Ross Barlow

Jim mentions playing tennis in the heat of the day, accompanied by a big jug of ice water, having the courts to himself. This brings back fond memories of my younger days. Here in Thailand they have a sport they play in any weather, including the hottest. It is a cross between volleyball, hacky-sack and soccer. Called Takraw (or Sepak Takraw), 3-man teams kick a woven rattan ball, which is a bit bigger than a softball, over a volleyball-like net. No hands are used, but you can use head, feet, etc. I have seen teams out playing in the Hot Season (April), when heat and humidity are murderous, in the noon-day sun at temperature well over 100 degrees F. I only watch this one! -Ross Barlow.

My lifetime favorite sport is climbing. This includes all the aspects of mountaineering, including scary north-face ascents, long difficult technical mountain climbs, hiking or backpacking to summits for the views, pure rock-climbing or pure ice-climbing. Even at my age, I climb what I can when I can. It is the highest of highs. I love to carry my gear to a high and wild place to bivouac for the night under the Moon and stars. It is wonderful to wake up with the world at your feet. -Ross Barlow.

Guns for Fun, Protection & Liberty straight-shooter Objectivists by Ross Barlow I think that more Objectivists might want to learn more about firearms, either in practice or theory, or both. First, they might be surprised to find themselves falling in love with the shooting sports as recreation. This could include target shooting with pistols or rifles, shotgun shooting sports or the various forms of hunting. For many Americans, going out to shoot is a family activity. They might also learn the empowerment of self-protection/defense that a well-trained gun owner can achieve. And the theory of an armed citizenry as a safeguard for individual rights is an essential part of the Classical Liberal and American traditions of defending liberty against power. Almost anyone can learn to handle firearms safely and effectively, but it is a great responsibility. Guns must be understood and respected. Expert training is very important, as is a mature attitude. Even experts must constantly renew their attitudes and habits when it comes to safety. And the possibility of ever using a firearm for self-defense must be thought over carefully with very honest moral soul-searching. For many people, there is a cultural blind-spot regarding guns, in that they have no experience with them and they perhaps grew up in families where firearms were abhorred or in cities where laws forbid guns (thus causing guns to be only in the hands of criminals). They may understandably be afraid of guns. But the guidance of an experienced instructor or mentor can make you feel confident with them, open up a new world of experience and show you a great time. You might say that guns are second-nature to me. I grew up with them. As a boy, I was taught to shoot safely by my father. As a Boy Scout, I was taught an even higher level of skills and safety. As a US Marine, the marksmanship training and accompanying safety procedures were taught to us with a radicalism that was almost religious in its nature. In Vietnam we kept our weapons cleaner than our bodies, cradling them close through rainy nights and keeping them out of the mud we lay in. As a longtime NRA-certified firearms instructor, I have taught many people about safe and accurate shooting. I do not tolerate unsafe gun handling. I love guns but they still scare me. When I lived in my native state of Pennsylvania, which has enlightened laws about gun permits, I had a concealed-carry pistol permit (renewed after a fresh criminal background check every 5 years) and I carried a loaded piece practically everywhere I went for decades. I felt that it was my responsibility to myself and my family to have the skills and means of self-defense. We would often be at a desolate trailhead parking lot at midnight, and creepy characters would occasionally be about. When people see a gun at your side, they are quite civil and polite. Living in Thailand now, I feel almost naked because I can not carry a gun here. More and more states in the USA are liberalizing (i.e., freeing up) their gun laws and allowing their law-abiding citizens to carry concealed handguns. This is creating opportunities for taking your own personal protection into your own hands. If you live in a state that allows concealed-carry, I urge you to apply for a permit, even if you do not plan to carry often, or right away or even at all. Or, if your state is just now considering the freeing up of statutes to allow the issue of concealed-carry permits, get into the political process to support it. It is one area where small victories for individual liberty are being won in the various states. It is one of the most encouraging trends in state law. Finally, are you aware of the original meaning of the Second Amendment? Why do “the people” have the right to “keep and bear arms”? Answer: to protect themselves, their families and their communities from a government that has become tyrannical, i.e., arms in the possession of citizens are a counter-balance to government power. This is such a radical concept today that it scares people to even think about it, yet it is easy to document that this was the *original* philosophical meaning the Founders had in mind when drafting the US Bill of Rights. (I do not think Ayn Rand fully understood this, but she is not totally to blame, as it is buried in history.) A “well-regulated militia,” in its original meaning and in the parlance of the Founders, is not the National Guard or a state-controlled militia (as many, many people will try to tell you). It is a term first used by the English Radical Whigs of the late 17th century (i.e., the kind of crowd that John Locke would hang out with) and first introduced prominently into American discourse by George Mason (“Father of the US Bill of Rights”) around 1774 when Britain and the Colonies were experiencing more and more tension. Mason defined the well-regulated militia to be “the whole body of the people” armed for their defense against their own government when it is threatening their liberties. [One highly recommended book on this subject is *That Every Man Be Armed: the evolution of a constitutional right* by Stephen P. Holbrook.] Using Mason’s doctrine of a well-regulated militia (i.e., guns privately owned by the people and apart from government control) as their philosophical principle, American citizens armed themselves. You have heard of some of these groups: i.e., in Massachusetts, the Minutemen; in Virginia, the Fairfax County Independent Militia Company (with elected co-captains George Washington and George Mason) and the Hanover County Militia (elected captain, Patrick Henry). It is doubtful if Independence could have been achieved had this armed base not been in place early in the struggle. Later, in the debates over both the ratification of the Constitution and the wording of the US Bill of Rights, the above concept was exactly what the Founders meant when they used the words “well-regulated militia.” It was well-regulated in that it was responsible to the community, and by electing someone like Washington as leader you had sober rationality running the program. By thus having arms in the hands of citizens (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”), the government had a very good reason to respect their liberties – as George III had found out in the years before. For this reason, many Americans would not ratify the Constitution without a guarantee of private rights for citizens to have firearms. In the words of Patrick Henry, “The great principle is that every man be armed” -- then government would have to behave. Thus the Second Amendment is a foundational principle of a free society and is meant as a practical safeguard of the first order for individual liberty. Is it radical? Hell yes, but so is Objectivism. So, whether as a fan of recreational shooting, an advocate of self-defense, a libertarian who defends the principles of individual liberty, or any combination of these, you just may find guns to be important and relevant to your life as an Objectivist. Safe shooting. -Ross Barlow.

