while they lived. Didn't even finish I'll Take My Stand till circa 2005, and I knew Andrew Lytle personally, and he died ten years prior. Very late, indeed. And I'm late to appreciating Sobran.
Thankfully, I'm well up on Wilson and pretty good on Livingston, and almost complete with Fleming. But alas, I started on Dr. Johnson the year after his Terecentenary, of which I was ignorant at the time. But this coming Nov. 9, 2010, is Margaret Mitchell's 110th birthday, and it won't go unmarked around here.
Where is Mel Bradford buried? Tate and Lytle are in Sewanee, Tenn., Davidson is in Catholic cemetery next to Mt. Olivet in Nashville, Wade is in Methodist cemetery in Marshalville, Ga. Weaver is in Weaverville, NC, of course. Walter Lynwood Fleming, to whom ITMS was dedicated, is in Mt. Olivet.
Peter Taylor was in Sewanee until someone dug him up and remove him to an unknown elsewhere. Anyone know where?
Speaking of reaching a moment of mortal peril, I just learned today for the first time that the 1928 Common Book of Prayer allows for a laymen to baptize another person. If I come upon an unbaptized dying soul, I can perform the baptism, but then I'm required to notify the parish to make it real.
Does the Roman Church or Greek Orthodox have this provision?
Daniel Maxwell writes: "American Conservative (sic) is itself disgraceful. Aside from one or two decent writers, it is indistinguishable from any other vulgar libertarian rag."
Scott McConnell is especially revolting.
Didn't one of the Chronicles writers a few years back make fun of Sobran for his belief that the Earl of Oxford was the real Shakespeare? I think it was online here. It was a disrespectful piece, a straw man with bad analogies that reminded me of the hatchet jobs on Sobran elsewhere for his views on Israel and related subjects.
Joe Sobran will be missed. The man truly was an American treasure.
The worst obit to date, far more objectionable than even the NYT's effort, has been the notice which The Washington Post ran. It abounded in such gems of insight - not to mention grammar - as: "He [Mr. Sobran] praised an unabashedly racist publications [sic]."
What can one say? In the first place, there was only one "unabashedly racist publications" being referred to - namely the long-defunct Instauration - and in the second place, Joe Sobran's "praise" of it was what you and I would call censure, save for his rather grudging admission that he thought the magazine to be "often brilliant." Particularly irksome to Joe (a veteran pro-lifer if ever one existed) was the discovery that Instauration "favors abortion as a way of controlling the black population."
I wrote a letter to the WaPo editor about these misrepresentations. Alas, I don't suppose that my protest will be published.
It is impossible for me to read anything Joe Sobran wrote and then say that he hated Jews. Only the opposite, and just the opposite.
Particularly when you read this little statement by Sobran: "It was once anti-Semitic to suggest that American Jews shared their loyalties, that they were split between America and Israel." He then added that nobody ever called American politicians anti-Semitic for thinking that American Jews would support the government just because they supported Israel.
It was still not understood by NYT, WP, and the rest that there is a difference between criticising Jews in general and criticising foreign policy. The former, he never ever did.
The most critical thing he said about some Jewish people was, "Bah! Dual loyalties would be an improvement!", suggesting that not much loyalty was seen from them towards either nation.
For those who are interested, Dr. David Allen White wrote a small piece for the Catholic Family News regarding his visit with Joseph Sobran shortly before Mr. Sobran died. Dr. White and Mr. Sobran had never met before and had strongly opposing views on Shakespeare's origins, but both admired Shakespeare's writings and both are Catholic gentlemen. Joseph Sobran received extreme unction from my parish priest, Father Ronald Ringrose on Thursday, September 23.
"Joseph Sobran received extreme unction from my parish priest, Father Ronald Ringrose on Thursday, September 23"
God Bless Father Ringrose. He baptized my oldest son in one of the catacombs under Washington D.C. some 23 years ago. That was back when folks would stay up all night argueing the ancient rite had been abrogated and poor Father Ringrose and his little band were exposing themselves to eternal fire for keeping the faith. It's fitting that two men who spent their adult lives keeping the crowd at the front door would say their prayers together before the one was leaving through the backdoor.
