Ross Barlow

Welcome, Virginia. I also majored in philosophy because of Rand’s influence. I minored in history, and I taught high school social studies for 10 years. I have always thought that the extra year it took me to complete the philosophy B.A. was well worth while. If I had not completed it, I felt that I would have cheated myself. I feel richer because of it. And I actually got to teach a philosophy course as an elective in my high school, in which the first reading was Rand’s essay, “Philosophy: Who Needs It?” Regarding radical Islamism, you went right for the heart of it by focusing on Qutb. Great job. -Ross Barlow.

I think that Sean Connery was one of the best two Bonds in film. In *Dr. No* he was superb. I think Daniel Craig resurrected some of same no-nonsense deadly secret agent stuff that Connery first showed us in his early Bond movies. Connery, as an actor in non-Bond films, is very popular, and I think he adds a great deal of charisma to almost any role he plays. He always seems to show a character that is very much at peace with himself, even if he is at war with the rest of the world. Daniel Craig may have more of a *broad range* of acting talent – in his pre-Bond roles – than any of the other Bond actors, e.g., see him in *The Jacket* with Adrian Brody and Keira Knightley. Some people find it hard to believe that it is the same actor. But, of course, I am straying from Chris’s original question here. (I will say more of all this at another time, as I am just now going through all the Bond films -- for the second time -- taking notes and making comments. My ultimate aim is to rank the Bond films, actors, directors, screenwriters, etc. Given the size and complexity of the Bond movie corpus, this may take me a while.) -Ross Barlow.

John, That was quite an interesting article. Thanks for pointing it out. It reads like an Existentialist tragedy. -Ross.

Sam Harris is amazingly courageous, and he can really write. If you have not read it already, I highly recommend his *The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason* (2005). -Ross Barlow.

Jonathon wrote: “…Objectivism’s hillbillies….” Wat ya’ll got aginst us hillbillies? Michael, I think we got us a city-slicker here. ;-) -Ross. P.S. – Jonathon, your “dinner party” scenario, and, William, your depiction of corpses being “tossed from the ramparts” still have me laughing. As many times as I tried, I could never stomach the SOLO culture, mainly because of the host’s preposterous pseudo-ego.

*Vertigo* has exceptional resonance with me, since my lifetime choice of sport is climbing. I only saw this movie for the first time after many of my most radical solo climbing days were behind me. When I watch the movie, I vividly remember a few times when I was personally hanging on for dear life and scared shitless. *North By Northwest* was played in the recent Bangkok Classic Films Festival here. It is one of my own favorites also. One of my Hitchcock favorites is *Psycho*. I cannot step into a shower without thinking about it. Re: *Vertigo*. Fear of heights can be cured, for the most part. When I was solely a fair-weather rock climber, I had to re-master my fear of heights each spring as I started the climbing season. Starting in the early spring, I went around the back way to the top of an overhanging and high cliff, which was an incredibly scary drop. I crawled on my belly out to the cliff-face, looked over the drop, shuttered in horror, then I crawled backwards on my belly to safer ground. One week later, I would crawl out in a bit of a higher posture, on my hands and knees, over the same ground with the same reaction: a shudder and a careful retreat. But by the next week, I could walk casually out to the edge standing upright, look over without reaction, and calmly do an about-face (with a void at my heels) to walk back. It was acclimation by degrees. When I took up ice climbing and climbed year-round, there was no longer any problem. A woman I once knew was terrified to even stand up on a chair or table when I first met her. Within a few months, she was doing hard 700 foot-high cliff climbs, albeit with the security of a safety-rope attached above to the leader. If she could be cured, anyone can. Yet I still feel the horror of those scenes in *Vertigo*, since Hitchcock makes it real every time I view it. I feel like it is me hanging there and like it is me feeling the fear. Hitchcock was a master. Story-boarding is commonplace for filmmakers these days, but Hitchcock did it on a regular basis. (I am not sure who first did this technique.) I recall reading that Alfred and his wife pre-planned every shot and camera angle along with the complete dialogue. Then, Alfred stated (in my own paraphrase), 90% of the picture is done, and now all they had to do was shoot the movie. He was a director who knew exactly what he wanted. -Ross Barlow.

Last week I found a copy of *Persuader* in an Asia Books store in Bangkok. I could not put it down until I finished it. It was an excellent read. Jack Reacher is a delightfully no-nonsense hero. I want to thank you, Robert B, for calling my attention to this great writer. I do not often read fiction, but an exception like this was well worth the time. I normally avoid fiction mainly because it is so addicting for me. -Ross Barlow.

Thanks for including the “Concord Hymn” poem, Ellen. Reading it again reminds me of the first time I read it on the foundation of that great Minuteman statue at the North Bridge at Concord. It was the middle of June 1968, and I was an 18-year-old on a hitchhiking trip to see America before going off to war. This statue and its poem were the high point of my pilgrimage. I remember being blinded by tears as I stood there before it. As I hitched with a light pack that summer, I had small copy of the “Self-Reliance” essay in my pocket. To my personal taste, I find that it is best read by browsing, by seeking short poetic and inspirational phrases rather than expecting a tightly integrated work that you read straight through. Emerson had a writing style that seems “conversational.” -Ross Barlow.

Kevin wrote: “I'm good with determining viability in the most obvious way--what's medically possible? As medical science advances, as younger and younger fetuses become viable, great! Viability is viability. Seems pretty simple to me. Why do folks find this stuff so mysterious?” I agree with this, Kevin. I do not remember what libertarian said this or where I first read about it, but the following is my remembrance of the gist of the argument: Through time, the morality of abortion shifts its detailed formulation (regarding a timetable in the fetus’s status in its lifespan as fetus) according to something close to Kevin’s “viability.” The libertarian writer that I am remembering mentioned medical science Past, Present and Future as the critical criteria. Along with this idea of an evolving medical science is the idea of most people’s evolving ideas on the details of the morality of abortion as time goes on. In the past, when a fetus was not viable before a normal birth when it could survive on its own solely because of its advanced development, then abortion almost anytime before birth was generally okay. Even though all people might not agree with this in the past, the idea still made some sense in the historical milieu, although it was usually something not talked about. In the present, when medical science can keep fetuses alive that are quite premature and that could not have been saved in the past, then a more complicated criteria is needed to define when abortion is okay, e.g., after the third trimester. It is still a complicated issue that will not find total agreement. In the future, when it may be possible to save and nurture a very early embryo by medical scientific means in the lab (and when everyone, including a mother who does not want responsibility for raising a child, assumes that this potentially viable human can be adopted), then abortion would be considered to be killing an actually potential human life. The assumption here is that the mother would submit to a cesarean or some other means of non-lethal means of “delivery” to save the fetus, who has – because of the advanced medical techniques available – a very real chance of living an individual human life. Again, the exact details of at what time in its lifespan a fetus is viable is a complicated question. People are usually uncomfortable about taking the life of a “baby.” So the point here is that the idea of when an early developing fetus is really a viable baby and a potential human being with human rights will always be an evolving concept as medical science advances. And not everybody will agree on the details. But a general consensus will evolve. -Ross Barlow.

