Christmas Songs

With Christmas just around the corner, the local radio stations have begun playing Christmas music, some even making it their 24-hour playlist during the season. I like Christmas music.

Because I've had so many ask (OK, that's a lie. I haven't had anybody ask) I've decided to provide you, the happy reader, with some guidance, and list what I believe to be the best renditions of popular Christmas songs. As there exist multiple renditions of most Christmas songs out there, I often hear inferior renditions of my favorites, and so I thought I'd make a list of what I believe are the best renditions of the most popular songs. It's just my opinion, of course, and I encourage you to submit your own ideas or engage in happy discourse as you disagree with my recommendations, but remember... I'm usually right.

I'll list the artist, and an album it can be found on, if I can.

So, here goes....

• I'll Be Home for Christmas - Bryan White / Dreaming of Christmas (Many great renditions, but this one is really smooth.)
• O Holy Night - David Phelps, Gaither Vocal Band (I don't have an album, but here's the YouTube link. I defy you to listen to it and not be amazed and moved.)
• I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus - John Mellencamp / A Very Special Christmas (Maybe the most fun Christmas song I know. It's got a great vibe to it.)
• Jingle Bell Rock - Randy Travis / A Very Special Christmas 2 (All deference to the original artist, local guy Bobby Helms. My Dad played music with him. But this one has the best groove. Wait for the restart at the end that totally kicks up the fun a notch.)
• Silent Night/Let It Snow - Boyz II Men / Christmas Interpretations (Turn the bass on your stereo up. When the full group kicks on on Silent Night, it' breathtaking and it'll rattle your windows. Let It Snow has a nice dance music feel to it.)
• Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer - Gene Autry (Can't get better than the original.)
• The Christsmas Song (Chestnuts Roasting...) - Luther Vandross / A Very Special Christmas 2 (Props to the Nat King Cole original. A very smooth listen, indeed, but it's hard to beat Luther on just about anything. This one's different from every other version out there and yet somehow doesn't ruin it.)
• Santa Claus is Coming to Town - A tie between Bruce Springsteen and the Pointer Sisters. (Both versions are fun and offer their own bits that make you chuckle. The Santa laugh at the end of the Springsteen version, accompanied by The Boss' own laughter may give this one a slight edge. There's also a very interesting duet rendition by Cyndi Lauper and Frank Sinatra that one would think would be awful, but is really pretty good. Additionally, there's a very good Neil Diamond version of this song that my wife hates. Go figure.)
• Sleigh Ride - Debbie Gibson / A Very Special Christmas 2 (Just more fun than all the others I've heard. Plus I saw Debbie live in concert in 1989, so there's that.)
• Do You Hear What I Hear - Whitney Houston / A Very Special Christmas (Whitney... 'Nuff said. But I have to give props to my friend, Becca Ford. She hit a home run with it that would make even Whitney proud. If she wasn't dead. Whitney, that is, not Becca.)
• Little Drummer Boy - Bob Seger / A Very Special Christmas (The Silver Bullet Band doesn't over do it)
• My Favorite Things - Kenny Rogers / Christmas Wishes from Kenny Rogers (Sorry to all you Julie Andrews fans. This really isn't a Christmas song, but has come to be associated with the Holiday season over the years. Kenny's version is smooth, snappy and enhances the original by not ruining its integrity.)
• Grown Up Christmas List - Natalie Cole / Christmas Classics (Full of emotion. Seems more heartfelt than the others I've heard.)
• Silver Bells - Bing Crosby (Hard to beat the Bingle!)
• White Christmas - Bryan White / Dreaming of Christmas (This one beats the Bingle. Nice feel.)
• The First Noel - Trans-Siberian Orchestra / Christmas Eve and Other Stories (First of all, if you haven't seen TSO live, YOU MUST GO! If you like live music, this is the best. GREAT Christmas show. If you know the lyrics to the song, then this instrumental is outstanding. If you don't know the lyrics, its still great!)
• Frosty the Snowman - Cindy Brady / A Very Brady Christmas (I know her real name is Susan Olsen, but who cares. Unless you're a Brady fan, this album is pretty awful, and really, it's pretty awful anyway, but Cindy singing this song in her precious lisp is absolutely perfect for the song.)
• Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree - Brenda Lee (The original is just so good. But Darlene Love and Ronnie Spector do some great renditions you can find on YouTube from the David Letterman Show.)
• Mele Kalikimaka - Bing Crosby (The Bingle again, although Jimmy Buffet does a really good remake. If you're wondering what this song is, recall the scene from Christmas Vacation where Clark is imagining his new pool.)
• 12 Days of Christmas - Straight No Chaser (Props to IU fans. Hands down the best. Look it up on YouTube. You will laugh and be amazed at the talent.)
• Baby It's Cold Outside - Vanessa Williams (Playful, although Dean Martin's take is really good. By contrast, Dean Martin's Rudolph is horrible.)
• Jingle Bells - Any version that doesn't have Frank Sinatra's name on it. But can you beat the Barking Dogs version? I doubt it.
• Mary Did You Know - Wynonna Judd and Kenny Rogers (Once again, this is just outstanding for being so unconventional, but there is a Gaither Vocal Band versions that'll shake you up.)
• Blue Christmas - Porky Pig (This really should be Elvis, of course, but this amateur take of Porky Pig singing the song is quite possibly the funniest thing I've ever heard. The kazoo solo and the guy laughing in the background is side-splitting. Look it up on YouTube.)

