After quite a hiatus....

So with the rise of micro-blogging sites like Twitter and Facebook, and the abandonment of the original blogging media by every person I know, I have not touched my blog in many, many moons. But I was just contemplating this, and I need a place to write it down...

I was talking with my pastor about making disciples. I have thought about this and looked at some references about this. About what 'making' a 'disciple' really means. I have, up until now, thought of discipling as the process of teaching and helping someone become more like Jesus. However, 'disciple' simply means 'student'. Webster puts as 'a follower who has learned to believe in the truth of the doctrine of his teacher.' If I disciple someone, am I not teaching them to be like me? Am I not pouring old wine from an old wineskin? We are not called to disciple all nations, but to *make* disciples of all nations. A slight difference, but makes a big impact. It means that it's not my task to teach others how to live, but to introduce them to the Teacher. To bear witness to the truth, so that others will accept the Truth. The first and only instruction at the School of Me is to look to Jesus. Everything else is Christianity is just group study.

Hopefully I will expound on this and other subjects soon.

Montesque and Government

I just finished listening to an RC Sproul message. He was discussing politcal systems of all things. Actually, I think he started on the 18th century enlightenment, but started discussing Montesque's calssifications of politcal systems. Apperently, Montesque defined three classifications for forms of government and identified the key component within the society, within the culture, that allows and enables that form to survive. The three that Montesque defined, as explained by RC Sproul, are Monarchy, Dictatorship, and Democratic and the key attributes of these forms are Honor, Fear, and Civic Virtue, respectively. He also theorized that whenever any of these systems fail, they will be raplaced by one of the other two. Let me explore these further.

Monarchy requires a strong leader that is able to capture the loyalty or his subjects. This requires that the subjects have the honor to ascribe loyalty to those who are due it. This is similiar to the 'political' system of the family. The parents are due loyalty and obedience, not only because of their greater experience and knowledge, but also for the practical reason that the parents provide to the family. This requires that the children have the honor to recognize the place of the parents in the family. The problem with Monarchy as a political system today is that I do not believe a person can maintain the respect and loyalty of any sizable group of people for any length of time. In ages past, monarchs were considered better than their subjects, but the egalitarian ideals, combined with a information infrastructure that allows anyone to learn anything about just about anyone else, the concept is not possible.

Second on the list is Dictatorship. It seems fairly simple that a dictatorship requires fear within the populous. In any governmental system that is not a military occupation, the real power lies with the people. The general populous will always outnumber the leaders and the leaders will rely on the people to produce. The only way for an individual, or a small group of leaders, to rule a population without popular support is to invoke fear in the people. Without fear, the dictator is quickly replaced by a popular leader.

And lastly, the Deomcracy is dependant on civic virtue, on the idea of the rule of law. Although civic virtue is more than just observance of the law. Civic virtue to belief in something bigger than yourself. Civic virtue is respecting the rule of law because everyone recognizes that is better for everyone to follow the law.

Now this is the most interesting to me. You see, classifying political systems this way and listing the requirements for each begs a question in my mind; What about a society that lacks all three? I daresay that while a culture can have more than one of the three requirements (honor, fear, and civic virtue), a culture cannot have none of the three for long. Specifically, when a people lose honor, which is the basic ability to respect others at least as much as themselves, and civic virture, i.e. the rule of law, fear will flurish

I was going somewhere with this. Honest, I was. But it seems to have gotten lost in the transcription. Perhaps I will continue this later.

In general, I am proud to live in the country that I do. This are the things are shake that position:

1. The American electorate seems to have collectively sold-out to the promise of comfort and relief that I believe is a path toward socialism.

2. The idea of states rights and many other provisions of the Constitution have been completely abandoned.

3. Eli Stone and Pushing Daisies have both been cancelled by ABC.

4. Paul Blart, Mall Cop raked in over $30 million, which was more than any other movie last weekend.

5. Al Franken may be the junior senator from Minnesota... and Amy Klobachar is the senior senator.

Wow. So it's been a while. I guess it's appropriate that this post is on Inauguration Day when my last post was the day after the election. But before I discuss the inauguration itself, there has been a transtion-related point that I want to make.

Obama ran on a platform of "Change". At times it seemed that every other word out of Obama's mouth was "Change", almost like the word "smurfy" to the little blue guys. However, when we look at Obama's selection for his staff and cabinet, I don't see alot of change... We have former President Clinton's wife as Secertary of State, one of former President Clinton's chief political advisors as Chief of Staff, former President Clinton's Energy Secertary as Seceratary of Commerce (until he withdrew his name due to scandal), and former President Clinton's Deputy Attorney General as Attorney General.