Bob wrote in post #53: “…Our armed forces are stretched so thin, we cannot invade Iran. The only thing we can do is bomb them from the air. I seriously doubt that Dubyah will undertake this.” On this one issue I agree with you: the USA cannot invade Iran. It would never be as easy as the roll into Bagdad, and it would be much more impossible to occupy. Iran is quite a different animal, with a much larger population and level of education. While many or most Iranians may hate the Islamic law they live under, an invasion by a foreign nation would galvanize them behind their flag. Historically, nations in crisis rally under government “saviors.” It is frustrating to me when I see how much US military power is over-estimated. I know that Brant and I are veterans who have seen war up close and have brought some humility from that experience. The McNamara/Westmoreland doctrine in Vietnam was that the US could win with our superior economic might and firepower, but they did not factor in how hard it is to field and sustain troops victoriously far away from home in an alien culture. If you do not have the local population overwhelmingly with you, you cannot win in the end. Sure, we could annihilate vast numbers with the big bombs, but this would make the USA the world’s pariah. The USA needs allies, friends and admirers. American nukes can kill most of the life on the planet, and it can certainly kill nearly all the people in Iran, but I hardly call that victory. Strategic thinking in today’s dangerous world requires knowledge of psychology, diplomacy, military history and geography – which is all sorely lacking in DC. To start even more military adventures at this point would require instituting conscription again (as immoral as that is), because US military recruiting is falling consistently short and the troops are drained. Even with conscripts, further invasions and occupations would not be successful. The one thing a new military draft might accomplish is revolution at home, as I cannot see today’s individualistic youth taking it without vigorously uprising and raising hell in the streets. Usually, America has most of the world admiring her and supporting her. For reasons of strategy, of intelligence gathering, of economics and military support, the USA needs the moral support of other peoples and nations. But as the body count of non-combatants mounts up as the US uses the heavy guns from far off and the small arms of poorly-briefed teenaged troops up close, the US loses credibility and support. As an ex-pat living in Southeast Asia, I talk to many Thai, Malay, Lao, (ex-pat) Chinese and Cambodians. They still think America is something special, in general an example for mankind. They see the 9/11 attacks as the horror is was and feel sympathy and outrage for our sakes. But they are appalled at what murderous depths US foreign policy has sunk to, primarily with the careless killing of civilians. Most people on this earth are capable of reason and potentially have a lot of sense. The founding principles of the United States of America are so rational and sensible that it is natural for people to admire them. But invading armies rarely have credibility or sympathy. To call for nuking the cities of a population that has not invaded us is insane. It is both immoral and impractical. It is not even the primitive “eye for an eye” justice between the individual who has aggressed and the individual who has been victimized. It is merely tribalist thinking, genocidal and bigoted. Check your primitive premises. -Ross Barlow.

An interesting footnote to this movie is that the town where Swagger and Nick go to visit the firearms expert (played by Levon Helm, former drummer of The Band) is Athens, Tennessee. In 1946, in what was called “The Battle of Athens,” a corrupt county government that intimidated voters was actually forced out of power by a band of armed GIs, veterans of WWII. The corrupt government was forced out and free elections were restored. Justice prevailed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens -Ross Barlow.

Of course I sympathize and identify fully with Swagger. I am a veteran Marine, for Christ’s sake, and so was he. Once a Marine, always a Marine! Semper Fi!! Do or die!!! Oo Rah!!!! On a more serious note, John, I actually do see him – in the context of the story – as a justice-oriented avenger alike to Ragnar. This was one excellent movie. If you have not seen it yet, put it on your “must-see” list. More below. . . . . ~~~ SPOILER ALERT!!! SPOILERS FOLLOW BELOW!!!~~~ . . . . . Swagger had no legal avenues of survival at the end, as long as those powerful bad guys were still in positions of power. With their connections and resources, they would have certainly hunted him down and killed him eventually for what he knew. They were really bad, and they deserved to bite the big bullet. (I will say that they were much more evil and deserving of death than was that guard that Dagny shot through the heart.) Swagger even had implicit permission and blessing from that high government official (at the meeting where Swagger demonstrates that his sniper rifle was disabled) who seemed to be one of the only ones to retain a just and moral attitude. Swagger’s FBI friend aided him at that time and implicitly stands on his side. When the whole system of justice and governance fails, when it protects the evil and hurts the good, then, perhaps, justice may demand extra-judicial action. In the real world, this is so fuzzy and so hard to ever sort out that there would rarely ever be a clear resolution of such a situation. But this is fiction – “life as it might be and ought to be” – and, given the context of the story, Swagger did the truly right, moral and heroic thing. The motherfuckers killed his dog! Bad, bad men. ;-) -Ross Barlow.