Judith, It is good to see a fellow firearms enthusiast here. We are getting off-thread here, but you would appreciate the following story. As a longtime NRA-certified firearms instructor in the States, I have taught many people about shooting. For many years, I directed the rifle and shotgun programs at a Boy Scout summer camp in Pennsylvania. One of the kids trying for the Shotgun Shooting Merit Badge was a 16 year old who was born with only one arm. His left arm consisted only of a 5-inch stump. He had never shot a gun before. He raised the 12-gauge high, propped up by the stump, and as the clay pigeon released he let the shotgun slide down to shooting level, guided by his stump. By the end of the week, he was consistently shooting 21 out of 25 clays and he got the merit badge. This guy made everyone realize that excuses are worthless, as he does anything he sets his mind to. I think I will start a new thread on firearms-related issues later. I think that Objectivists ought to learn more about firearms, both in their practice and theory. They might fall in love with the shooting sports as recreation, and the theory of an armed citizenry as safeguard for individual rights is an essential part of Classical Liberalism. Safe shooting. -Ross Barlow.

P. J. O’Rourke is not a novelist, but the man makes me laugh like few other writers. Warning: He is profane and irreverent. *Parliament of Whores* (1991) is an excellent indictment of how special interests capture government power in a mixed economy. Some of the particular issues are dated but not the principles involved. I think he works with Cato now. *Republican Party Reptile* (1987) is my all-time favorite compilation of his essays. Next to that is *Holidays in Hell* (1988). I have missed most of his later books, mainly because a lot of bookstores will no longer carry such politically incorrect stuff. -Ross Barlow. P.S. – I love P. G. Wodehouse.

Chris asked: <<Ross; I guess the story of Gideon is in Judges? Were you in Viet-nam after the Split? Why are you in Thailand?>> Yes, Gideon is one of the heroes of the Book of Judges. I entered Marine Corps Boot Camp in early November 1968, and the Split was announced well before that. I was in Vietnam from Spring of 1969 to Spring of 1970. I am in Thailand because my wife is native Thai, I am retired and I am studying Theravada Buddhism. -Ross Barlow.

