Ed Hudgins

Hudgins on CSPAN-2 with Tax Day Statement Dr. Edward Hudgins, the executive director of The Atlas Society, will participate in a press conference on Monday, April 16, 2007 at the National Press Club to mark Tax Day 2007. CSPAN-2 plans to cover the event live, starting at about 10:00am, EDT. The conference will last between an hour and an hour and a half. CSPAN will also rebroadcast the event. Check your local listings for times. Other news organizations will cover the event as well. Hudgins will pass out to media copies of his article from the March 2007 issue of The New Individualist on "Dr. Hudgins's 12-Step Cure for Big-Government Conservativism" and will issue the following Tax Day statement: ------------ Tax Day 2007: Confronting the Candidates and Politicians By Edward Hudgins April 16, 2007 -- Every year it is more difficult to know what to say about the evils of our current tax system since most of it has already been said. So let's focus instead on to whom we should say it. In April, 2007, the presidential campaigns have already begun and by Tax Day next year candidates for president and Congress will be seeking our votes. It's time to seek something from them. This is an opportunity to confront those candidates and politicians--in letters to the editor, on radio and TV call- in shows, at campaign rallies and town meetings-- and to ask them some very pointed questions: Ask candidates and politicians, "How can you support the immoral so-called 'progressive' tax system that penalizes people with higher tax rates for their virtues, that is, for creating more wealth and making larger profits than others? Ask candidates and politicians, "What kind of idiot's game are you perpetuating: a game in which you pick everyone's pocket in the form of taxes; redistribute everyone's wealth in a giant political free-for-all in which those with the most political power get the biggest cut of the loot; and pay out billions of our dollars to bureaucrats to administer this racket?" Ask candidates and politicians, "How the hell can you justify taking money from the citizens of Kansas, Nebraska and Illinois to pay for road-building and welfare in California and New York, and take money from the citizens of California and New York to pay subsidies to farmers in Kansas, Nebraska and Illinois?" Ask candidates and politicians, "How dare you pose as our benefactors because you've thrown us some handouts, which are merely the crumbs of the bread you've taken from us?" Ask candidates and politicians, "Where in the Constitution are you given the authority for most of your spending? And don't give us the old 'general welfare clause' argument. In case you've never read it, the Constitution is a document of limited and enumerated powers and most of what you spend our money on is not in the authorized list in Article I, Section 8." Ask candidates and politicians, "Do you plan to continue to support this callous, complicated and convoluted tax system that forces us to waste hundreds of billions of our dollars to comply with? Don't you think we have better things to do with our money than to support your incompetence?" Ask candidates and politicians, "How do you plan to undo the damage you've done to the American character? You offer handouts like a pusher giving heroin to a child; you stoke the flames of envy, so that the crybabies you've helped create will demand more of their neighbor's wealth, all the while depriving them, through taxes, of the ability to care for themselves like proud, responsible individuals." Fellow citizens, it's time to turn on those who have turned on us: use this tax day to recommit yourself to dogging candidates and politicians until they bring down this indefensible system.

In reality only a small amount of mass can be converted to energy in fusion and fission reactions. In fusion reactions about 0.007. That is 7/10 of one percent. When multiplied by c squared that is one humongous can of whoop-ass. HOO-RAH! But being an astronomer you should know we are not going to ever convert large percentages of mass to energy. The underlying physical processes have gone to a great deal of trouble to solidify energy into mass, since the Big Bang. Yodah says: Do not your breath hold, Young Ed, until all mass into energy converted is, else blue turn you will. Ba'al Chatzaf I am aware, of course, of the relationship of energy to matter and I don't suggest that we can redo the Big Bang (it would be kind of messy anyway!) to release it all. I do say that for all practical purposes, the energy we can release through nuclear reactors and orbiting solar cells, and from wave motion, geo-thermal, wind and so many other ways and sources will more than serve our needs. What we need is a free market system and intelligent, entrepreneurial minds to figure out how to release it economically so we don't have to feel guilty -- I don't anyway -- about turning on a light!