I do not know about Paul’s recent ideas about abortion issues, but I do remember something about his Libertarian Party candidacy nearly twenty years ago. I may have some of the particulars wrong but I think I recall the gist of his position more or less accurately. He said something about his earlier career as a physician and the fact that abortion was not something he had thought much about. Then he witnessed a very late-term abortion where it basically seemed like they were killing a new-born baby that would have been able to survive. He changed his thinking after this. The main thing I seem to remember from that 1988 campaign was Paul saying that he hoped the “morning after pill,” now often called Emergency Contraceptive Pills (ECP), would be freely available to women. This would keep the issue between the woman and her doctor – or, if the ECP was available over-the-counter, it would only be the business of the woman. I seem to remember an implied sympathy for the woman’s rights in this matter, coupled with a desire to keep the matter private and to keep abortion out of the hospital setting where issues of funding and a hospital’s possible tax-supported status might entangle. If my memory is correct, and if Paul still feels this way about ECPs, then he would not be looking at the issue primarily as a “soul” being killed. Rather he sees later-term abortion as killing a baby, though I don’t know where he draws that line. As I said, this is a nearly twenty year old memory of mine. But I remember at that time thinking that Paul’s explanation of his stand on the issue – while not the same as my own – seemed to be quite honest and personally thought-out. I also had the sense that he would stand in substantial disagreement with some in the pro-life community, such as the Catholic Church. I would not expect to see him as an extreme hard-charger against Roe. -Ross Barlow.

As a footnote concerning Ashland University, I went to a weeklong summer course there a number of years ago. It was a special series of courses for high school Social Studies teachers, and the teachers that were selected – from many applications – received a scholarship type deal where the university (or rather a fund from a center within the university, the Ashcroft Center?) paid for everything: the course tuition, room and board on campus, and a box-load of free books mailed to each participant months in advance for assigned reading. It was an intense course, with the assigned reading and long hours of lecture. It was pure delight. The course was excellent, as were the free books. I chose a course on the American Revolution. My teachers were both experts on this period of history (and I regret that their names won’t come to mind right now, but I think they both teach at California colleges). One of the teachers has written a lot about the Anti-federalists and edited some of the better collections from these radicals. The other teacher edited some fine collections also. I had actually possessed works by them earlier in my library (now stored Stateside and out of reach). We were made aware in advance, in a fairly non-obtrusive manner, that Ashland was a school with a Christian heritage and values. E.g., it is a dry campus, so alcohol-serving pubs are only off campus. (So I just brought a bottle of Scotch from home and discreetly stored it in the frig at the dorm.) I never felt an oppressive presence from the school’s religious nature. Of course, it was summer vacation and the campus was empty. There may or may not have been a prayer at the opening dinner, but I do not remember. The Ashcroft Center had a lot of material on Ronald Reagan and his visits to the place, but religion was not in our faces. What I sensed from the whole experience was a commitment to what was once called “classical liberalism.” I think that “libertarianism” would not be a term they would like, owing to the irreligion and libertinism of some modern libertarians. They would probably call themselves conservatives at Ashland. But my teachers, at least, choose for conservation some of the best traditions and political principles within history: the Radical Whig traditions of the American Revolutionaries. For one week we lived in the presence of radical revolution, and it was exciting. So there is some common ground. But I am surprised to learn that an outspoken Objectivist was even hired there in the first place. I am also surprised that he would even think he could obtain tenure there. Why should they want him there permanently? -Ross Barlow.

