The number one album today in 1960, “The Sound of Music” soundtrack, spent 16 weeks at number one:
The number one single today in 1964:
The number one single today in 1975:
No comments on Presty the DJ for Jan. 25
-
-
National Catholic Reporter reports:
Today is the Feast of St. Francis de Sales, the patron saint of writers and journalists. I had no idea that writers and journalists had a patron saint, and I wasn’t even sure who Francis de Sales was.
So, after some quick research, I discovered that, born in 1567, Francis de Sales came from a privileged family, earned his doctorate in law and theology, evangelized to Protestants, escaped assassins and was friends with King Henry IV.
He was also an amazing preacher, a friend to the poor, and is known as the “Gentleman Saint” due to his patience and gentleness.
Francis de Sales died in 1622, was beatified in 1661 by Pope Alexander VII, and was canonized four years later.
Pope Pius XI proclaimed St. Francis de Sales as the patron saint of writers and journalists in 1923, because he used flyers and books to help guide people spiritually and convert Calvinists.
Patience and gentleness are not usually characteristic traits of hard-nosed journalists. We are more known for our tireless investigating and probing questions. But maybe we can work harder to ensure our stories mean something. A good journalist writes a story that makes the reader think; a great journalist writes a story that makes the reader feel.
With all due respect to the writer, by her definition I’d rather be a good journalist than a (supposedly) great journalist. There is far too much feeling and not nearly enough thinking in our world.
Catholic Online adds some amusing history:
Born in France in 1567, Francis was a patient man. He knew for thirteen years that he had a vocation to the priesthood before he mentioned it to his family. When his father said that he wanted Francis to be a soldier and sent him to Paris to study, Francis said nothing. Then when he went to Padua to get a doctorate in law, he still kept quiet, but he studied theology and practiced mental prayer while getting into swordfights and going to parties. Even when his bishop told him if he wanted to be a priest that he thought that he would have a miter waiting for him someday, Francis uttered not a word. Why did Francis wait so long? Throughout his life he waited for God’s will to be clear. He never wanted to push his wishes on God, to the point where most of us would have been afraid that God would give up!
God finally made God’s will clear to Francis while he was riding. Francis fell from his horse three times. Every time he fell the sword came out of the scabbard. Every time it came out the sword and scabbard came to rest on the ground in the shape of the cross. And then, Francis, without knowing about it, was appointed provost of his diocese, second in rank to the bishop.
Perhaps he was wise to wait, for he wasn’t a natural pastor. His biggest concern on being ordained that he had to have his lovely curly gold hair cut off. And his preaching left the listeners thinking he was making fun of him. Others reported to the bishop that this noble-turned- priest was conceited and controlling.
Then Francis had a bad idea — at least that’s what everyone else thought. This was during the time of the Protestant reformation and just over the mountains from where Francis lived was Switzerland — Calvinist territory. Francis decided that he should lead an expedition to convert the 60,000 Calvinists back to Catholicism. But by the time he left his expedition consisted of himself and his cousin. His father refused to give him any aid for this crazy plan and the diocese was too poor to support him.
For three years, he trudged through the countryside, had doors slammed in his face and rocks thrown at him. In the bitter winters, his feet froze so badly they bled as he tramped through the snow. He slept in haylofts if he could, but once he slept in a tree to avoid wolves. He tied himself to a branch to keep from falling out and was so frozen the next morning he had to be cut down. And after three years, his cousin had left him alone and he had not made one convert.
Francis’ unusual patience kept him working. No one would listen to him, no one would even open their door. So Francis found a way to get under the door. He wrote out his sermons, copied them by hand, and slipped them under the doors. This is the first record we have of religious tracts being used to communicate with people.
The parents wouldn’t come to him out of fear. So Francis went to the children. When the parents saw how kind he was as he played with the children, they began to talk to him.
By the time, Francis left to go home he is said to have converted 40,000 people back to Catholicism. …
He believed the worst sin was to judge someone or to gossip about them. Even if we say we do it out of love we’re still doing it to look better ourselves. But we should be as gentle and forgiving with ourselves as we should be with others.
As he became older and more ill he said, “I have to drive myself but the more I try the slower I go.” He wanted to be a hermit but he was more in demand than ever. The Pope needed him, then a princess, then Louis XIII. “Now I really feel that I am only attached to the earth by one foot…” He died on December 28, 1622, after giving a nun his last word of advice: “Humility.”
-
The number one British single today in 1958 was the first in British chart history to start at the top:
Today in 1969, New Jersey authorities told record stores they would be charged with pornography if they sold the John Lennon and Yoko Ono album “Two Virgins,” whose cover showed all you could possibly see of John and Yoko.
The number one album today in 1976 was Bob Dylan’s “Desire”:
The number one single today in 1976:
-
Our first item comes from the Stupid Laws File: Today in 1956, Ohio youths younger than 18 were banned from dancing in public unless accompanied by an adult, the result of enforcing a law that dated back to 1931.