See my piece on How Al Gore is Ruining Opera under the Article thread, which is about Die Walkure. http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/in...amp;#entry25358

How Al Gore is Ruining Opera By Edward Hudgins [A longer version of this piece will appear in The New Individualist.] I love opera! Thus recently at the Kennedy Center I saw Die Walküre, the second installment of Richard Wagner's monumental four-part cycle Der Ring des Nibelungen, about gods and goddesses, giants and dwarfs, and mortal human heroes. The music, singing and acting were superb. But the program notes seemed like Al Gore channeling Karl Marx. Consider "dramaturg" Cori Ellison's description (bold in the original) of the opera's themes. First, nature: "The despoiling of nature through greed and ambition begins even before the stage action does, with Wotan sacrificing his own eye to drink from the Well of Wisdom and then mutilate the World Ash tree to create his spear. The destruction of our nation's environment also began early in our history, with the violation of our rich natural resources and the pollution and disfigurement of our landscape, which will surely lead to our demise if left unchecked." How terrible that someone had the wisdom to rip metals from the guts of Sacred Earth for the orchestra's horns, trumpets, trombones and tuba; to murder World Ash trees for violins, violas, cellos, basses and stage settings; and to extract marble--the torn-out teeth of Mother Nature--to build the Kennedy Center itself! Next, love: "Alberich's renunciation of love in order obtain riches is startlingly familiar; it is but the Ring's first visible example of the sacrifice of love and ethics on the altars of capitalism and temporal power. One need only read the newspapers . . . to see this theme played out daily in America." Gee, not even a "Thank you" to all those capitalists whose money built the Kennedy Center, either through charitable donations because they love music or, unfortunately, through their taxes for government grants to the arts. Oh, and the staging was a stale stereotype; king-of-the-gods Wotan was portrayed as-- everyone in unison now--an evil businessman, in pinstriped suit and all! How unoriginal! Finally, feminism: "More subtly embedded in the Ring, but perhaps most personally important to our team, is the theme of woman's nature and role in society. The Ring portrays men as the world's destroyers, while women are its sustainers, sages--and sometimes passive victims." But this opera was actually composed by Richard Wagner, a male. Plácido Domingo, America's greatest tenor, the Washington National Opera's director and a male did an outstanding job in the role of Siegmund, a male heroic character, whose son in the next two Ring operas was Siegfried, a hero and--you guessed it--a male! Wagner does treat greed and power-lust in the Ring. But the dramaturg's political bromides aren't so much an analysis of what Wagner really meant as a case-study of "post-modernism." This is the notion that things can mean whatever observers want them to mean. In fact, it is an abrogation of standards in order to damn all things Western, while pushing a leftist world view to be taken not as interpretation but, rather, as gospel. It's remarkable that such nonsense is flung into the faces of opera audience members who, for the most part, represent those universal, Western values and that they aren't appalled enough to call Plácido and explain that, as creators of the wealth that supports the opera, they could take their money elsewhere if they're considered such exploiters. In one scene in Die Walküre Wotan explains that "I can create only slaves; a free man must create himself." To be human is to create wealth, as we Americans do when we employ the material and energy resources of the physical world for our survival and our spiritual well-being, for example, for opera houses, orchestras and performances of great beautiful. Let's hope that in the future those who benefit from the beneficence of creators will thank them rather than spit in their faces. ------- Hudgins is executive director of The Atlas Society, an Objectivist organization that celebrates human achievement.

Heathen that I am, Easter is still an excuse to get together with the family, eat far too much ham and jellybeans and then go into a coma later in the day to recover from all that overeating. Here's my five-month old great niece, a real cutie!

On the sacrilege side, see below. (If there's a hell, I'm going there for this post!)

Here is an actual crucifixion in the Philippines, where they often celebrate Easter with the sort of sado-masochistic obscenity that we see in Gibson's Passion.