I have just made a reference to “The Cult of Angry Ayn Rand” in a thread called “The Comprachios: the story of my ‘Conversion’” in the Objectivist Living Room forum, where I add my own story of how I first got into objectivism. It is ironic that the article was just mentioned here, because I had planned beforehand to mention it in the above thread. -Ross Barlow.

My “conversion” to objectivism came when I was 17 in 1967. I was raised in a fundamentalist Christian family and always had taken my religion seriously. The trouble was, I was always a reality-based thinker. E.g., I liked the Bible story of Gideon, who asked for definitive proof before believing and acting. As I grew older and read the Bible more, I started to see the intense *certainty* in faith of those around me to be hypocrisy. One of my aunts was a scandal in our family because she explicitly called herself an “atheist,” as did her husband and at least one of her sons. Yet they were good people, honest, caring, intelligent and open-minded. They had a genuine smile for everyone. Atheism did not seem to me to be the evil doctrine everyone said it was. Then, in April 1967, *Life* magazine had an article entitled “The Cult of Angry Ayn Rand,” which was the first time I had ever heard that name. (Ironically, this article has just been discussed recently on another thread.) The article was not positive, but it made me very curious. First, it talked about Objectivists as atheists who, despite being generally rude bastards, strongly believed in a moral code. Secondly, Rand’s fictional characters were *heroes*, and I was always a huge fan of heroes. Third, Rand was an advocate of *individualism*, both in the sense of the individual marching to his own drummer and in the sense of political individualism, i.e., individual rights and laissez-faire. Holy Shit, this sounded very intriguing. I did not look into Rand’s writings right away, though. That summer, my best friend was killed in an accident, and this made me think very intensely about death and the hereafter, etc. Tony was never religious, in fact he scorned all religious beliefs, thus he was a candidate for Hell according to my religious upbringing. I immediately thought that this was preposterous and that any god who created such a situation would have to be a monster. The whole house of cards that had been my faith fell. I remember thinking: maybe I am an atheist, because this whole god-guy stuff just seems so childish. I did not know much about atheism, but I remembered that article about Randian atheism. I found it, re-read it, and went out and bought a copy of *The Fountainhead*. Then *Atlas Shrugged* and the rest. I subscribed to *The Objectivist*. My senior year in high school was one in which I really received an education for the first time, thanks to Rand. In 1968, right before I went into the Marine Corps, “the Split” occurred, but I was not too surprised because there always seemed to be a air of cultishness about official Objectivism that was very apparent to me. I had never felt that I really fit into the “Objectivist movement” anyway, but I was an enthusiastic fellow-traveler. In Vietnam, I had the best library in my outfit, which I kept in ammo crates back on my combat base. It included the bound collection of *The Objectivist Newsletter* and all back issues of *The Objectivist*, plus many philosophy books recommended therein. Whenever I was not out in the field and could take a rest back at base, I devoured these writings. When out on operations, I often carried a paperback copy of *For the New Intellectual* in my pocket. The basic sanity of Rand and the Brandens kept me sane through it all. -Ross Barlow.

A Happy Burns Night to all. My philosophy is that the more holidays you can pack into your calendar the better. I hereby establish Burns Night, or Burns Supper, as one of my official holidays. The great Scot poet Robert Burns’ birthday is 25 January, but it is often celebrated on a Saturday close to that date. In the cold northern temperate regions, a Burns Supper would be good on a blustery winter evening where friends can gather together by the warm fireside. The Burns Supper, or Burns Night, is a celebration by Scots and others who are fans of Burns’ poetry, fans of poetry of any kind, or who are just fans of having a party in the dead of winter. It is a good chance for people to take turns reading or reciting their favorite poems from either Burns or other poets. Scotch Whisky is often a featured ingredient of a cheery Burns Supper. And so is haggis, but this is not for everyone. Haggis is “sheep’s pluck” (i.e., organs such as the heart, liver and lungs) cooked inside the sheep’s stomach. All I will say about haggis is this quote: “Most Scottish cuisine is based on a dare.” Whisky and haggis or no, a Burns Night is a good chance to gather friends together on a winter night. -Ross Barlow.

“The Cult of Angry Ayn Rand,” *Life* magazine, April 1967. I do not remember the exact week. This was the first time I ever had heard of Rand, and I bought *The Fountainhead* later that year. I am grateful that they printed that article, even though it was not very positive. -Ross Barlow.