The number one single today in 1965:
The number one British single today in 1971 was the first number one by a singer from his previous group:
Today in 1977, Patti Smith broke a vertebra after falling off the stage at her concert in Tampa, Fla.
-
Benjamin Morris explains why after Aaron Rodgers’ latest miracle …
… the Packers made the wrong call:
In the wake of Green Bay’s loss to Arizona — in which the Packers conceded a relatively routine winning touchdown on the first drive of overtime after spectacularly driving the length of the field (and then some) to tie the game in regulation — debate rages about whether the NFL needs to guarantee that both teams get a possession in OT. Whatever you think of the overtime rules, they are what they are, and under those rules, the Packers abandoned their best chance of winning by kicking the game-tying extra point at the end of regulation instead of going for it. …
Aaron Rodgers got utterly jobbed. To recap — not because you aren’t familiar, but because it’s not possible to relive this too much or too soon — at one point, the Packers’ last drive looked like this:
Just 54 seconds of game time later — after Rodgers pulled the requisite pair of canonizing miracles out of his backside — all the Packers needed to win the game and knock off the second-seeded Cardinals was 2 more yards.
As the game went to commercial, I hoped against hope that Mike McCarthy would do the right thing and let that game live or die on Rodgers’s ability rather than try to send the game to overtime, on the road, against a superior opponent.
Was I being emotional about what I’d just witnessed? Sure. Even if the Packers ended up winning, it was depriving Rodgers — my sometimes muse— of the opportunity to complete what would have been probably the greatest drive in NFL history. But I also felt the passion of conviction — that this was the right choice — and the desperate hope that the professional NFL decision-maker would have arrived at the same conclusion. …
The opportunity for the Packers to cap off that already legendary drive with a counterintuitive but mathematically sound two-point attempt — whether successful or not — had the potential to be another such reason-affirming moment for me. But alas:
Now, don’t get me wrong: That the Packers should have gone for two wasn’t obvious. But just because it wasn’t obvious doesn’t mean the call was difficult. This requires no advanced math and could literally be on a middle school homework assignment.
The question is: Which is greater, the chances of (1) Aaron Rodgers converting that 2-point conversion, or the chances that the Packers (2) make the extra point and (3) win in overtime? To make this comparison, we need to know or estimate three numbers.
Let’s start by looking at league averages:
- Two-point conversion success rate: Since 2001,3 teams have converted47.2 percent of their 2-point tries from the 2-yard line (431 of 913).
- Extra point success rate: Since the inception of the longer extra point this season, NFL kickers have made 94.3 percent of their attempts from the 15-yard line (1,131 of 1,199).
- Expected winning percentage in overtime: Since 2001, the away team has won in overtime 45.5 percent of the time (110 of 242 overtimes that produced a winner).
With these numbers (which used only division), we can find our chances of winning for each option using — wait for it — multiplication.
- Go for two: With no time left, this is exactly equal to the estimated 2-point success rate: 47.2 percent.
- Send to overtime: Chances of making extra point multiplied by chances of winning in overtime. 94.3 percent * 45.5 percent = 42.9 percent.
There, we already have a baseline 4.3 percentage point advantage to going for two for a typical road team in the Packers’ position, using nothing but grade-school mathematics.
But those are just baselines, right? Everyone from coaches to media to fans will tell you that averages miss the hundreds of situation-specific factors at play. This is a technically true but often misleading rejoinder — and one that’s almost always used only to defend the status quo.
But in the spirit of accuracy and transparency, I’ve tried to refine the assumptions that go into that calculation above.
- Two-point conversion success rate: Adjusting for team strength and refining the data to the most comparable situations boosts our estimate to 48.8 percent.
- Extra point success rate: Adjusting for league trends and kicker Mason Crosby’s skill raises our estimate to 95.9 percent.
- Expected winning percentage in overtime: Adjusting for the overtime rules changes and playoff dynamics lowers our estimate to 42.6 percent.
If you would like a little more detail about how I arrived at those estimates, here is a longish footnote.4
So here’s where we stand under our revised assumptions:
- Go for two: Equals estimated 2-point success rate: 48.8 percent.
- Send to overtime: Chances of making extra point multiplied by chances of winning in overtime. 95.9 percent * 42.6 percent = 40.9 percent.
Naturally, these educated guess assumptions could be off in various respects, but that 8 percentage point gap is hard to overcome. When people who argue that there’s too much uncertainty to buck the status quo actually list the variables they have in mind (unfortunately, they often don’t), they tend to overestimate the amount that situation-specific variables affect the balance of probabilities. And the variables cited often don’t even cut the way they think they do. For example: In this case, an oft-cited factor is that the Packers’ receiving corps was weakened by injuries, including the loss of Randall Cobb earlier in the game. But, as I discussed in the footnotes, anything that makes the Packers weaker relative to the Cardinals is likely to hurt their chances in overtime more than their chances of converting the 2-point try.
Thus, our best (and perhaps slightly conservative) estimate is that the Packers cost themselves about 7.9 percent of a win by kicking rather than going for two, and this whole thing could have been avoided if NFL coaches took the time to sit down and learn some basic percentages.