I know there's some I've missed, but you can find your own. However, there are a few other great Christmas songs that don't get remade because the original either belongs to the artist, or its just too good to be remade. But they are must-hears at Christmastime. Here's a few...

• Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer - Elmo & Patsy
• Wonderful Christmastime - Paul McCartney
• You Make It Feel Like Christmas - Neil Diamond
• Little Saint Nick - Beach Boys
• Fat Like Santa - Dale Jarvis (You've never heard of it. It's from the Bob & Tom album, It's a Wonderful Laugh. Find it on the Bob & Tom website. Outstanding and funny.)
• This is Christmas (War is Over) - John Lennon
• Anything by the Trans-Siberian Orchestra
• You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch
• The Chipmunk Song - The Chipmunks
• Merry Christmas, Baby - Bruce Springsteen
• Silver and Gold - Burl Ives (If I don't include this song, I get left on the Island of Misfits.)

As for Christmas albums, there was a series put out several years ago called A Very Special Christmas. There's four or five volumes but the first two are OUTSTANDING. Not a bad song on them, with great renditions by great artists, many of whom I've listed here. By contrast, the subsequent volumes are equally as bad as the first two are good. Not sure what happened. But you can find them usually at Wal-Mart.

However, my favorite all-time Christmas album is... wait for it.... Christmas Wishes from Kenny Rogers. This is a fabulous album with a perfect mix of originals and standards. The remakes are very good, not overdone and not ruining the integrity of the originals. Kenny doesn't try to stamp any of them. Just delivers nice, easy performances. His O Holy Night is very good, and the originals Kids and Kentucky Homemade Christmas are not cheesy at all as one might think. I'm a casual Kenny fan, but I promise you'll regret any preconceived notions you have about this. It's that good. Here's the obligatory Gospel cut from the album. You'll hear what I mean.

Thanks for reading. Happy listening and Merry Christmas.

Lindsey Stone

Just saw a news piece this morning about Lindsey Stone. I'd never heard of her before, but I know who she is now.

For those of you who don't, she is a young lady who recently had a photograph taken of her flipping off and shouting at a "Silence & Respect" sign near the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier at Arlington Cemetery. Look up "Lindsey Stone" on Google. You'll find it.

Her friend took the picture, and then, being the brilliant scholars they apparently are, decided to post the pic on Facebook. As such, it has "gone viral," as they say, and created quite the little stir. I saw it on one of the networks. A new Facebook page -- Fire Lindsey Stone -- has been set up, and currently has over 14,000 "Likes."

This is what Miss Stone posted on her page after the firestorm took off... "Whoa whoa whoa... wait. This is just us. being the douchebags that we are. challenging authority in general. Much like the pic posted the night before. of me smoking right next to a no smoking sign. OBVIOUSLY we mean NO disrespect to the people that serve our have served our country."

Obviously.

You'll see it and you'll have your own opinion. I have mine.

Lindsey Stone may be a fine person, I have no idea. She smokes, apparently, knows little of punctuation and capitalization, considers herself and her friends "douchebags," and enjoys challenging authority. She also seems to think that noone else should be bothered by all that.

I can tell you this, though. She's dumb as a brick.