I learned a great deal not only about the topics addressed but about writing itself by reading Mr. Sobran's clearly and succinctly written works. I was glad to have met him once at a meeting of the JRC and found him to be a gracious man. He will be missed. May his soul rest in peace.
"I have learned one simple truth in my long life: the more we give thanks, the happier we are. We can never fully repay all those we are indebted to, but we can acknowledge what we owe them."
Joseph Sobran wrote this in a column entitled "Debts," which can be read at:
http://www.sobran.com/columns/2008/080228.shtml
I first read this column in the cafeteria of the Ukrainian Catholic University in the city of Lviv on a dank afternoon in February 2008. But it was cheery inside, eating a hearty Ukrainian lunch while reading another eagerly anticipated column by a man I had the pleasure to meet several times and, quite memorably, dine with once at my invitation for Sunday brunch in Washington, DC.*
To concur with previous posters, he wore the suit of the Christian gentleman with lightness and grace. Maybe the actual suit he wore was a little disheveled and worn, but in addition to the cane [was it merely for effect?] and slender cigar, it gave him the look of an aristocrat who lost his estate but not his dignity.
My only regret relating to Mr. Sobran is that I did not perform immediately the duty this one column inspired: thanking him for the small but significant debt I owed him. He expressed reasonable words with conviction and consummate style, whether being deadly serious or devastatingly funny. He was a joy to read. Most importantly, he made me think and inspired me to discover other writers, forever alive in the timeless library of truth-tellers.
Having faith in the communion of saints, I take some consolation in knowing he now recognizes my gratitude. Better late than never, perhaps, but not nearly as satisfying for either party as repaying debts of gratitude this side of the pearly gates. I pray this lesson will not be forgotten with other men, yet living, who have influenced my life with wisdom expressed in love.
* The incident was briefly recounted in a Letter from Washington that ran in Chronicles in fall 2003. If we hadn't had so much champagne --- my young friends and I, not Mr. Sobran --- we might have taken him up on his offer of going on pilgrimage to Hyde Park to render appropriate homage to the memory of FDR. "Who wants to go up there with me and piss on his grave?" he asked. (The offer was in response to an anecdote told about FDR, Stalin, and Churchill: At a banquet in Tehran, Stalin toasted the Soviets' execution of 10,000 captured German officers. Churchill expressed disgust. FDR affably asked him to raise the toast again.) Whether he was serious or not, I'll never know. So I guess I have two regrets relating to Joseph Sobran.
The death of Joe Sobran was very upsetting. I had no idea he was even sick and wondered why he wasn't writing much. At first his writings were sorely missed but as time went by there would be other authors catching my fancy - but none like Mr. Sobran. He had a beautiful flair for writing that will be missed and such honesty and just goodness in his work. I love you Joe and can't stop crying because we've lost such a faithful soldier in Christ.
In mild defense of TAC, the initial notification of Sobran’s passing was made by Daniel McCarthy and was short but respectful and entirely unobjectionable. Daniel Larison also made a brief mention of it on his separate blog. Again this post was respectful and entirely unobjectionable. People seem to be assuming that Michael Brendan Dougherty’s post was assigned and somehow more closely represents the official view of TAC if there even is such a thing. Do we know this to be true? Sean would know better than me, but do posts there have to be approved or can anyone with posting privileges post whatever they want? How do we know MBD wasn’t just posting his own thoughts? The most damning thing to me is that Scott McConnell posted “Very gracefully done, Michael” which could be seen as an endorsement of the views expressed in the post even if the obit wasn’t technically assigned to MBD. (The issue is that many people don’t believe it was “gracefully’ done.) But I think we should be careful about criticizing TAC as a whole re. the “Sobran issue” instead of MDB individually? I’m not necessarily a TAC apologist, but I do think that some people who are not favorably inclined toward TAC to begin with are simply seeing proof that reaffirms what they already believe.