Sounds like you’re having a great time, Roger. If you ever play Bangkok, be sure and let me know. -Ross Barlow.

“To hold an unchanging youth is to reach, in the end, the vision with which one started.” ~Atlas Shrugged. Forgive me for shooting off my mouth in a forum for younger folks, but, you see, I never grew up. The high caliber of intellectual discussion here has my great respect, and all of you are a lot of fun to read too. I am glad to have run into you. What is it like being a teenager and identifying with Objectivism? I am an old guy now, but I still remember those days well. I am not sure how much things have changed since then, culturally, etc., but I can share my own recollections, thoughts and experiences. At 17, being an Objectivist was much like being a teenage werewolf, in that many around me were horrified. Statists of all kinds viewed me as a heretic who was dangerously far off the beaten path. E.g., conservatives and Christians thought I was some kind of amoral devil, not for what I did but for the freedoms that I openly defended, such as freedoms of the mind and body. The socialist-leaning teachers were incredulous that I could advocate free markets and “capitalistic acts between consenting adults.” No one around me seemed to “get it.” Many people will view objectivism as a kind of philosophical cult, and one would only prove them right unless one can demonstrate true *objectivity* of thought, i.e., a genuine first-hand mind and a “life according to reason” (in Aristotle’s formulation) where one truly thinks for oneself. In this vein, Jeff mentioned some important points about living with integrity that I like: integrity is priceless and those without it will not like you. Many objectivists are “know-it-alls” and not good listeners, and this helps give them a cult-like appearance. But, in intellectual disagreements, I find that I fare much better if I practice a measure of active and respectful listening. Then I can often – not always – encourage an authentic engagement of ideas with the other person. I may not convince the other about anything, but I find that it makes the whole discussion more mature, respectful and potentially fruitful. And I just may learn something new. The key concept of *objectivity* gives one a balanced perspective and that sense of spiritual equanimity that helps one weather the storms of disagreements and social nonconformity. Don’t ever lose that spirit of youth. -Ross Barlow.

You want a bad movie? *Sub Zero* (2005), directed by Jim Wynorski and starring complete unknowns, is probably the worst mountain climbing movie ever made. It actually made Sylvester Stallone (*Cliffhanger* 1993) and Chris O’Donnell (*Vertical Limit* 2000) look like authentic, competent and intelligent mountain climbers by comparison. It was that bad. The only thing that made it worth seeing the film completely through was the very beautiful mountain footage (New Zealand Alps) – and some of the stunt-work, sets, and special effects – all of it stolen directly from Martin Campbell's okay film, *Vertical Limit* (2000). I mean they actually used outtakes from that film, dressing the actors in the same colors of clothing to blend the scenes together. I am thinking that the editors of *Vertical Limit* must have swept up the film cuttings from the floor and taped them into a re-edit with a lame new script and some bad actors. None of the actors, writers or the director knew anything about climbing. It was beyond pathetic. It was horrifying. Early in their climb of K2, they perform the worst rope-team safety "belay" I have ever seen in film. The leader is going to lead ahead and says to a teammate, "Belay me," while handing him an entire coil of rope that has simply been untied and that is still in loose coils. Then he immediately turns and sets off on his lead. The "belayer" stands there with a whole coil of rope held in his arms against his chest. No belay braking-device, no body-belay, no anchor, no clue. When the leader promptly falls into the same crevasse that Robin Tunney fell into in *Vertical Limit*, the belayer of course has rope racing out of his grasp as the leader plummets down into the abyss. The guys standing around fumble to grab the rope and they all (improbably) stop the leader’s fall from bottoming out with gloved hands and the fact that one (unanchored) guy is tied into the other end of the rope. It was embarrassing to watch. This team has a high-tech long-range “piton-shooting gun” that would have been okay in a mediocre Sci-Fi comedy flick. But I rarely saw ice-crampons on the actors’ feet in many of the critical scenes. This was probably a good thing, as the idiots would most likely have shredded themselves bloody if equipped with them. Of course, ALL climbing films must have a horizontal Tyrolean Traverse for stunning visual effect (it does look dramatic), even if it makes absolutely no sense to the plot or the climb. On the other end of this Tyrolean Traverse line, a climber puts in the worst snow and ice anchor I have seen since the time I got blindsided by an avalanche on Cascade Mountain in the Adirondacks and my single ice screw popped (and I was swept down 140 feet). I could go on and on. Don't bother seeing this film unless you are desperate for laughs. If you are a climber, you will be tempted to weep. -Ross Barlow.