In addition, Barack may have differentiated himself from the Democratic field of presidential nominees during the primary season, but he certainly seems willing to lean on their experience once he is in office. Four of the eight losers in the race for the Democratic nomination were selected to be members of the administration in cabinet-level or higher positions. It seems to me that the "change" that Obama is delivering is simply a change back to Democratic Party control and not the brave new world that Obama has spoken of.

However...

Watching the Inaugural Address that Obama delivered this morning, I saw very clearly what he has that the Bush Administration has lacked, in fact, has sought, without success, for 8 years. Barack Obama right now has a majority mandate from the people. Bush has followed the polls and sought public approval for years. Probably ever since Gore v. Bush determined him the winner in 2000. It appears that he has acted out of fear of what the public would think of him and his policies. Every decision was spun right out of the gate to try to appeal to the majority of people, to appeal, even, to Bush's political adversaries. This apperance of compromise has been clothed in "bipartisanship", but succeed only in disappointing allies and emboldening enemies.

Barack Obama, on the other hand, seems to have a swagger, a confidence that Bush has lacked. I believe this comes mainly as a knowledge that he is the first black president of the United States. It may also come from favorable press coverage. The results of the election, while unquestionably naming Barack the winner, were not so heavily weighed to give the appearance of major consensus; 47.1% of the country wanted someone else to be president. But, however it happened, Obama enjoys that luxury now. I'm interested to see how long he can hold onto it. And what he does with it while he has it.

Point of Interest: Barack Obama won with 52.9% of the popular vote. The last President to garner a greater percentage of the popular vote was W's dad, Bush 41, 20 years ago.

My Thoughts the morning after Election Day '08

- A very solid race run by the Obama team. I think it was handicapped by the media to make Obama a clear favorite, but he did want he needed to do, ran a clean campaign, and I have never denied that he can deliver a speech.

- Still "concerned" about his ideas. I am hopeful that a struggling economy forces him to abandon some of his more extreme campaign promises (i.e. universal healthcare, wealth redistribution, confiscatory capital gains taxes).

- This election was bought. Not only did Barack Obama outspend his opponent by at least 3-to-2, and I believe some reports say it's closer to 2-1, but he also bribed 95% of the American people with promises of tax cuts. Now I'm all for tax cuts, but Obama is not going to pay for these tax cuts by reducing government spending, or by stimulating growth in the economy, but by increasing the taxes on the other 5%. That's the worst form of demagoguery.

- I'm glad that we have our first black president. I wish it were someone I agreed with more. I hope this means that we can move past race in future elections.

- On that note, I congratulate Mr. Obama on not playing the "Race Card", and likewise for Mr. McCain. The only references to Mr.Obama's race came from the extremes on either side. Oh, and the fawning by the media in the hours after the election was called for Mr. Obama.

- George Bush will be demonized for years for having lost this election for Republicans across the nation. And history will have a much more sympathic veiw of Bush 43's Administration.

- Michelle Bachman for Senate in '12. 'nuff said.

- I wonder what Sarah Palin's next step is. I suspect she will run for President in 2012, and it will be intersting to see how she handles the primaries.

- Speaking of Caribou Barbie... I hope it as obvious to everyone else that the charges against her in "Troopergate" were strictly political in nature. The investigation was not started until she was already selected as McCain's running mate and she was exonerated mere hours before the election. I hope the individuals behind such blantant political slander are called to answer for what they have done.

Stupid line of the day for Election Day 2008:
Taken from MSNBC.com

In 2004, for instance, exit poll interviews found that 36 percent of
self-identified gun owners said they voted for Democratic presidential candidate
John Kerry, but 63 percent of gun owners said they voted for President Bush.

This seems like a recurring trend. It is odd, but in most races with 2 major candidates, the percentage of voters voting for Candidate A plus the percentage of voters voting for Candidate B equals something close to 100%. Very strange. I think we may need to comission an 18-month research study to delve into the phenomenon a little more.

Warning: Political Content ahead. Read at your own risk.

So I just read an interesting editorial over at Washington Times by Andrew Breitbart.