This reader and admirer of Sobran didn't find Dougherty's appreciation of him to be at all graceless or hostile. To hear the reaction here, one would think that most of commenters read an entirely different piece.
In summary, this is what I read: Dougherty expressed admiration (yea, even awe) over the courage and talent of the deceased, reminisced about the joy those qualities brought to him as a reader, and remarked about why certain roughnesses in tone ought not diminish the great adulation he is properly owed. If that's a hit piece, then I'm missing something.
Whaddaya know? A D.C. friend told me this morning, via e-mail, that my letter defending JS from the charge of "racism" was actually published in The Washington Post. At least, in its print version; I see no indication of the letter having been included on the newspaper's website, which is devoted to subjects much more important than a mere nobody like JS. These subjects include - it will gladden your patriotic Chronicles-reading hearts to learn - the need, or ostensible need, to purge Rutgers of "homophobia".
Rob Stove's letter has apparently angered some of the more responsible people on the racialist right, though I do not know quite why. I would say that it is a mistake, almost always, to defend one's self or one's friends from such charges in a hostile and dishonest place like the Washington Post, because what they regard as racism is what any sensible human being regards as a normal human preference for one's own and a rejection of policies that punish our people in order to benefit someone else's. I do not mean this as a criticism of RJS's letter, which was honest and well-intentioned.
A note to Mr. Dougherty, whose message I erased without listening to it. If he has anything to say in defense of his disgraceful conduct, as regards Sam Francis and Joe Sobran, let him say it in public. Private confessions and justifications are an exercise in feeling good. For writers--and aspiring writers--the published word is all that counts. I would have him recall the fable of the bat, who, in the war between the birds and the beasts, tried to play both sides and found itself relegated to the nocturnal world. At least the bat did not pretend to be a beast, while undermining their cause by slandering them to the birds. George Canning, poet and statesman, said it best:
Give me the avowed, the erect, and manly foe,
Bold I can meet, perhaps may turn the blow;
But of all plagues, good Heaven, thy wrath can send,
Save, save, oh save me from the candid friend!
John F. McManus on the passing of Joe Sobran: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/culture/biography/4762-the-passing-of-joseph-sobran
Our point here is not to criticize TAC, which from time to time has published good writers and good articles, though it is also true that the editors of TAC censored the work of its founders, Taki and Pat Buchanan, and banned the writings of Joe Sobran. What is objectionable is that TAC permitted a self-serving and duplicitous nonentity like Dougherty, already infamous for his hatchet-in-the back article against the late Sam Francis, to promote himself, once again, by presuming to pass judgment on a man whose shoes he is not fit to spit-shine. Now is the time to mourn, not to criticize, and if any criticism is to be made, it should be uttered by people who knew Joe and was privy to the facts. Joe had his faults and as someone who begged, pleaded, and chided him for having anything to do with IHR, I might justifiably discuss this at some later date. I might also add that while I might take issue with the timing of James Antle's obits, my high regard for the ability and integrity of this young writer eliminates the possibility of resentment. He is no jackal and that is more than can be said of other writers who are trying to launch a career from the top of Joe's not-yet-erected headstone.
red phillips #67 writes
"I’m not necessarily a TAC apologist, but I do think that some people who are not favorably inclined toward TAC to begin with are simply seeing proof that reaffirms what they already believe."
Red,
You are an honest man. You have described my position accurately when you note.
"not favorably inclined toward TAC to begin with (and) simply seeing proof that reaffirms what they already believe."
It is so important to get things right in the beginning before they fall apart in the end. TAC is a little like the old National Review was when I was a kid, ---- that is before both the magazine and my own miserable "self" went weak in the knees and bad in the teeth!! It is very clever and cunning but in the end, not very serious in the way Joe Sobran was serious. That is all I meant to insinuate.