It's one thing to take the picture. I've been to the Tomb of the Unknowns. Anyone who has will know what I mean when I say they don't play around there. I once watched a guard verbally berate a small child who was not standing after the onlookers had been told everyone should remain so. I mean, BERATE. An outburst, I suspect, that was geared more for the parents of the child in not making sure the child stood, but nevertheless reduced the child to tears. They DO NOT play at the Tomb of the Unknowns.

Moreover, the idea that it would be at all funny to "challenge the authority" by so disrespecting our military at such a sacred and honored place. I mean, this isn't some statue in some podunk town, this is Arlington, for crying out loud. How anyone could be that callous is beyond me.

Actually posting the picture on Facebook takes her ignorance to a whole new level. But where her stupidity really shines is in her surprise that anyone was bothered by it. Read her initial response again. She's actually taken aback that anyone would be offended by this.

For that, she wins the stupidity gold medal.

I've crossed a few lines in my time. I've done some stupid things. Some of those things were funny. Some still are. But I've also done some things I've later regretted doing. I don't think I've ever done anything that was intended to hurt or offend someone, but I've done some things that in hindsight either hurt others nevertheless, or would so if they ever found out. I'm not proud of that.

But there comes a time when we all must take responsibility for what we do. The dumb things I've done in my life I've done willingly. And sometimes I've paid a heavy price for those decisions. Other times, I've suffered for decisions that weren't wrong. Maybe just controversial or unpopular.

Lindsey Stone has every right to flip off that sign and show that disrespect. In fact, those soldiers died so she can have that right. Freedom of speech and opinion and demonstration are vital to our nation, and public discourse and disagreement is what many times keeps this country moving forward. If Miss Stone and her friends want to traipse around being "douchebags" and "challenging authority," they have every right to do so.

But what she can't do is think everyone else is being unfair for being outraged and offended by it. If one feels one has the right to "challenge authority," one has to acknowledge that same set of rights exist for everyone else. Not just to "challenge" authority, but to "abide" by it, if one so chooses. Other's right to disagree. And one's right to opine about just how stupid someone is being. And to a private company's right to fire someone for being a "douchebag" and "challenging authority." Especially if that "douchebag" is responsible for the lives of senior citizens.

Lindsey Stone isn't wrong for being stupid. She's wrong for not expecting others to call her out on it, or be offended by it, or be disgusted by her lack of respect for others. I think she deserves to be fired from her job, because there are some lines I believe you simply should not cross. She may not be wrong, but she has to acknowledge that every choice we make comes with consequences, good or bad. If you are willing to "challenge authority" then you have to be ready to accept that authority might bite back.

And here's a computer lesson for you all. NOTHING is private on social media. NOTHING! It's why we see loads of pictures of that night you drank till you passed out, or your son's stupidity, or your daughter's bikini pics, every day on the internet. All from accounts you thought were private. I'm sure Lindsey Stone thought only her Facebook "friends" would see her pictures. I saw it on the national news.

If you don't want other people seeing you being a "douchebag," the easiest way to do that is to not be a douchebag. If, however, you insist on being so, don't let your "douchebag" friends take pictures. If in that frivolity, the pictures do get taken, then for Pete's Sake, STOP POSTING THEM ON THE INTERNET!

If you do, then be prepared for how others may react.

Ronald Reagan

In the issue of Bipartisanship, there is a name Republicans and Democrats alike trot out every election: Ronald Reagan.

Each party tries to paint themselves with the Reagan brush. Every Republican tries to convince conservatives that they are like him, with Reagan's values and leadership abilities. Every Democrat praises Reagan's ability to "get things done" and claims to admire his willingness to compromise.

They're all mostly wrong.

Reagan was the last President who was elected in a landslide. (All the talk of a landslide in this last election is foolish. Nobody who wins the popular vote by barely 1 percentage point wins in a landslide.) Landslides are good for this country. At least they were at one time. A landslide shows that the winner is doing a good job, and that the electorate believes in the job he's doing. It lends a certain amount of legitimacy to the winner. Something we haven't seen in a long time.

Reagan did that, in 1984. And there was a reason for it, but not the one that you hear about on most news outlets today. What you hear from most people today, and even from politicians who try to invoke Reagan's name as a measure of their own abilities (usually inaccurately, I might add) is that Reagan was the best at "working with the other side." He did no such thing. That's the myth that most talking heads want you to believe today.

This much is true: Reagan famously brought the country together in a way that hadn't been seen for decades previously, and certainly hasn't been seen since. He not only reinvigorated the economy, it could be argued he reinvented it. He drastically reduced the unemployment lines. He strengthened our country, both economically and militarily -- so much so that the Communists eventually just gave up.

But he didn't do it by "working with the other side." He did it by convincing the other side they were wrong, and that his own ideas were better. And that was no small task.

There's no question that he made compromises at times when he thought it prudent to do so, but what he did primarily was make the other side believe that their ideas weren't as good as his own, and they'd all be better off giving Reagan's policies a chance. He was usually right.

And he did it in two distinct ways. First, he truly loved America, and he made people feel good about being Americans. Unlike our current administration, Reagan championed America at every turn and made people proud to be from United States. He didn't blame all the world's problems on us. He showed no fear in speeches all over the world proclaiming that America was not only the greatest country in the world, but the model by which everyone else should fashion there's. Wouldn't you like to hear a little of that today?

Secondly, he eliminated class warfare. Now I know there are many who disagree with that sentiment, primarily because today's media likes to portray the 80's as a time of the "Have's" vs. the "Have-Not's." But that simply isn't the case.

See, there are truly people in this country who need help. There really are people who are down on their luck, and need a helping hand getting back on their feet. They're not freeloaders, or slackers, and they're not trying to take advantage of the system or get a free handout. Through no fault of their own, save a few bad breaks and honest mistakes, they just need a little help from someone else.

Reagan understood this. And he had an honest compassion to help those people, not because he wanted to be their savior, but rather because he just wanted to help those who needed help. But he understood you couldn't give handouts without a little personal responsibility in return.

But he also believed in the American dream. That if you worked hard and became successful, you should be rewarded for it, not penalized. You never heard Reagan say something stupid like, "the rich should pay a little more than the rest of us." Because he understood they already were. And he understood that if you reward people for success, they will try harder to be successful.

Additionally, he knew that if you didn't punish people for being successful, they would gladly want to help others who are less fortunate. People don't run from taxation. They run from penalizing taxation. Most people aren't opposed to doing their fare share, and they're certainly not opposed to helping a neighbor, as long as its not a punishment for hard work, and the neighbor is willing to pitch in and help himself.

Reagan understood all this. He understood that a true democracy really can champion capitalism while at the same time helping those who need it. Reagan is known for his tax cuts and his "trickle-down" economic theory, but he also signed 11 bills into law that raised taxes during his terms. The bottom line is that, all combined, the economy rebounded, jobs were created, inflation reduced and the Gross National Product increased every year during is Presidency.

At the same time, he cut federal spending to several social programs, including Medicaid and food stamps, and increased military spending. The "less government" philosophy is true to the original federalist idea that the states should have more power and the federal government should focus on national security. These Reagan cuts did indeed put the burden of funding of these social programs more on the states. In turn, at the federal level, his policies created jobs. Rather than give them welfare, Reagan believed you should give them a job. "Teach a man to fish..." as it were.

Social programs, Reagan believed -- as did Mitt Romney, I might add, -- should be the job of the states. To be sure, some states did a better job of it than others, but one thing is certain: whether we liked it or not, these policies worked. During Reagan's two terms, less people received government assistance than at any time since.

Today's politicians -- and media, for that matter -- want us to believe it was because Reagan was a master of bipartisanship. That simply is not true. Most officials from that era will tell you that Reagan rarely, if ever, compromised his ideals and beliefs. A read of his own diaries bear that out. He is not known as the "Great Compromiser." He's known as the "Great Communicator."

That's because he was perhaps the best at explaining his ideas, communicating his values and establishing his standards. And then a master at convincing others that those ideas were best. Democrats and Republicans alike had a very difficult time refuting Reagan's ideas, especially as each time one was implemented, good things came of it.

No, Reagan was no master at Bipartisanship. I don't think he even liked the idea. He was a master at convincing others that his way was better.

And he was mostly right.

Bipartisanship

The American people got what they asked for last night.

Well, I should say, just barely over half of the American people got what they asked for. Because, let's be honest, they knew exactly what they were getting with Barack Obama for the next four years, because its what they've been getting the last four years. It's absolutely no secret. Now they get it over the next four years on steroids.

Obama was elected last night by a smaller margin than he was in 2008. In other words, the candidate who four years ago promised Hope and Change and vowed to finally bring the country together was barely re-elected by an even more divided electorate. The people who voted for him four years ago rewarded him for failing to do what he promised in 2008. Weird.