I think Mr. Breitbart has some very good comments. Myself, I think it's a travesity that the current ecomonic crisis is being pinned on "Bush's economic policies". I think some democrats are exagerating the power of the President to affect a world economy, both in the past and in the future. (That thought, BTW, is why I am merely "highly concerned" and not "Katie, bar the door" freaked out at the impending doom ...er... Obama administration)

What piqued my interest, however, is this comment.

If Barack Obama is elected the next president of the United States on Tuesday, I
hope the Republican Party and conservatives take the higher road. The republic
cannot handle another four years of undeclared civil war while we have real
enemies out there to fight.

While this is true and necessary, why is it that the conservatives are the ones that need to "take the high road"? I think the answer is two-fold. First, for whatever reason, the majority of media (and by media, I mean network and cable TV news, newspapers/magizines, and TV and movie actors, writers and directors) are biased toward the Democratic wing of the government (and the left-wing of the Democratic party). For more information on that, please read this also interesting column. Because of this, the democratic party has a monopoly on framing the debate. The question isn't "Did the President's ecomonic policies contribute to this current economic crisis?" or even "Did John McCain's ecomonic initiatives attempt to prevent this crisis?". The debate has been framed as "How will the next President's policies be different from the failed, evil, silly, *Insert derogatory adjective here* Bush policies?"

Second, the conservative side is represented by Talk Radio. It could be argued that Talk Radio had flourished because of the bias in the media. On the other hand, it could also be argued that the media has turned harder left to counter Talk Radio. Talk Radio started out great, and still has a lot of good providers. There is definitely a market for conservative comments and observations. However, it's success has also led to the negatives. Some personalities have over inflated egos, probably because they see themselves as right and everyone else in the media is wrong, which has a grain of truth in it. People like Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck have sought to create cults of personality and mutual admiration societies where those who agree are accepted and those who don't are branded idiots or worse. Their commentary has devolved to a constant hum that only serves to annoy those across the aisle. The idea that conservative ideals can stand alone intellectually if they are just explained is lost in a chorus of Ditto-Heads and fanboys.

Of course, the alternative is for the Republicans to back off and let Obama and Co work the country into a crippling decade-long depression. But I beleive the GOP has too much integrity for that. Besides, if the Dem's get their 60 seats in the Senate, it won't matter what the Republicans do, will it?

The Death of Irony

I had thought the word 'irony' would survive Alanis Morrisette's hatchet job in that song. On a meta-prose level, it is ironic that a song called "Isn't it ironic" has no irony in it.

But too many times I have seen the word used instead of the word coincidental, or sometimes, tragic. To help resurrect this excellent word and restore dignity to the english language, let me explain.

Irony is the difference, often to humorous effect, between what is expected and what actually occurs or has occurred. Case in point: One would think that the song, "Isn't it ironic" would have something to do with irony, and yet, it does not.

Coincidence is simply when two or more things happen at the same time, usually against probability. It can also refer to the same thing happening twice in a small proximity, again, against probablity. If two twins were each struck by lightning in two seperate thunderstorms, that would be a coincidence. In that case, the proximity would be their relationship.

Tragedy is closely related to coincidence. Tragedy is when two of more events occurr coincidentially, and together, they create a negative situation for the subject. Both events do not need to be negative. In fact, some of the best examples of tragedy are when the first event is a positive, and the second event makes that first event meaningless or worse. Most of the examples given in "Isn't it ironic" are actually tragic. Example: He wins the lottery, and dies the next day. Afraid to fly, and dies on his first flight.

"Now wait," you say, "A person wouldn't expect to die on their first flight, right?" Well, yes, that is true, but the chances of crashing on your first flight are the same as your 101st. So the fact that it happened would be simply coincidental. On the other hand, the fact that the Titanic sunk on it's maiden voyage is ironic, because the ship had been designed to be "unsinkable" and the owners had bragged about this fact before she left port.

Palin's closing statement - Take 2
The United States can afford to have an extremist and idealogue in the Senate, because in the Senate, extreme views are tempered by the opinions of 99 other senators and a consensus is reached that is designed to represent the country as a whole. However, the President does not have peers to temper his views. He alone directs national policy and sets the national agenda. This requires a leader who can work across party lines to get things done. Not someone who declines to call republican senators on the Ecomonic Rescue bill because he, and I'm quoting Barack Obama himself here, "isn't very persuasive with republicans."