Here's my review of The Passion of the Christ from a few years ago, rejecting its view of sin, sacrifice and suffering. I was aiming it at a religious audience which is why I didn't describe it more accurately as a disgusting 2 1/2 hour snuf film. -- Ed Hudgins ---- The Problems with ''The Passion's'' Moral Message by Edward Hudgins March 3, 2004 -- The controversy surrounding Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ" reflects a deep divide concerning the moral foundations of our society. The film's supporters maintain that freedom is threatened when a society loses the moral compass traditionally supplied by religion and drifts into moral relativism. The film's critics worry that intolerance is encouraged when a society is based on religious dogma, and many have claimed that the movie itself promotes anti-Semitism. (It doesn't; after all, Jesus, his mother, and disciples, and not just the religious elites and their supporters who condemned him, were all Jews.) But neither moral relativism nor religious faith will sustain a free, flourishing society. Gibson and many Christians believe that human beings are born with original sin and worthy of nothing but death and damnation. But because of his love for us, God sent Christ to take upon himself our sins. "The Passion" graphically depicts Jesus's cruel torture and crucifixion - penalties that we all deserve. To avoid hell, we must accept Christ's sacrifice. In our secular society, many individuals who reject this theology still accept the moral message of Christianity. But the problems with this message - as well as a way to a better moral vision — can be found by examining three themes that are central in Gibson's film: sin, sacrifice and suffering. Original sin means that we are all evil not just in any given thought or deed but by our very nature; that we can't help ourselves; that we must act immorally. One of the messages in Gibson's film is that since we are all sinners, we all killed Christ. But this doctrine of inherent and collective guilt means that morally upstanding individuals are culpable for evils that they did not create. Further, this doctrine allows moral slackers to excuse their failing with, "I'm only human." But in any hour or issue we each are responsible for our own actions - and only those actions. We each have a choice to stop the impulse of the moment; to think or not to think; to ask whether our actions are moral or not; and to act either for good or evil. Yes, it takes strength and fortitude to do the right thing. But that is exactly why those who make the most of their lives should feel proud and never accept unearned guilt. In "The Passion" we see Jesus passively submitting to his own brutal torture and death, even forgiving his tormenters. Many see Jesus's sacrifice as a moral model: He forfeited his life to save us sinners; we are all responsible for the problems of the world; thus we each should sacrifice ourselves for the good of others. But this is exactly the wrong moral lesson. A morality of life requires the pursuit of happiness and pride in oneself, not self-abnegation and acquiescing in the role of a sacrificial victim. It requires that we judge both others and ourselves, both their actions and our own, by standards of justice, and not offer moral absolution for the most heinous crimes and criminals. This is the key to the right moral code: We each have a right to our own lives and should act out of self-interest, not self-sacrifice. True self-interest means seeking rational values that preserve and enrich our lives. It means we should each seek the best within us. It means neither sacrificing ourselves to others nor asking others to sacrifice themselves for us. It means engaging in relations with others because we value them and they value us. For example, when we give up time and money to help a sick spouse — someone with whom we share our values, interests, and deepest thought and feeling; someone to whom we bare our souls; someone who we love — we are not sacrificing but, rather, affirming our highest values and self-interest. "The Passion" shows Jesus suffering and facing death with fortitude. Any decent human being would feel pity for an innocent man who is tortured and killed. And each of us will face suffering in our lives. But suffering is the exception and the world is not a vale of tears. We should plan and expect to achieve our values and goals. We should know that we have the power to understand the world around us and to use our knowledge, strength and fortitude to create the things that allow us to live and flourish: houses and skyscrapers; airplanes and rockets; medicine; works of art and the like. The essential fact about human life - the fact on which a morality of life should be based - is not the inevitability of suffering but the possibility of achievement. Gibson's film shows the depths of depravity to which humans can sink, and prompts deep reflection. But only a moral code of personal responsibility, not original sin; self-interest, not self-sacrifice; and achievement, not suffering; can avoid the dangers of moral relativism and intolerance, and ensure both personal happiness and a free society.

Judith -- The Flagstaff area is great, and only a few hours from the Grand Canyon. And even though it is more an historical site than research facility, I love visiting the Lowell Observatory, (See photo before of the 24" Clark refractor.) I recently considered getting property midway between Flagstaff and Kingman, in the middle of nowhere, with beautiful deserts and black night skies!

Victor -- Good list of Lugosi's best! His Igor in Son of Frankenstein, a role he reprised in Ghost of Frankenstein (1942), was excellent. Interesting aside about him playing the monster, into whose head Igor's brain had been placed in Ghost, in Frankenstein Meets the Wolf Man (1943): He was supposed to be blind, as per the end of Ghost, and it was filmed that way. But in editing the references to him being blind were cut out. Thus we see the monster staggering around, sometimes looking addle-brained, when an important plot point had been taken out. So when he finally played the role he rejected for the original film, which made Karloff famous, his performance was judged more harshly than it might have been. He also gave a good performance in Return of the Vampire (1944) which was a sequel to Dracula in all but name. Because Universal owned the rights to that name and he made it with another studio, they had to name the vampire something else. He also has a bit part in one of Ayn Rand's favorite movies: Ninotchka.

A beautiful view from space. The secret for we astronomers is to know where to find the dark parts!

Te-he. I wonder who that physicist is. Someone with whom you had a dinner conversation in D.C. not long ago? Ellen ___ Just putting information to the maximum use possible!

Peter -- It's interesting that the things most advocated by many environmentalists here in the U.S. -- wind farms and the like -- are opposed over there. But there you see the problem. They say that burning fossil fuel is bad because it causes pollution. They say that wind farms and tidal booms are bad because they destroy the view or they confuse the poor ducks or whatever. In other words, all human activity does something to alter Gia and thus should be avoided. I actually like the idea of solar power from solar panels on a house because I'd like to be as self-sufficient as possible. But in the future, when the cost of rocket trips to orbit drops, it will be economical to put large collectors in orbit which will beam down to earth via microwaves or lasars energy that will be clean and almost limitless. Then the complaint will be those lights in the sky that distract from the views of the constellations. But cheap access to orbit eventually will mean that I can go for a weekend on an orbiting platform -- a private one put up by Robert Bigelow -- where I can get a real out-of-this-world view!

Elizabeth -- I do know that a lot of environmnetalists who really are human haters. But, of course, not all are and many do have legitimate concerns. I indicated there are self-interested reasons to want, as an individual, to conserve. And it is also rational to want to live in an environment in which you're not coughing because of all the black soot from the air doing into your lungs. If a real global disaster threatened us, it would of course be rational to try to head it off. A city- or civilization-killing size asteroid heading to earth would be an example. One of my great concerns about global warming is the less-than-rational nature of the discussion. Here's part of an email I recently wrote to a friend that summarizes some of my thoughts: "The problem with the global warming issue is that in popular public and political policy discussions the matter it is an ill-defined, epistemological mess. Asking 'Do you believe in global warming?' has the flavor of 'Do you believe in Jesus?' with lots of unstated implications. We need to break the matter down. "First, is the atmosphere warming up? By how much and over what time-frame? On average everywhere or with significant local differences? How confident can we be about the 'hockey-stick' shaped graphs projecting future warming? "Second, to what extent is human activity responsible for warming? Scientist Fred Singer, who I've known for years, just co-authored a book suggesting this is a natural cycle every 1,500 years with little human impact. Pat Michaels, a climatologist I discussed this with before warming became a national issue, has pointed out flaws in Gore's case. "Third, how disastrous would be the results of warming and what is the probability of such results? This clearly depends on the answer to the first two general questions. What are the benefits of global warming? "Fourth, what's the likelihood that the policy medicines being suggested -- Kyoto -- will be effective against future warming? What will be the adverse effects? Will the cure be worse than the illness, with major reductions in living standards? "Now look at the public discussion. We hear 'The debate is over; global warming is a fact.' A non-political physicist friend of mine has been so provoke -- he says that in science 'The debate is never over.' -- that he is circulating 'How to think about global warming' talking points at professional gathering. "I'm sure you've seen the comments by many meteorologists and scientists not affiliated with businesses that question Gore and say that many claims are exaggerated. And I'm sure you've seen the outright attempts to silence those who reasonably question certain global warming claims. "The statement about a 'consensus' on the issue also is problematic. A consensus among whom? Which scientists? What about just the subset of meteorologists and climatologists? [Consensus in science usually refers to] general laws or principles -- evolution, quantum theory, relativity. In such cases, the debate about particulars continues over centuries."

Barbara -- Thank you so much for your kind words! Coming from you they are truly of value. I don't have my copy of your book at hand here in the office (it's at home right now) so I can't look up anything you relate about the New York City blackout. Were you with Ayn Rand when it happened? What were her thoughts as she looked at the darkened city? Best, Ed

Kyrel -- You're right! E=mc2. The stock of energy and matter is the stock of the universe. The only things in short supply are rational minds that can figure out how to free energy at an economical price and the political freedom to do so! Ed

Dragonfly -- You're right that pollution, which in the past was a symbol of progress, is not in and of itself a good thing. And many studies show that as economies become more efficient, as resources are used in a less costly manner, that pollution easies. WHen less developed countries reach of GDP per capita of about $6,000, the environment usually begins to improve. But please don't misunderstand my point. There are many forms of beauty. I've already spoken about city skylines. Let me now speak about the night sky. I'm an amateur astronomer with some university background in the subject. (See picture below.) I regularly drive out to the country so I can see the Milky Way and the beauty of the heavens; I recently purchased land in rural West Virgniia on a mountain so I can pursue this love of the night. Whenever I go to Arizona, I go out into the desert with binoculars on a clear evening; it's some of the best seeing in the world. I've gone to the Kitt Peak Observatory and the Mount Palomar Observatory on nights when the public is allowed to observe. A few years ago I took time from a conference in Chile to go to an isolated ski lodge in the mountains in late August -- the dead of winter there. At night, Santiago was distant and covered by clouds below the peak of the mountain, leaving the air above me clear, dry and transparent. A short walk from the lodge and no lights were visible expect those in the sky, a sky that those of us who live in the Northern Hemisphere rarely see. I laid out in the snow for hours with my binoculars watching the Southern Cross and the Magellanic Clouds and the Milky Way, with its bright center in Sagittarius straight overhead -- something never seen from the United States -- with the arms of our galaxy stretching from horizon to horizon. And I never feel "small" as I look through a telescope and know that the light of a distant galaxy that I'm seeing left its home millions of years ago, before any man had walked on earth. I'm filled with excitement at the beauty and order of the cosmos. Perhaps the only statement of Kant with which I agree is "I never cease to wonder at the starry sky above us and the moral law within us." That's why I ended my piece by saying that unleashing energy allows us "to realize our dreams and to reach for the stars, those bright lights that pierce the darkness of the night."

Victor -- Ed Wood by Tim Burton is a fun and funny movie that does give a flavor of the relationship between Bela Lugosi and Wood. Lugosi's career slipped in the '40s. He appeared in some really bad films but always gave it his best. (He was actually quite funny in Abbott and Costello Meet Frankenstein, 1948, playing Dracula -- the only other time he played the character by that name after the original 1931 film that made him famous.) The characters and acting in Ed Wood are good. Johnny Depp gives a great performance, as he always does. (He's so versatile; see him in Donnie Brasco for another fine job in a very different role.) Martin Landau won an Oscar for best supporting actor, playing Lugosi. Plan Nine, which was called by some critic the worst movie ever made, is one of those movies that actually is so bad that you don't take it seriously and so it becomes fun to watch.