Here in the Kingdom of Thailand we are half a day ahead of your timezones in the USA, and the sun has gone down already on my Fourth of July. I celebrated Independence Day by exploring unknown ground. I wanted to go reconnoitering in Bangkok, that city of sin and excitement, and I hoped to run into a few Americans, who are few and far between where I live. I studied many maps and tourist guides of the city, picked my target locations that I hoped to find, strapped my compass to my watchband, picked up my umbrella and walked to the river in the oppressively muggy heat of mid-morning. I took an express boat (the size and capacity of a bus) down-river to Bangkok. I saw a couple of “farang” (Westerners) on the boat but they were not speaking English. I was straining my ears for good old American speech. Holidays away from your native land can make you homesick. Getting off at the pier that links to the Skytrain, I saw a farang with a backpack and several high-grade climbing carabiners attached to it, so I asked him if he was a climber. He was, and he was from Boston. We talked about Independence Day and climbing until we went separate ways in the train station. My main goal was to locate two bars in southeastern Bangkok that are famous for live Blues bands late in the evening, Mojo’s and Tokyo Joe’s, and then go to an *American* style bar that would be open for lunch. After long walks in the hot sun, I found both of the Blues joints (closed at that hour) then set out for some American food. I was dying of thirst when I walked past The Robin Hood and The Londoner, but I’ll be damned if I eat in a British pub on the Fourth of July! I also found The Dubliner, which I will visit some other time on an evening when they have a good Irish band, but not today. Torrential rain hit (it is the rainy monsoon season here), and although I had an umbrella I got quite wet from the blowing gusts. But I found my target, a bar named Bourbon Street on a back-back-alley, and it was pure Cajun, the food, the music and the accents of all the farang clientele (minus the Thai staff). I’m originally from Pennsylvania, so the old-timers at the table next to me sounded like they were from the deepest of the Deep South. It was good to hear. I raised my Jack Daniels to them and said, “Gentlemen, a happy Fourth of July to you.” They gave me the broadest smiles I had seen on Americans in a long time. When it was time for them to leave, they stopped at my table and wished me the same. It was just as if I was in New Orleans, except that, this far from home, the fellowship with countrymen was extra special on this day. Goals accomplished, I started the long journey home via train, boat and on foot. Have a great and glorious Fourth. -Ross Barlow.

Well said, Barbara. The approach of this educational program – at least as indicated in the article – equips children with a *scientific* attitude toward viewing the world, a reality-based outlook, and an *objective* orientation. Aristotle, in his *Nicomachean Ethics*, emphasizes the cultivation of virtues as habit, as a way of living and of thinking. Instilling reasonableness, objectivity and questioning in children at the start of their intellectual journey is to train them to be truly human (in the highest sense). -Ross Barlow.

Here is a link to an interesting BBC News online article about a school in Scotland that has experimented with teaching philosophy to children as young as four in their primary level. http://tinyurl.com/2yzdzm The University of Dundee researchers tracked these students as they went on to secondary levels, and they claim to see many benefits including high self-esteem. It looks very encouraging. From the article: “Philosophy can be described as rational investigation of existence, ethics and knowledge, experts said. … “They ask children simple, open-ended questions such as "how do you know that? What shows that?".” -Ross Barlow.

This pisses me off royally. I also suffer from chronic pain, but not near as badly as Richard Paey. It has frustrated me for years that doctors are afraid to help my pain. When they suggest taking Motran or Aspirin, I feel unheard and insulted, as these are almost like placebos in treating acute pain and they do not even begin to touch it. We are Self-Sovereigns, self-owners, who have rights to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.” We have the right to self-medicate. -Ross Barlow.