In # 52 Dr. Fleming wrote, “I cannot imagine how any honest person who had ever met him [Joseph Sobran] for a moment could mistake his criticisms of Israel or the Jewish lobby for bigotry or hatred.” Even without having met Mr. Sobran I don’t see how anyone who carefully read his articles regarding Israel and its lobby could honestly accuse him of bigotry or hatred.
I’ve been going through his newsletters the past couple of days. In the February, 2004 issue of Sobran’s, Mr. Sobran wrote on page 8, “Granted, the state of Israel boasts a high concentration of annoying people. But we don’t have to look far for worse examples of bloody ethnocentrism.” Mr. Sobran then refers to murderous imperialist repression by Americans, Europeans, Mongols, Arabs and Japanese, and he continues, “you really can’t blame the Zionists too much for feeling that the rules have been rather abruptly changed on them. Not long ago, the United States and European countries were freely practicing the kind of nationalism, racialism, and imperialism (and there are suspicions that they haven’t entirely stopped) for which Israel is now being censured. Have we forgotten already? By all means, let’s criticize Israel. But raw vilification isn’t criticism. Criticism is reasoned and measured. It is leery of emotionalism, hyperbole, and wild metaphor. Its essence is comparison and proportion ... If you found yourself wearing a uniform and shooting little Jewish boys, I trust you’d ask yourself, ‘Wait a minute! How did it come to this?’ Well, some Israeli soldiers are asking themselves the same question. Fate has put them in a position of shooting little Arab boys, and they are recoiling from their assigned role. Every soul comes at last to the moment when it must retrace its steps. At that moment we owe it encouragement, not condemnation.”
I hope it's not redundant to post a link here to Scott Richert's fine column on Joe Sobran--
http://catholicism.about.com/b/2010/10/04/joseph-sobran-r-i-p.htm?nl=1
I have often wished we might have published Sobran, and struggled over it, but always came back to thought the IHR appearance made him toxic for a magazine that had any hope of influencing the national debate about things we cared about. What he said there was wretched, of course, and inevitably what he said would been drenched all over TAC, and not to the magazine's benefit. Like Tom Fleming, I pleaded with Joe not to go the IHR, and will never forget the phone conversation as long as I live.
And not that it matters greatly but Pat Buchanan, Taki, and I were all founders of TAC, and it wouldn't have come into existence without any one of us. (One simple reason being that Taki and Pat didn't know one another. . .I brought them together.) And as I said on the TAC website, I thought Michael's piece did a fine job of pulling together the varied and conflicting thoughts many of us had about Sobran.
Scott, I must respectfully disagree. I did not mention you as one of the founders because I did not wish to implicate you in the decision to censor the others. As for Dougherty's second back-handed obituary, enough has been said already. It does not matter what he thinks about Joe or Sam Francis, men he did not know and quite clearly did not understand. There will be a time for some reevaluation in the future. Dougherty wrote his piece before poor Joe had even been laid in his grave. When I read the article he wrote about Sam Francis--so different from the article he said he was going to write--I washed my hands of the young man. After reading this latest piece--and the self-justifying nonsense he has pestered me with, I feel I need to take a bath. I hope you will not take this the wrong way, Scott, but I think you may be too decent a person to understand these young conservatives on the make.
On a brighter note, why not join us in Charleston for the JRC? I know you will find many friends and well-wishers.
The discussion of Joe Sobran (here and elsewhere) has focused on his "ethnic" beliefs, about which there is extensive disagreement. As a proxy for the reliability of Sobran's way of thinking, it would be useful to look at his Shakespeare book, and there are very good reasons to think that he got it right in that book. Why everyone ignores this is beyond me--Sobran was capable of thinking outside the box, but few of his admirers, and fewer of his critics, seem to have the same ability. The adulation of "the Stratford man" does not seem quite rational,given the prima facie strong evidence for the Earl of Oxford's authorship, yet it is an overwhelmingly unquestioned orthodoxy. Sobran must have hoped that his very impressive book would make him some serious and much-needed money, but he underestimated the severity of the dogmatism about Shakespeare and his "humble" origins.