If you want someone who will vote the democratic party line 96% of the time, then Barack is your choice. But if you want a leader who is an independant thinker, who will evaluate each decision to determine what is best for this country and the American people, not what is best for the Democratic party... or the Republican Party, for that matter... but what is best for America, then the only choice on Nov 4th is John McCain.

The collected Wit and Wisdom of Television Theme songs

It is really nice to be where everyone knows my name.

There are times that I need to remember that I am not a superman.

Sometimes a horse is just a horse. And sometimes it's not.

These happy days are yours and mine.

Living life the the only way you know how may be more than the law will allow.

It is possible for men to live together and still be all alone.

Never trust 3 hour tours.

Keep your head above water and make a wave when you can.

If you want to disappear after a bad break-up, Cinncinati is a good place to go.

There are some who beleive that life here began up there... And there are some who will beleive anything.

Your dreams can be your ticket out, but only for a while.

Sometimes there is more than meets the eye.

Love is life's sweetest reward.

You will see that life is a ball again and laughter is calling for you.

You're not the boss of me now, and you're not so big.

It's a jungle out there. (editorial note: Yeah, a jungle in which one of the best opening sequences in all of television HISTORY could be replaced after one season.)

Cally-forney-a is where you oughta be.

It's such a good feeling to know you're alive.

We could use a man like Herbert Hoover again.

If you are ever trapped in the past, facing mirror images that are not your own, better do a good deed or two while you're there.

You can speak your own mind, but not on my time.

Repeat to yourself "It's just a show, I should really just relax."

Names are sometimes changed to protect the innocent.

When you have no one else to turn to, find a band of mercenaries on the run from the military and hire them. They can help.


More will follow. Post your own "found wisdom" from TV theme songs.

My Marriage Analogy

A couple of years ago, my wife and I went through a Marriage Course. After the course, the leaders asked my wife and I to give a breif pitch, describing the course to an informational session for the next course. I really like what I said at that time and I thought I should document it before it disappears in the cobwebbed mess that is my brain.

"So many people compare marriage to a foundation. I think that analogy is horrible. My house has a foundation. I looked at it when I bought the house. I even hired someone to look at the foundation, to make sure it was sound. But since then, I maybe look at it once a year, if that. I assume that since it was strong when I bought the house, it will remain strong. Recently, I read a book that was a historical fiction. It was set in the 1700's and at one point the main character sailed across the Atlantic. He commented that the sailers on that ship were constantly working. Even when the weather was calm, they busied themselves patching sails or mending rope or cleaning and replacing parts of the ship. In fact, he said the only way to tell the age of the ship was to look at the dishes in the galley, because everything else on the ship had been replaced. The sailers did this when the weather was calm because they knew that when the weather got rough, their very lives depended on that ship being string and dependable. This is a better analogy for a marriage. Strengthen is when you can, keep it new and fresh and alive, so that when times are bad and you need something to rely on, you don't find yourself stuck in a boat with a stranger."

Why can't DirecTV and Tivo just get along?!?

Many years ago, I purchased a DirecTivo box. This marvelous device combined a DirecTV receiver with a Tivo DVR. It was a match made in Geek Heaven. You see, the function of a DirecTV receiver is to decode the satellite signal, which is compressed MPEG-4, decompress it, and send it to a TV. The purpose of a stand-alone Tivo was to take a TV signal, compress it into MPEG-4, store it, then decompress it and send it to a TV. So when you combine the two, you eliminate the local MPEG-4 compression (instead using DirecTV more efficient compression) which saves money in equipment (no local 'co' in the codec) and picture quality. And, being one box, it only needs one remote. Perfect.

Then they started to fight. DirecTV decided that the wanted to make their own DVR and kicked Tivo to the curb. Now, me? I'm legacy. My DirecTivo still works (both of them, HAHA). But, alas and alack, neither of them support HD. In the next few months I will be making the jump to HD and then I need to make a decision. A decision akin to asking a 14-year-old if he wants to live with mommy or daddy. You see, Tivo HD DVR do not support satellite. Period. Can't be done. But Tivo DVR's have all the latest DVR features, such as access to Rhapsody music, instant download of NetFlix movies, webisodes and web content, and now, YouTube videos.

On the other hand, I much prefer DirecTV to cable. Charter doesn't have NFL network, or SciFi in HD, or USA in HD, or Brave in HD. Which is 70-80% of my veiwing.

DirecTV does have a DVR, but it isn't nearly as cool as Tivo. But basic functionality (and I include SciFi, USA, and NFL network as part of 'basic functionality') is more important that cool extra features.

Obligatory warning: Political opinions ahead...

Al Franken is running for one of the Minnesota Senate seats this year. I never much cared for Al Franken as a comedian (although Stuart Smalley was pretty good), but I cannot stand the man as a politian.

Aside from the fact that he is left of liberal, his stance on workplace union elections is enough to send me scurrying the other way. The issue is this: Today, workplaces that hold elections to determine if the worker will unionize or not, or other similiar decisions, are conducting by private vote, just like political elections. There is a movement (not sure if it's a bill, yet) to make those elections public. I am not actually sure what the legitimate rational is for that, but it is easy to see why certain elements would like that. Elements that would benifit from unionization. Elements that might be willing to apply certain 'pressure' on individuals who would vote against unionization. And by pressure, of course, I mean anything from nasty looks, to veiled threats, to 'unfortunate incidents' that involcve cement overshoes.

No, to me this is a fairly indefensible position. Hence I was interested in a radio commercial that I just heard in favor of Franken and this proposed law. "Now," I thought, "I will be able to know what they are thinking." However what I heard was a perfect example of an ad hommenem arguement. The radio commercials you have heard, said this ad, against Al Franken and the public workplace elections are paid for by Washington lobbyist working for the big corporations; The same corporations that are responisible for high oil prices and the home mortgage crisis.

OK, let's disect. First, the ad says nothing to counter the charges from the other side that open workplace elections are ripe for corruption. Charges that seem quite valid to me.

Second, corporations are responsible for high oil prices and the mortgage crisis? Really? Because I thought that high oil prices were the natural result of increased demand (from the emerging markets in China and India) with decreases, or at least no increase, in supply due to the inaccessibility of domestic oilfields or domestic refining capability. "But what about the record profits from Exxon and others?" Well, I just said that there is a shift in the balance between demand and supply. Exxon is cashing in on that. Good for them. There has been no evidence of collusion or price-fixing, so more power to them. In fact, reports that I have heard indicate that the profit margin for Exxon is a very resonable 4%.

And regarding the mortgage crisis... We do not live in a truly free market economy. It is mostly free, but not entirely. The key to the system is that the Federal Reserve controls the supply of money. They decide what the interest rates will be. If those interest rates are low enough, for long enough, some people will assume that they will be that low forever. They will take out loans that they can barely afford at the low interest rate, and cannot afford at a higher interest rate. In addition, certain Fairness in Lending practices require that lenders offer loans to individuals that they might not normally, or at least to ignore certain criteria that would normally disqualify some. So is the government solely responsible for the mortgage crisis? No, it was definitely a bubble and a correct was needed. But that correction is much worse due to govenmental interference.

So, to sum up: Don't vote for Al Franken. California, it seems, can pick celebrity politicians (Reagan, Sonny Bono, Eastwood, Schwartzenagger), but Minnesota does not appear to be able to.

I am not protected from harm. I am protected for a purpose.

Recently, I have spent quite a few brain cycles thinking and discussing the idea of suffering. I think it's very easy to fall into some wrong ideas about suffering. Some people beleive that Christians should not suffer, and if you are suffering, then you must be sinning in some way. Obviously, these people have never read Job, or the crucifixtion story, for that matter. Also on that side of the fence are those that say that all suffering is inflicted (as some say) or allowed (as others say) by God in order to prepare us for some purpose. While I think that this is certainly possible, that some suffering could be used by God to prepare a person for some ministry, this does not seem to be universally true. It is very hard to see any benefit to many types of suffering.

My opinion, as I put forward in the opening line, is that suffering happens. Much of it is self-inflicted. But God has a purpose for my life. And nothing that happens to me is going to derail that. The only thing that can get in the way of that is my own disobeiance.

OK, heard this on the radio and I need to comment on it somewhere. I just heard about a couple that was charged with "aggrevated identity theft". Really? "Aggrevated"? How on earth does one steal someone's identity aggresively? Or more to the point, how does one do it passively? Does not stealing someone's identity require some action? I mean, could I use the defense in that case that, yes, I did steal someone's identity, but it's not like I tried to do it. It just sorta happened. I mean one minute I'm cruising online, and the next I had a dozen credit cards in half a dozen different names.

Sorry about the delay. Life just doesn't seem to stand still for a little side project like this. Seren and I have tried to simplify our nighttime ritual. First, for Lent, we are giving up eating after 9:00. I know for some, probably most, that is no great sacrifice, but it is for us. We are also committing to not starting to watch a TV program after 10:00 and I am promising to get off of my laptop by 10:00. We will see how this works out. But now, without further ado...

Music of My Life Project: Year 5 - 1978

I know that I've said that the previous years have been difficult, but that is typically because there are only 1 or 2 songs that even qualify. That is going to change fast, starting with this year, I think.

First, there is the Grease soundtrack. Grease is one of those movies that was on premuim cable alot in the early to mid 80's, when I was watching alot of cable. I must have seen that movie at least a dozen times. "Summer Nights", "Greased Lightning", "Hopelessly Devoted to You", "You're the One that I Want". Hey, I even liked the sequel. Of course, these all existed only as movies for me. It wasn't until I was much older that I realized that the original was a stage musical. Still never seen the stage production, as a matter of fact.

The other option here is Billy Joel. Can't beleive that I'm made it this far without hitting good ol' Billy. In 1978, the choice would be "My Life" and "Big Shot". "My Life" is definitely a possibility. (Speaking of musicals, I would really like to see 'Movin' Out' sometime in my life)

But neither of these wins the crown. Now I have stood firm on the topic that I do not listen to country music. Unfortunately, over the years, this has required that I re-define what is country and what is not. For instance, many people consider Kenny Rogers to be a country singer. This is simply not the case, due to the expedient that one of the key definitions of country music is that it is music that I do not listen to. Therefore, the song for this year is the Western hit "The Gambler". This is one of the first pop songs to which I learned all the lyrics. It is one of the songs that my high school football team would sing on the bus going to games (along with Johnny Cash's "Ring of Fire")

Music of My Life Project: Year Four

This is the first year in which I have some memory. At least direct memory of the music in question for the timeframe in question. The song in this particular question is the famous John Williams score for the movie Star Wars. Star Wars, both the movies and the spin-off merchandising were a big part of my young life. I still remember that, when I was in fourth grade, my parents took me out of school early so that I could see a matinee on the day that Return of the Jedi opened.

John Williams theme is incredible, throughout all the Star Wars movies. I particularly enjoyed the way he tied/transitioned the theme from the third prequel into the empire's theme from the first movie. The tone of that theme conveyed as much of the storyline as any actor's expression or inflection.

Music of My Life: Year 3

Another tough year. I would say 'Bohemian Rhapsody', but that song did not exist for me prior to 1992's Wayne's World, despite being considered one of the top songs of last quarter of the 20th century. Another possibility would be Larry Groce's 'Junk Food Junkie', but health food has never meant anything to me.

No, for this one, I have to go back to my ballad roots and go with Gordon Lightfoot and 'The Wreck of the Edmund Fitzgerald'. As an aside, I always love looking things up on Wikipedia; I usually find out something new and completely unexpected. For example, I found out that TD Mishke, one of my two favorite radio personalities (the other being Jim Lileks), once interviewed someone about the historical details of the ship descibed in the song live on the radio, but did so by singing the questions to the tune of the Lightfoot song. The interviewee had not been told that this would be the 'format' of the interview, but proceeded to answer the questions straight-faced.

Music of My Life: Year 2

The year is 1975. The selection of songs seems kinda thin to me. Obviously, I was only 1 year old, so I don't remember the music from the time. Looking back there are some songs that I like. 'Kung Fu Fighting', 'Some Kind of Wonderful', and 'Shining Star' are all songs that I enjoy, but none of them have a special place in my memory.

The only one that speaks to me on any level is Harry Chapin's 'Cat's in the Cradle'. I really enjoy ballads, as I imagine the rest of this list will bear out. And this one has always hit me hard. It doesn't speak to me as a one-year-old baby, but throughtout my life. Listening to that song as a young man, I promised myself that I wouldn't treat my future children that way. I'd like to think that I haven't, but it's still something I keep in mind.

Music of My Life Project: the First Year

Birth to one year old. I can't say I remember the music from this time. But looking over the song list from that year causes some titles to jump out at me. My first throught was BTO's 'You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet', because the title speaks of untapped promise, and I really like that song.

But near the end of the list I found the perfect song for this time period. It's one of my favorite songs. I've even tried to learn to play it on the piano, much to my wife's chagrin. It's a fairly simple tune, without words. Perfect for a time before I could speak. So the choice for the first song is 'The Entertainer' by Marvin Hamlisch.