New Cult of Darkness by Edward Hudgins April 2, 2007 -- Since early men ignited the first fires in caves, the unleashing of energy for light, heat, cooking and every human need has been the essence and symbol of what it is to be human. The Greeks saw Prometheus vanquishing the darkness with the gift of fire to men. The Romans kept an eternal flame burning in the Temple of Vesta. Our deepest thoughts and insights are described as sparks of fire in our minds. A symbol of death is a fading flame; Poet Dylan Thomas urged us to "rage, rage against the dying of the light." Thus a symbol of the deepest social darkness is seen in the recent extinguishing of the lights of cities across Australia and in other industrialized countries, not as a result of power failures or natural disasters, not as a conscious act of homage for the passing of some worthy soul, but to urge us all to limit energy consumption for fear of global warming. This is not the symbol of the death but, rather, of the suicide of a civilization. Certainly most of the individuals turning off their lights saw their acts in a narrower perspective. They have been told by every media outlet that the warming of the earth's atmosphere due to human activities will certainly cause a global catastrophe unless we act now to radically curtail our energy use. The case for disaster is still weak; but this matter, which deserves dispassionate and serious consideration, is being hyped like the problematic products aimed at an attention deficit disordered audience by the entertainment industry and by pandering politicians. In our individual lives it is quite rational to want the most for the least. We want the highest quality food, automobiles, and houses for the lowest price. And we want to pay as little as possible to run our cars, heat our homes, and power our consumer electronics. This means we want to waste as little as possible because waste is money that could be spent on other needs. So turning off the lights in an unused room is an act of self-interest. The goal of our actions should always be our own welfare. And in a fundamental sense, this means using the material and energy in the world around us for our own well-being. The means for doing so is the exercise of our rational minds, to discover how to light a fire, to create a dynamo to generate electricity by burning fossil fuels or to tap the inexhaustible energy of the atom. The standard by which to choose which means is best is economics. In a free market, if producers can generate a kilowatt of power for pennies by burning oil compared to dollars per kilowatt through windmills and solar panels, it makes no sense to use the latter. Some will argue that the full costs of each means must take account of unintended adverse consequences such as pollution that measurably harms our lives, health, and property. But there are means for dealing with such externalities -- usually involving a strict application of property rights -- that will not harm us far more than the alleged ills they aim to alleviate by dampening creative human activities and innovations. When the costs of generating energy via oil rises too high as supplies dwindle -- still many decades if not centuries away -- our creative minds in a free market will develop less costly ways to harness wind, wave, and sunlight. Through short-sightedness, sloppy thinking, emotional indulgence and even a deep malice, many environmentalists today -- especially in their approach to global warming -- are perpetuating an ethos of darkness. Consider the harm of their symbolic acts, to say nothing of the policies many of them advocate. Most individuals acquire their values through the culture, often through implicit messages that they do not subject to rational analysis. The implicit message for many of turning off the lights of a city is that we should feel guilty for the act of being human, that is, for altering and employing the environment for our own use. In her novel Atlas Shrugged Ayn Rand describes the consequences of such an assumption in the view from a plane flying over a collapsing country: "New York City … rose in the distance before them, it was still extending its lights to the sky, still defying the primordial darkness… The plane was above the peaks of the skyscrapers when suddenly … as if the ground had parted to engulf it, the city disappeared from the face of the earth. It took them a moment to realize ... that the lights of New York had gone out." We must keep focused clearly on the fundamental issues in every discussion about the environment: the right of individuals to pursue their own well-being as they see fit; the requirement that man the creator utilize the material and energy in the environment to meet his needs; the rational exercise of our minds as the way to discover the best means to do so; and the exercise of that capacity as a source of pride and self-esteem The spectacle of a city skyline at night is the beauty of millions of individuals at their most human. Energy is not for conserving; it is for unleashing to serve us, to make our lives better, to allow us to realize our dreams and to reach for the stars, those bright lights that pierce the darkness of the night.

Unless I missed it in the list, you'd also want to add one of the great freedom-vs-slavery dramas: Sparatus . It has an all-star cast headed up by Kirk Douglas and was directed by Stanley Kubrick. The script was by Dalton Trumbo, a blacklisted Hollywood writter, who does a fine job of telling the dramatic story of a slave revolt against Rome. It also has great battle scenes. I like the contrasting speeches of Roman Consul Crassus (Laurence Olivier) to his troops and Spartacus to his on the eve of the great battle.

In Lord of the Ring: Return of the King, one of the great scenes is near the end, when Aragon has led the troops to the gates of Mordor. They face overwhelming odds; the troops from Gondor and Rohan are fightened. Aragon's dramatic words to the troops as he rides up and down their lines could be said today as we face our savage enemies: "Sons of Gondor, of Rohan, my brother! I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship. But it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields, when the age of Men comes crashing down. But it is not this day. This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!" I think part of the appeal the Ring is that it was not laughing at itself as many movies do. Peter Jackon played it straight, not apologizing to the audience, saying, in effect, "Yes, I know this is a silly story." He treats it as serious mythology.

Victor -- Klaatu barada nikto.

Jeffery -- Absolutely correct about Contact. One of the best, thoughtful sci-fi movies. The book is even better.

A pretty good list Victor, but I concur with those who point out that you'll need to bump a few in order to include Lord of the Ring and The Day the Earth Stood Still, with a John-Galt type character played by Michael Rennie. Also you need to get Forbidden Planet on there!

Congrats Kat! As a Beatles fan since I was a kid in the '60s, I see it as a testament to the talents of the Fab Four that four decades later they are still popular. I saw Paul in concert a few years ago, doing mostly his Beatle material and in Las Vegas I saw a group called the Fab Four that covers Beatle's songs with changes of costumes for the early, middle and late periods of the group's history. (They're pretty good too.) But a whole week in England indulging in all things Beatles, great!!! (P.S. -- Victor, backwards that reads "Luap saw Surlaw eht!")