Alas, I haven't seen a copy of the Washington Post edition which apparently contains my letter. So I'm uncertain of why it could have upset readers (whether the "racialist right" mentioned by Dr. Fleming, or anyone else), except perhaps the obituarist about whose unprofessional prose I complained. (My complaint was made at the immediate suggestion of Joe Sobran's tireless publisher Fran Griffin, but I reckon I would have lodged it in any event.)
Still no sign of the letter on the newspaper's web page. Anyone who would like to send me a copy of the printed version - and of whatever written controversy it has generated - is extremely welcome to do so, and I will reimburse him or her for whatever postal and/or scanning costs are involved. I am reachable via my own website, http://www.rjstove.com, or via my snail-mail address (P.O. Box 61, Gardenvale 3186, Victoria, Australia). Until such time as I can see what appeared in print under my name, I am still in the dark.
I just read an obituary of Joe written by Ann Coulter on her webbsite. I think it was pretty good. I would like some other opinions.
Well, I can't speak for others but I liked Ann Coulter's obit a lot. It was news to be, until I read Miss Coulter's article, that the quintessential New York Times headline "New York Destroyed by Earthquake: Women and Minorities Hit Hardest" was in fact a Sobranism.
I have read Ann Coulter's obituary of Joseph Sobran and agree that it is a kindly tribute.
Ann Coulter's piece is a wonderful eulogy that will be widely distributed (it's her syndicated column), and it was clearly written without any concern for covering her ass and maintaining her viability. It struck exactly the right note.
Other conservative writers could learn from her, as she learned from Joe.
"without any concern for covering her a.."
Scott,
Just from looking at her web page, I would think leaving that part of her anatomy uncovered is part of her persona and advertising budget but I agree her tribute to Joe Sobran expressed honest admiration for a man who was "neither an angel or a beast."
Coulter's piece was very nice. Contrary to what is believed here, the chief concern in voicing some mild criticism of Sobran is to prevent others from writing the least charitable account in response, not to cover one's ass. It is to give credibility to your praise, not to appease the haters.
A piece that glosses over these things will invite much harsher criticism from people much less sympathetic to the recently departed.
May Joe Sobran rest in peace.
Ann Coulter's column on Joseph Sobran was the best article she has written in years.
Michael, Michael, Michael..
I would prefer you cover your as... and be done with it! You can't play poker, smoke cigars and drink whiskey with grown men if you are a four flusher -- four hearts and a diamond (remember only five of a kind makes a flush) thrown down quickly while reaching for the whole pot.
Now run along and play.
MBD, wouldn't it be better to fight that perceived need than to concede to it? Someone has to break the cycle.
Mr. Dougherty, in some sense, I empathize with your rhetorical reasoning, as I too was raised in the culture gushing with "shame on me". However, there is something more sinister there I hope you will see. I had a friend of mine die in a car accident just a couple weeks before we were to drive to Colorado and climb a mountain. I was shocked as news spread how acquaintances would reflexively respond, "Was he wearing his seatbelt?" "Had he been drinking?" Even had I know any of those details, I would not have provided an answer to satisfy their pornographic curiosity, as if they were asking about a movie.
Thank you to all who have provided so many wonderful stories about Mr. Sobran. May he rest in peace and may his family and close friends find some comfort through their grief and fond memories.
Red,
Well, that may be for some. But I was not a friend of Sobran's, and honestly do think he said things that were wrong. He was a public person. He put his writing out for scrutiny. If he had said the same things about Kulaks, and spoke to a group that denied their massacre, we'd have to regretfully deal with that as well. I wanted to praise Sobran, but still look at Jewish colleagues in the face.