McCarthy’s rationale obviously was that he felt the Cardinals would only kick a field goal, thus giving the Packers at least one overtime possession. This is despite the fact that the exact same thing happened in last year’s NFC championship game. McCarthy clearly wasn’t counting on his defense’s failure to tackle Larry Fitzgerald on a 75-yard broken play pass, for that matter. Crosby didn’t miss an extra point all season, even from the longer distance of this season, but the question isn’t as much about whether Crosby can tie the game as your choice of winning or losing on a two-point attempt vs. winning or losing in overtime, when you either have to mount a scoring drive …
… or make a defensive play.
I have covered games with similar decisions to be made. The college game I covered this past season featured a late touchdown where the coach decided on the game-tying extra point. However, there were still about three minutes remaining, and the team that had just tied the game even got the ball back after a fumble. They didn’t score, but won in overtime.
One year earlier, that team’s final game went to triple overtime, where a win would probably get them a playoff berth. They were tied after the first overtime, the opponent got a touchdown and extra point in (to borrow a baseball team) the top of the second overtime, countered by a touchdown in the second overtime. I though they should have gone for two and the win. They kicked the extra point to go to a third overtime, where the home team didn’t score and the visitor did, ending the home team’s season.
A decade ago, I got to cover almost the exact same situation as Saturday’s when a Hail Mary pass with seven seconds left (apparently the only play that works on second-and-goal from the 35) brought the Cinderella team to within one point. Their kicker had missed a game-winning field goal from slightly longer distance than an extra point earlier in the year, so had we had to discuss the point I would have argued for going for two because high school kicking is usually an adventure. (The extra point tied the game, and the Hail Mary team ended up winning because, ironically, the opponent missed its overtime extra point and the winner did not.)
You can argue I’m cherry-picking my examples here. Football is about momentum and emotion more than arguably any other sport. Consider logic instead of percentages.
If you kick the extra point and go to overtime, you have to make enough offensive plays to score without your best remaining receiver, Randall Cobb. And then you have to make enough defensive plays to stop the Cardinals from outscoring you. (Unless you do those things in reverse order, when your offense doesn’t even get the ball.) If you go for two, you have two yards to gain, which means you have the entire short-yardage playbook at your disposal — everything from a three-tight-end pass …
… to a spread-formation run …
… to something else.
(I prefer a rollout run-pass option myself.)
The point is that losing on a failed two-point attempt and losing in overtime have the important thing in common. The offense has two yards to gain on a two-point attempt; the defense has 12 yards (two yards plus the entire end zone) to defend. And the Packers had just left the Cardinals’ reeling with Hail Mary II of the 2015 season. Go for the win.
-
Regular readers know that I am not a fan of the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association for numerous reasons.
The WIAA’s latest ham-handed attempt to curb the enthusiasm of fans of high school sports, which has gotten worldwide ridicule, has gotten others to notice the WIAA’s other flaws
For instance, state Rep. John Nygren (R–Marinette):
The WIAA has taken it upon themselves to change the experiences students face by disallowing such “offensive” language as ‘Air Ball,’ ‘Scoreboard,’ and even chanting ‘USA-USA.’ It is clear, beyond all doubt, that left unchecked, an authority like the WIAA will continue to test the boundaries to see how far they can go. The WIAA has taken it far enough to encourage the punishment of students who speak out against the WIAA.
Because of this, I will be re-introducing a bill originally authored by former Democrat Representative Tony Staskunas which will make the WIAA subject to the open records and meetings laws. When decisions are made with taxpayer money, the public deserves to have a say, or at least a look into the decision room. Policies like these, which suggest a mere suppression of speech, deserve more oversight and scrutiny, and I aim to ensure that in the future.
It is, of course, ironic that Nygren comes from the party whose leadership tried to gut the state Open Meetings and Open Records laws until the news media made them stop on, of all days, Independence Day. Regardless of that, Staskunas was and Nygren is absolutely correct.
There is some potential precedent even under existing law. The superintendents of Six Rivers Conference schools recently were ruled to have violated the Open Meetings Law in their secret vote to dissolve the Benton–Shullsburg girls basketball cooperative team. The judge ruled that the athletic conference constitutes a government body because it serves a government function.
Whether that precedent would extend to the WIAA, which claims to be “a voluntary membership of public and non-public schools” that “receives no funding from taxpayer dollars,” would be solved by Nygren’s bill’s becoming law. As it is, the WIAA’s claim is somewhere between disingenuous and blatantly false, given that taxpayers fund all activities the WIAA governs, including but not limited to (1) buildings where regular-season and postseason games take place; (2) the salaries of athletic coaches; (3) travel to and from WIAA-sponsored events; (4) athletic equipment; and, until the WIAA started waiving them, (5) WIAA membership fees.
Kevin Binversie thinks the WIAA has been going out of bounds from its mission well before this:
Life must have been so much simpler for the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) just over a week ago. