So I just finished preaching a three-part sermon series. Any of you guys interested in giving it a listen and offering some critique? Let me know.

This little bit of common sense trivia applies to Tim...

Guys--this may be the single best WWII account that I've read, watched or listened to in quite some time. Since it's a navel battle--the conflict is relatively short (when compared to Bastogne)--The bravery, valor, and American Exceptionalism is just as astounding.

This may or may not be your cup of tea--but it's definitely worth your time.

Just saw the Dark Knight.

Dang--that's one messed up film. Definitely worth a see. It's long--but it can hold your attention...

Oh Brother...

Bill has released a "full-band studio recording". He's calling it a "mini-EP"--which is code for 3 songs.

Price for the "EP"? 7 bucks.

Update: Here's a fun time-wasting game... Might even be worth 7 bucks.

On our end, E's tastes have not been nearly so easy to predict. This is a list of songs he has enjoyed from early on to the present. Interestingly enough, enjoyment of a song rarely connected to enjoyment of an album, let alone an artist.

1. "Vertigo (Randanka power remix)" by U2
2. "I am a Promise" by the Gaither Vocal Band
3. "Johnny B Goode" by Chuck Berry
4. "Have You Ever Seen the Rain" by Creedance Clearwater Revival
5. "Hallelujiah" by Lincoln Brewster
6. "Hungry Like a Wolf" by David Cook
7. "God's Gonna Cut you Down" by Johnny Cash
8. "Total Eclipse of the Heart" by Bonnie Tyler

So techno remixes to classic rock to brooding country to cheese pop (courtesy of S.) Mixed in with all of this appears to be an appreciation for Mozart (so long as the pieces are upbeat and do not involve the human voice).

A while ago, Scott had asked me about kids and music. I'd like to take a second to re-address that topic for a moment. First off--music is a very big part of our lives, and our main system is on for probably 12 to 15 hours every day. (6:30 am to after 8:30 pm, if not later.)

Yeah--without a shadow of a doubt, babies have definite tastes in music. I've been paying attention w/ Lil, systematically testing if she had a preference for what was regular or a specific musical genre or characteristic. There's no question in my mind--this 8 week old kid has a specific musical taste; and I know it well enough now to predict what she will or will not like with a very good degree of accuracy.

A night or two after we came home from the hospital, she was fussy and it was my job to zonk her out. So I came into the living room, and put in a John Mayer cd--specifically for it's consistent and rhythmic driving beats. What Court had tried for hours, I had accomplished in 3 songs. Out like a light.

We quickly learned that John Mayer quieted our fussy baby. Unfortunately, I can hardly take the guy. First two albums were OK, but then he began to talk a lot--and he shouldn't have. In any event, I purchased the other albums off of Amazon, and to my great chagrin, Ella also (retook) an immeidate (reliking) to the guy. I can't get away from him.

Tonight--I had Lil during her fussiest of the fussy. So I predicted that she would love Dave Matthews, and I was *so* dead on with that one. Not a peep out of her.

Lil is not into Jazz, depises bluegrass, and doesn't really care for concertos. Piano sonatas are tolerable, but will not help with the fuss. She seems to prefer mail vocalists, although she's also taken to Diana Krall. Bill Mallonee is not on her "want" list. Oh--she's also preferential to Blink 182.

Why this is the case--really interests me. I wonder if music preference is based on one's ability to effeciantly (neuro) processes that type of music. (?) That's my working theory, anyway...

Parenting the second kid sure as heck is easier than the first. You just learn crap. Like--if you've got a fussy baby, it's likely that they're makin' themselves fussy by floppin' their arms and head around everywhere. Restraining them (either by hand or by a tightly-wrapped swaddle) knocks 'em out. Where was this little tid bit of genious with baby 1.0?

For those that may be interested... It Has Arrived.

Hey Matt--you may appreciate this. I'm currently reading listening to a book that's detailing an incredible naval battle in the WWII pacific theater. (And such books are good, because once you have a broad historical knowledge--it's great to hear the individual accounts of the battles. It has really changed my perspective on the entire war.) In any event, here's where you come in...

The japanese naval strategy was this. They calculated that US ships hit their targets w/ an approximate 3% accuracy from (something like) 2 miles out. The japanese ships hit their targets with about 9% to 10% accuracy. So they believed that they could exploit this weakness. And they did so by increasing the gun sizes on their battleships. Increased gun sizes means more muzzle velocity means more distance. What's more--they could achieve a longer distance with less of an arc. (More horizontal vector, or whatever you math people would say.) And this was designed for great effect. If they can hit a ship with an increased horizontal vector (with a shell of significantly increased speed)--then they would actually shoot *in*front*of* the ship. (Theory and practice being that their shells could maintain enough velocity *underwater* for some 200 meters--and still have the ability to breach over 9 centimeters of hardened iron/steel. This would create damage below the waterline, which is significantly more severe than above the waterline or within the ship.) Anyway--thus was the japanese navel theory. So they built the largest battleships (ever) with the largest guns (ever--even by today's standards) to sink US ships from a farther distance by increasing damage below the water line.

The US theory was simple. Ships won't win wars. Planes will. So crank out the carriers. Heavy carriers, light carriers. I don't care--just give us carriers. And light carriers might even be better... Sure they're unarmored and much easier to sink--but you have to sink 4 light carriers to equal the loss of a heavy carrier. And given the (then) US capability to produce these things like Model Ts, (and with the attitude that the necessary expenditure of some lives would ultimately save the most lives)... Anyway--in short, our theory won. It's kind of apples and oranges though; our production power was way more than them anyway.

Interesting though--and I thought you might be interested about all that muzzle velocity and shell trajectory, etc...

I don't post the compulsory "look at what my kid" stories, but this one was pretty funny. E and I are at the pool, and a rather portly father walked by. She stopped what she was doing and looked at me with wide-eyed wonderment and said, "Big Splash".

Uhm... I don't know. This site may or may not be mean, but I've not laughed this hard in a while...

So it's been a while since I've posted. These are things that I have been thinking about / invested in thus far this summer.

1. World War II and specifically Winston Churchill's role within it. Arguably, this is one of the greatest statesman the world has ever known, and yet, if he were running for office in the US, he probably wouldn't get elected because he wouldn't appeal to the evangelical right and he was far too conservative for the liberals. Very little evidence for him being "saved" as it were. Moreover, a hard drinking man - nay, scratch that, an alcoholic - who left quite the wake in his own personal family. And yet ... exactly the right man for the those times. As Roosevelt and Stalin sat around waiting to be dragged into the war, Churchill stood on principle and entered the fray for moral reasons. All this to say, I find that I really am not all that bothered by John McCain's lack of faith. I mean, certainly, I want the man to be saved. I'm not arguing that. But what I'm saying is that his credentials as a potential president don't need to include worship on a Sunday morning. I'm not asking him to teach me about eternity. I'm asking him to defend the vital interests of this nation; and thus, in my mind, defend the interests of liberty abroad by maintaining a strong America. So I wish he would just quit pandering and say: "Look, I don't believe. Not in the way you do. But we have common interests and I am the right man to lead this nation for reasons x, y, and z."

2. On the subject of the apocalypse, I find myself wondering if the issue that will unite the world is actually going to be the environment. Scripture teaches that there will arise one world movement, lead by one charasmatic leader, etc, etc... But what issue would unite a world after thousands of years of acrimony. Peace isn't it. We watched the world tear itself apart twice in the last century and peace didn't arise simply because people were tired with war. The end of world poverty sure ain't it because quite frankly, mostly people who live in the relative wealth of the West don't give a rat's rear end about poverty in the Developing World. So what could the issue be that would unite a world. How about self-interest? Or, perhaps more appropriately (given the lack of definitive data), perceived self-interest. If I believe that the world is going to burn due to the technology of men and its impact upon the environment, I might - just might -- be interested in doing something about it. But the thing is, I can't do it alone. I can't even do it as a nation. Because no matter how "green" we make the US, Developing nations worldwide will still continue to produce allegedly toxic gases by the boatload. So if we are going to go "green" in the interest of self preservation (as a people), we're going to need to do it in mass, as a united world. Moreover, there is a certain ... spiritual bend to the whole green movement as well. So what do you think. Going green as a sign of the end times ...

3. I find myself wondering why none of you responded to my most excellent suggestion to check out Black Rebel Motorcycle Club. Seriously folks, this is solid music.

That is all ...

You know Tim--your commute post got me thinkin'. What are your (collective) plans up there? Ride through it? Any plans on movin' out or at least movin' closer to town? (Even w/ the depressed market, one would most certainly think that you've got some good equity in your pad.) Maybe dumpin' the homestead to pick up a townhouse or condo closer in?

Every now and then, I get fiscal moments of brilliance. And when I first got my G5 while at Gallaudet, I knew that Apple and OSX was for real. The stock was at 10 bucks then. (2003.) I'm now thinking that the suburbs are the new inner-city. Or--I'm wondering it at least. It'll take 15 years (minimum) before we become energy independent, and that's IF congress will let us drill for our own damn oil. (Which they are not.) As such, I doubt it will ever happen. Makes me wonder if we're on the verge of a paradigm shift. (Hence the 'burbs becoming the new inner city.) I'm going to predict that the smart money, now, dumps their 'burban home and moves toward their urban centers.) It may take a decade, but that's where the smart money is at. And this position assumes that common sense will not prevail in Washington, as fears of make-believe global warming are superceding true science and common sense. The libearls have us beat hands-down on that one...

And here's another thing--do you all know people that are buying more fuel efficient cars? It kinda makes me laugh, because they think they're ahead of the game...but when one factors in the new car payments, they're even more enslaved than before. (Albeit to a different master.)

My commute was never that bad up there... if I survived my ride through NE, I could get to work within 20 minutes by cutting through the side streets. (Saw a lot of alleged drug dealers; even saw 3 police take-downs.) Court's commute, on the other hand, was up to 90 minutes each way. Keep your chin up, bro--and slug as much as possible.

How Freakin' Cool is This!

My favorite hi-fi audio producer had a "name my new line of products" contest. Winner could pick either a pre-amp or a DAC (digital-to-analog converter) valued at around 1k.

I won--with my entry of "Insight".

Yeah me!