Phil, You have done a fine job of describing a “Forty Year Decline or Stagnation of Objectivism.” Your essay is informed and passionate, and it surveys the relatively brief history of Objectivism pretty much as I see it. I cannot argue much with what you say. I would like to add an additional related point or two. Perhaps any difference in nuance that I might project is because I am primarily focused on a very long view of history (perhaps best called a style of “perennialism” in my overall worldview). I also have modest philosophical training as well as a strong ongoing interest over the decades in the history of ideas. And I do know, Phil, that you also have a sound knowledge of the disciplines of history and philosophy yourself. I am very grateful that my bedrock philosophical training started with Rand and the early Objectivists in the 1960s (the “founding documents” of Objectivism so to speak), although it has not been limited only to them. But I can say that, from my own perspective on the history of ideas, I am not surprised by Objectivism’s erratic course thus far. Even as an 18-year-old, the 1968 Split did not surprise me really that much, because my reading of history let me know that humans do these things (i.e., romantic misdirection, striking out in pain and anger, etc.) – even my heroes. Maybe I am a closet cynic. A hopeful cynic. Phil wrote: “Conclusion: Objectivists have been better at quarreling among themselves, arguing over second-order issues, than in investing always rare time in learning the ideas, applying them, and changing the world.” Well said. Most of the major philosophies (and religions) have their great founders, brilliant pupils and loyal followers, but through time we see that schisms, splits and spats are the norm. In many historical ideological schisms, the points of difference are often absurdly minor. A lot of this has to do with one-upmanship and control issues, e.g., “I am the supreme mouthpiece of the Absolute Truth, and you are but an idiot/ slacker/ heretic/ evader/ piece of shit….” Etc. Historically it is often the case that the more powerful and urgent the moral idealism is in a religion or philosophy – i.e., the more intensely that the stakes are perceived to be about immediate good and evil – the more intense and nasty are the disagreements and divisions over the smaller details. And Objectivism is infamously moralistic and contentious. In light of the histories of powerful worldviews, I would have been surprised if Objectivism had not exhibited such an ugly and divisive course, even as short as its history really is. Why should Objectivism be any different? Because it is true? Well, this might be the case, but there is always something about radically and urgently proclaimed moral philosophies that attracts a few cultist mentalities as well as more reasonable individuals. Also, the slow spread of Objectivism should not be that surprising, as it is in many of its elements a *new* philosophy, historically speaking, and mankind does not digest radical new things that quickly. It usually takes time and a lot of thought – a lot of dialectical development or chewing – to really “sell” a philosophy on a wide scale. Modern technological means of communication may speed things up, but it will also speed up transmission of bad ideas, religions and philosophies. Your assessments of recent Objectivist institutions also pointed to much of the short-term problem. I guess what I am trying to say is that, “It’s earlier than we think.” I am looking at all of this in a long, long historical perspective that dwarfs my own short lifespan. In history, Aristotelianism once thrived and then dived into obscurity (at least in the West), and then was successfully rediscovered. Where would Ayn Rand be without Aristotle? His ideas ignited many a flame throughout the centuries. For a fictional analogy, Roark’s reputation as an architect was like an underground stream springing up in expected places. We cannot predict where or how powerfully Rand’s ideas are being processed this very minute in the minds of various thinking individuals throughout the world. Phil wrote: “The Objectivist movement has enormous potential. A genius founder, brilliant writer, inspiring ideas. And most important - the truth, the philosophy of the future.” You are an optimist and a fighter, Phil, and it is inspiring to see. Perhaps any of our differences in focus and emphasis is due to the fact that you still are full of fight and energy, piss and vinegar, while I am a retired and worn-out foot soldier in the war of ideas. Years of teaching high school history and philosophy at the highest pitch of intensity I could muster ended up contributing in a major way to the destruction of my health. (Just writing this post is excruciatingly painful.) I had put my heart into teaching and I loved it, and it is frustrating that I do not fully know how successful I may have been. I may have planted a few seeds of thought. I like to think so. I know that I inspired scores of students to study more history and/or philosophy when they went to college. And all of my philosophy students had a good intro to Rand. Lastly, I confess, I am a bit of a heretic, reading heavily from the list of perennial greats among the Western thinkers (and many from the East as well), and I have strayed widely from the Objectivist “straight and narrow.” I may be secretly hoping to chew the sum of these various ideas through a kind of Aristotelian dialectic and turn it all into a glorious epiphany before the end of my lifespan. Stay tuned. But don’t drop out. But, seriously, doesn’t Objectivism have ultimate survival value for humans? And doesn’t that in itself suggest hope in the long run? It is unfortunate that evolutionary time – intellectually speaking – is often so long. But, if man is truly a rational animal, things may someday sort themselves out. -Ross Barlow.

John, Bjorn Lomborg wrote *The Skeptical Environmentalist*, in which he criticized the more radical claims of environmentalists. I have not read his work, but there has been a lot of heated controversy surrounding it – as you can imagine. I have read Crichton’s *State of Fear* (2004) and really liked it a lot. -Ross Barlow.