I only regret that my warm reflections and honest assessment-shared by some of my own critics- has been the occasion of such rancor. I wrote about sadness and regret at his passing. Close friends of Joe Sobran have communicated their appreciation to TACs editors. Sobran skeptics have told me they'd look into, at least, his earlier work. My thoughts were neither commissioned by TAC, and they won't ingratiate me with Sobran's enemies. It is a fantasy to imagine otherwise.
I thank the editors of Chronicles, with whom I apparently have personal differences, for allowing me to answer their criticisms, here at least. And I thank Matt for receiving my little remembrance exactly as I intended. This will be my final word on it. Neither my thread, nor this one should be about me or my career.
How can there be personal differences when we do not recall having met Mr. Dougherty? What little I know of the fellow comes from his nasty obits on Sam Francis and Joe Sobran. Yesterday's spate of emails from him, first wheedling then threatening, have convinced me that I know more than I wish to know. Go away, Mr. Dougherty. Your inflated views of the help or harm you can do to a dead man's reputation interest no one but yourself. When you grow up sufficiently to ask pardon for your misbehavior, then it MAY be time to hear further from you. Otherwise, I recommend the policy of Apollonius of Tyana, which is a polite way of saying, quit your blubbering and be quiet.
We have lost a wonderful and honest writer, an astute political analyst and a great wit.
We are left with the remainder, folks like Michael Brendan Daugherty. Ask not for whom the bell tolls, gentlemen.
Rest peacefully Joe. I never met you in this life, but I hope to meet you in the next. May God Bless and Receive you, brother.
I seldom read Sobran outside of Chronicles articles--the frequency with which I have followed writers in non-academic periodicals has diminished greatly over the past five years. That is not to say they are not worth one's time; simply that my interests and distribution of time have shifted.
However, I will say this: I first heard of Joe Sobran in the infamous puff-piece on "Unpatriotic Conservatives" and when I finally got around to reading an actual Sobran column I was shocked that anyone could think to paint this man so disdainfully. WHAT hatred?? It surprises me not in the least to hear his friends and associates speak of his warmth and gentleness; they were well reflected in his writing.
Lux æterna luceat eis, Domine, cum sanctis tuis in æternum, quia pius es. Requiem æternam dona eis, Domine.
(May eternal light shine upon them, O Lord, in the midst of all Thy Saints, for Thou art merciful. Eternal rest grant unto them, O Lord.")
I've enjoyed Joe's writings for 25 years and always wanted to meet him. I requested him to speak at my small company party one year and he willingly and humbly accepted, but regretfully I was unable to follow up. I ask my children what they would do if they knew something to be right when every other person thinks it to be wrong, and if that would bother them, or cause them to change their position. Gladly, I am of the Sobran spirit in standing confidently in my beliefs and so shall be my children. Though I lost a brother, there seem to be a lot of brothers here paying tribute, and that's a tribute in itself. God bless Joe.
I haven't seen or heard anything from Pat Buchanan on Sobran's passing. Anyone know of of one?
Joseph hooked me in when he called mohammedans "unitarians with camels." I met him on several occasions and always enjoyed his company, he praised me for publishing conservative bumper stickers. May his memory be eternal! Rest in peace Joe.
I did not know Mr. Sobran. However, I was able to thank him, by way of an e-mail a couple of years ago, for his beneficial influence on my attitudes and way of thinking. I received a humble and gracious reply in return. A decade or so ago, when I was growing up a little and growing out of a naive leftism, I looked forward to each new column posted on his website, sharing many of them with friends and family. Joe Sobran the writer (the only Joe Sobran I knew) was good-natured, reasonable, and not in the least an ideologue. I will miss him.
I'm sorry for your loss, Dr. Fleming, Mr. Richert and Mr. Wolf (and any others here who knew him). It hurts, losing a friend.
Rest in peace, Mr. Sobran.
I only knew him through his writings, which were permeated with style, wit and insight. As others have noted, he had what Solzhenitsyn said Western leaders lack most, courage. A great man is gone.