For some reason, though he's done nothing of the sort in his first term, exit polls showed that most Obama voters thought he was the better candidate when it came to working together with the other side. This despite the fact that he is roundly considered to be the most partisan president in decades.

But while I believe Obama's policies are damaging, the bigger problem is this: There really is no such thing as bipartisanship (Heretofore known as BP, 'cause its easier to spell.) It's a myth. It doesn't exist. It really never has, but more on that later.

Suffice it to say, many from both sides of the aisle complain that the other side won't work together. Most voters gripe about how the two sides can't get along. But one could ask the question: When have they ever gotten along? And even a bigger question: Is it even possible to do so?

I suggest it is not. How can two sides, who have fundamental differences in philosophy and theology, come to agreement. I mean, isn't that the reason we each choose a side to begin with? Because we align ourselves with a certain viewpoint -- a platform, if you will -- that is based in a certain set of fundamental beliefs that is usually diametrically opposed to the other side.

Ask yourself this: How are two individuals who have opposing views on, say, abortion, supposed to work together? What's the compromise? "If you promise not to abort every baby you want, I suppose I'll agree to allow you to only partly kill a couple of them." It's laughable to think that people with those opposing views could ever really agree on anything.

And yet, even though we pick a side, that is exactly what we ask of our politicians every time we vote. "Why can't we all just get along?" It's not only unrealistic, it's nearly impossible.

Richard Mourdock, a conservative, was defeated in a Senate race here in Indiana primarily because of a bad choice of words late in the campaign, and I highlighted that issue in a previous post, but even prior to that, one of the primary items about him that was attacked by the democrats was an interview he gave to CNN back in the spring during which he said that one of the things he enjoyed about politics is inflicting his will on others, or some words of that nature. Liberals beat him up pretty good over it. But democrats to the same thing, because he's right.

I don't want to get along with the other side, because I honestly think that their views and ideas are bad for our country. I voted for the individuals I did because I want them to go to Washington and defeat the other side. That's really why everyone votes, even if they're reluctant to admit it. They want their person to further their agenda, whatever that may be. Nobody votes for someone just so they can go to DC and "get along" with everybody else. Never happens.

But Obama, and liberal ideology in general, is even more damaging than that, because their agenda is based on class warfare. Their whole theology is based on pitting everybody against each other. Obama in no way tried to hide that agenda. He was open about his desire to tax the rich, and spend that money on social programs for poorer people. That mentality is coupled with the ideology that liberals are not just the only people who care for the downtrodden, but also the only people who can help those who are less fortunate. Liberalism espouses the idea that everyday life is gloomy and bad for most people, that it is because of rich people, and that the only people who can do anything about it is democrats.

Now, if you subscribe to those ideas, or believe them to be true, that's your prerogative and I won't try to change them. But you have to understand that that class-warfare mentality is precisely what prevents the very thing you accuse the other side of blocking... BP.

BP can never be achieved when one group of people always thinks the other side is out to get them. When you are ingrained to inherently distrust the other side, you will never find common ground with them, because there is no common ground to be had.

The point of this post isn't to try to convince someone that conservatism is better than liberalism, or vice versa, it's to point out that if you align yourself with one side or the other -- and we all do, even those who claim to be "independent" -- than the idea of working together with the other side is not only difficult, its foolish. Why would I vote for someone who I believe is a bad leader, or whose ideas I believe will hurt the country? Moreover, why would I want the people I did vote for trying to make compromises with those same bad ideas?

BP is really unattainable. The country would be a lot better off if everyone would own up to this. Because if they did, I believe it would better keep everyone focused on the issues, and less susceptible to the media bias of who they think just happens to be the hippest guy. If we ignore the myth of BP, we might actually vote based on the issues, and whose ideas are actually better for the country.

I know there will be some who read this who will never subscribe to my assessment, but their reluctance to admit the truth of it won't change the fact that the next time they head to the voting booth, they will align themselves with a side and choose the candidate they think best represents their side, just like I will. And they won't care if their guy is interested in "getting along" with the other side.

This is not meant to suggest that people with different viewpoints or ideas can't get along. We all have friends with whom we have opposing opinions on all sorts of matters. That is a reality of everyday life and I'm not suggesting we can't just "agree to disagree." This is a political issue, and the BP problem has existed from the foundation of this country. Which is precisely why there were opposing political parties from Day 1. The trendy notion, forwarded by an increasingly biased media, is that the inability to get along across the aisle is a relatively new phenomena in politics. Study your history, kiddos. It is not.