Joshua, welcome. I majored in philosophy and only minored in history. But I still consider myself more of a historian because I look at most things, including philosophy, from historical perspectives and cannot get enough history reading. What specific areas of history do you like the most? Do you plan to teach? To write? I would be most interested in hearing your thoughts and plans. I had the honor and pleasure of teaching high school history for 10 years at all levels, including Honors U.S. History and almost every course in the social studies curriculum, as well as an elective course in Philosophy that I wrote myself. If my health had held up, I would still be in my classroom. It was the best job I ever had and the toughest one outside of the Marine Corps. I don’t know if you are planning to teach or not, but teaching is a rewarding calling, albeit stressful and demanding. If you love the subject matter, have the energy and can project your enthusiasm for it, you can hook them on it. Many of my former students changed their plans for their college majors to history and even to philosophy because they said my outrageously “crazed” passion for the lessons was contagious. Unfortunately, teaching’s stresses and workloads almost killed me. If a teacher cannot present lessons with all of their heart and soul, they have no business wasting everyone’s time by settling down to the lowest common denominator that is the norm in public schools. I felt I could no longer give my students the education they deserved, and had to hang it up. I still love exploring history. In a Bangkok bookstore last week, I found a copy of *General George Washington: a military life* (2005) by Edward G. Lengel. Washington was a man that I truly admire. I sat in an all Thai shopping mall – the only Westerner in sight -- reading the first paragraphs of the Prologue, which starts with the funeral of Washington, the speeches in his honor and the incredibly heartfelt mourning of a new nation that lost its one true hero. I had to stop because of the tears blinding me. Now that is good historical writing and it does great honor to its subject. I kind of envy you as you have so much great history reading ahead of you. Enjoy. -Ross Barlow.

[i think I wrote and posted the following rant a year ago on the Atlantis II list, after an exasperating night battling mosquitoes here in Thailand. -R.B.] //begin rant// A plague upon Rachel Carson And William Ruckelshaus. In the afterlife, may they forever reside In a mosquito-ridden Hell Where, of course, DDT is banned and unavailable. May malarial fevers violently quake their rest, And may the ghosts of millions of African children Haunt their thoughts and dreams until the end of time. Amen. I have been reflecting on the needless suffering deaths of millions of children in Africa and Asia by malaria -- when the bulk of these tragedies would have been prevented by the cheap, easy to use, effective and (when used properly) safe anti-mosquito treatment, DDT. If I seem a bit uncharitable to this mother of the Greens, it is because I have recently endured the Night of the Mosquito. The Rainy Season has started early and hard here in Thailand, and it took me by surprise. I forgot how intense tropical mosquito raids can be during rainy nights. It seems that one of our dogs may have left a door ajar, and the bloodsuckers got in. Although I quickly protected myself with repellent, it was definitely a wake-up call. But we are taking care of it. Thailand is one of those countries that have never banned DDT, so we can cheaply, easily and safely treat our home with it. It is great stuff. It does not taste too bad. When topping seafood, stir-fried rice and vegetables, I find it to be particularly savory with a little curry, hot peppers and fish sauce added. Washed down with copious amounts of Mekong Whiskey, the after-taste is tolerable. And the mosquitoes sure have been staying away. Woops. … It looks like I misread the directions on the DDT can, and I might be applying it incorrectly. <hic> I am starting to feel a bit unsteady, my vision is getting distorted, and now I am having a hard time reading the label. <gasp> Later. <gurgle … rasp … clunk> -Ross Barlow. //end rant//

It is said: “Do not speak ill of the dead.” (Chilon of Sparta, one of the Seven Sages, quoted by Diogenes Laertius, *The Lives and Opinions of the Eminent Philosophers*). But, sorry, this guy really pissed me off. May he rest in peace and not see his imaged Heaven nor his imagined Hell. He does not deserve either. Jerry Falwell was a tragic-comic figure in recent American history. Tragic, because with his great TV outreach he led so many of his mindless flock toward irrational ideas and theocratic politics. Comic, because he was so transparently ridiculous. He tended to make one ashamed of being an American; kind of like being sullied by association. Good old Barry Goldwater once said about Falwell: “Somebody ought to kick his ass.” Well, death just did. -Ross Barlow.

Yes, Chris, *The Right Stuff* is on DVD. One of my favorites. -Ross Barlow.

Happy Birthday, Thomas Jefferson, wherever you are. (April 13, 1743 – July 4, 1826) I raise a glass in your honor. Thank you for the example and the inspiration of a life well-thought, well-lived and well-expressed. -Ross Barlow.