Re: Kevin Costner. I don’t usually like his movies, as I see his acting range as very limited. But one that I really do like is *Open Range* (2003). Costner directed it and starred along with Robert Duvall and Annette Bening. The acting by the latter two is superb. As someone in the generation that grew up with Westerns, I admit that there are a lot of bad movies of this type out there. But *Open Range* deserves to be considered a classic in that genre. I think it captures the spirit of average town folk in the old West much better than *High Noon*, which portrayed them as cowards. It shows that time when the last of the really tough open range cowboys were becoming history, but when bad men still coerced the good. What makes a man a good one or a bad one? Can a man with a bad history redeem himself? Two of Robert Duvall’s short speeches are libertarian gems. He said he will defend “my property and my life” and not even the lawman (corrupt) or over-whelming numbers will stop him. Because Costner produced this movie as a personal vision, my respect for him went up a lot. -Ross Barlow.

I liked *Vanilla Sky (2001) a lot. The very interesting script, the acting and the music all made it worth seeing again. And it gave me a bit more respect for what Cruise can do onscreen. It may be my favorite role of his. “Every passing minute is another chance to turn it all around.” ~Sophia. -Ross Barlow.

Happy New Year to all! Here in greater Bangkok, we had half a dozen bombs go off on New Year’s Eve (bombers not yet identified), but it still a good start on the new year. In the West it is the year 2007 CE (Christian Era). But here it is now the year 2550 BE (Buddhist Era, since the traditional date of the Buddha’s death). We have two New Year celebrations here. The first is on January 1, when the calendar changes. The second is on the traditional April 13 (which also coincides with the birthday of Thomas Jefferson). April 13 is Songkrans, at the heart of the hot season here when the heat and the humidity are incredible. During Songkrans people throw water on each other, which is very welcome in the blazing heat. My philosophy is that the more holidays you can cram into your calendar, the better. Party on! -Ross Barlow.

If I have to choose one piece, make it Beethoven’s 9th Symphony. In moving to Thailand, one thing I dearly miss is the 24-hour all Classical commercial-free radio station out of Buffalo, NY. WNED-FM. Every radio in my house was tuned to it, as was my car. -Ross Barlow.

I’m sure I would appreciate many of the bands you younger folks are recommending, but my circumstances make it hard to sample the music, i.e., I live in Indochina, am somewhat isolated and have limited internet access. As an old guy, I am a bit old-school. My favorites that have withstood the tests of time: Led Zeppelin “And it’s whispered that soon, if we all call the tune, the piper will lead us to reason. And a new day will dawn for those who stand long and the forest will echo with laughter.” “I’m packin’ my bags for the Misty Mountains.” The Who “We won’t get fooled again!” “I climb the mountain, I get excitement at your feet.” Overture to Tommy (instrumental). This short piece really soars. “I can see for miles and miles and miles….” Cream “I went down to the crossroads….” “I’m so glad! I’m so glad! I’m glad, I’m glad, I’m glad!” The Byrds “I wasn’t born to follow.” -Ross Barlow.

*The Holiday* (2006). I was pleasantly surprised to find that this was a worthwhile and entertaining movie, mainly because of a combination of good writing and acting. The trailers made it look like just another dumb romantic comedy and I am getting a bit tired of Cameron Diaz, so I was not overly excited about going to see it. But it was about the only English language movie in Bangkok on Christmas Day that we had not yet seen. It was written and directed very intelligently by Nancy Meyers. Kate Winslet is truly fantastic in her role and Jude Law never disappoints, but it was Eli Wallach who was a pleasure to see in a smaller role as an old Hollywood screenwriter. Actor Wallach is 90 years old but still has lots of “gumption.” The short scene of a Hanukkah celebration by three old veterans of the golden age of Hollywood was great, and the whole subplot with Wallach’s character is charming. Jack Black, Rufus Sewell and Edward Burns round out the cast. Diaz seems to have top billing, but the movie is good despite her. I often love good scenery shots in films and this one showed off the English countryside beautifully. Great films of the past are honored in the dialogues, and Black’s character says some interesting things about film music scores. The movie had some very touching surprises in many ways. Romantic comedies are usually good date movies and/or feel-good movies, and this one is tailor-made for the holiday season. I still feel good after seeing it 5 hours ago (Indochina Time). Not bad at all. -Ross Barlow.