In closing -- and selfishly, I might add, in leading you to my next post -- this is a message to both sides of the aisle. I'm in no way trying to suggest that conservatives don't also make the mistake of trying to achieve BP. In fact, these days they often attempt to hearken back to a better day, and align themselves with and invoke the name a President who they believe represented BP like few others, and certainly none since.

They're right that he got things done with the other side. I would suggest he was one of the best at it. But is wasn't BP that got the job done.

I guess you'll have to read on...

Light-Sabres on the Beach

Several years ago, when I was a young father, I was honored to be invited to join a group of high school choir members as they traveled to the East coast for a choir competition. It was an all-girls choir. I got to be the drummer.

In lieu of compensation for my vast musical talent, they instead paid the expenses for my family to travel with me. We had an infant son, who was born the previous fall 11 weeks premature. After an 8-week stay in the hospital, doctor's orders kept us couped up in the house all Winter, so a chance to get some fresh ocean air as our first venture out with our new son was appealing. So my wife and I, along with my barely 3-year old son and our new baby, packed up and drove to the beach so I could play drums with a bunch of high school kids.

We had a great time. We had a room with a balcony facing the ocean, we got to spend time on the beach, eat at some cool restaurants, and spend a lot of time with teenagers. The energy that a group of teens can project is infectious. When they're having a good time, in makes everybody around them feel better. We just felt better being there. And all the girls in the choir oohed and ahhed over my two young boys. You know what they say... a baby is a chick-magnet. My wife and I enjoyed watching our young sons being fawned over by a group of high school girls.

But something else magical happened on that trip. And it didn't involve the girls.

A group of Senior boys from the school -- but who weren't in that choir -- decided to travel out to the coast to support the group anyway. I believe they traveled on their own dime, but I'm not really sure. They got a room in the hotel with the rest of us. I had developed friendships with them all. I had watched some grow up. I'm still friends with some of them today. So I was looking forward to hanging with the guys a little bit on the trip.

I did. Some. One evening, I hung out in their room, and hung way past my welcome. They thought I didn't know, but I did, which is why I hung around so long. They were hoping the old guy -- me -- would split so they could get to the party, which is to say, they wanted to drink the alcohol they had procurred. They didn't want me to know, what with them being underage and all, but I knew they had it, which is why I delayed the fun by hanging around so long. But they didn't know I knew.

For some reason, one of those young men had befriended my 3-year old son. The young man dated a girl who was a family friend, so we spent some more time with them than we might otherwise spend with high school kids, and they took a liking to my kids, and my kids to them. They came to their birthday parties, and our get-togethers, and they were our friends. And my 3-year old really liked the young man because the young man played with him, and treated him like the friend he was.

And they shared a fondness for Star Wars.

The young man had promised my son that sometime on this trip, he would play light-sabres with him. And my son was really looking forward to it. So, one evening, as the sun was setting, the young man took my son out to the beach and played light-sabres with him. You know... the cool ones. The ones that light up and even make the swooshing noise when you swing them, and the light-sabre "crack" when they clash.

This young man, who was digging hanging with his buddies, and certainly digging being with a whole choir of young, good-looking high school girls, played light-sabres on the beach with my 3-year old son. And they played, and my son laughed. And the young man laughed.

So often -- all too often, maybe -- we walk through life wondering if we ever make a difference. We long to affect others in a positive way, to impact somebody's life. Sometimes, people die never knowing if they ever did.

Tonight, I asked my now 17-year old son if he remembered playing on the beach that night. Not really, he says. But then, how many of us remember what we did when we were three? Says he has vague memories of it, but certainly remembers us talking about it as he's grown up. Seems as though each time we see the young man, we all recall the memory and share a laugh.

And there's the magic. That throughout all these years, the only thing we all talk about when we think back on that trip is the young man playing on the beach with our son. And we all laugh.

Tonight, the young man is hurting. He is a father now, and he and his young son have suffered a tragedy I can't fathom. And I wish I could help, but I can't. Tonight, he told me that he always looked up to me as a guy and a dad. That's touching, because he has always had a special place in my heart, and I suppose it's time I said thanks.

Because, all those years ago, when he thought he was just out being a goofy high school kid, he made a difference in my kid's life. I don't know whether he was Darth Vader, or Luke, but he made my son laugh, and my family laugh, and made me hope even more to be a good dad. And that means a lot.

Thanks Jed.