10 great albums from my immediate memory: Fresh Cream, by Cream. Rave Up, by The Yardbirds. (Runes) Led Zeppelin IV, by Led Zeppelin. Van Cliburn playing Rachmaninoff’s 2nd and Tchaikovsky’s 1st piano concertos. Nouveau Flamenco, by Ottmar Liebert. Rubber Soul, by The Beatles. Blows Against the Empire, by Jefferson Starship. Irish Heartbeat, by Van Morrison and The Chieftains. The Romantic Guitar, by Andres Segovia. Who’s Next, by The Who. -Ross Barlow.

Point well taken, John. The Roger Moore 007 flicks did have their charm, and I never missed a one when they premiered in the theaters of the day. Like you say, a lot depends on the screenwriters. The Bond saga – as cinema – has evolved with the times. My wife just purchased, in a cheap back-street Bangkok market, a set of the entire Bond cinema collection, and I will be watching the entire set anew in the near future. It will be good to see the series progress through the decades. We watched *Dr. No* last night, and the quality, including the subtitles, was excellent for a Chinese pirate version (which is about as good as it gets here in Indochina). Most of the Bond actors were good in their own way. Connery in *Dr. No* is phenomenal of course and a great classic. (If anyone here has *not* seen this movie, see it now!) I liked Timothy Dalton a lot (especially in *License To Kill*), as I have long been a fan of his. Daniel Craig is fresh and new. I saw *Casino Royale* twice in local theaters. -Ross Barlow.

Amy, welcome to OL. This is a very friendly corner of the Objectivist world, and there are some fine folks here. I also broke away from a strict fundamentalist Christian background, and I know how hard it is to break family tradition. Yours is an independent mind. -Ross Barlow.

Robert, I just read your review of *Casino Royale* (2006), linked above in post #5, and I agree completely with your assessment. Very, very well said. Much of the *cinematic* Bond persona was developed by Sean Connery and director Terence Young when they were making that masterpiece, *Dr. No* (1962), including the witticisms that later became stock (and often over-used). Daniel Craig’s Bond is a fresh interpretation, yet there are still occasional faint echoes of the Bond(s) we have known before, as if in homage to the tradition of this great character. It has been 24 hours since I saw it, but *Casino Royale* still has me buzzing. -Ross Barlow. P.S. -- My philosophy about movie criticism is this: if it is a negative review, I will consider the reviewer’s point, but not too seriously; if there are any other reasons that I was already interested in seeing the flick (e.g., a certain actor, aspects seen in trailers such as scenery, etc.) then I will usually try to see it, regardless of negative reviewer consensus. Good reviews are usually worth considering if there are good reasons given, even if I end up not agreeing totally in the end. Many of my favorite movies were ones I never considered seeing until a reviewer directed my interest to it.

We just saw *Casino Royale* (2006) today and I was absolutely delighted. I highly recommend it. I will discuss it briefly without giving spoilers here. Daniel Craig is superb as the new James Bond. I never doubted that he would do justice to the role, as I have seen him in a variety of roles and know that he is a great actor. He has put his own stamp on the character, and I hope to see more of him. I very much liked and appreciated many of the previous actors who played Bond, and I do not want to play comparison games because most of them were very good. I will just say that Daniel Craig adds a fresh interpretation, and I really like his portrayal of Agent 007. Judy Dench is tough as ever in the role of “M.” She is a great actress who brings class and an edge to her characters. Without giving away the plot, I will just say that I saw this as a bit more realistic of a screen-story than is the norm for Bond flicks. The stunts were great without being so outrageous as to be hilarious, and the non-stop action was larger than life, yet I get the sense that this is in many ways closer to Ian Fleming’s Bond. I definitely plan on seeing this again in the theater before its run ends. Go see it. -Ross Barlow.

Yes, I saw the movie, *I Walk the Line*, and think it is great, Reese winning a well-deserved Oscar. Johnny Cash was a cherished part of the soundtrack of my youth. -Ross Barlow.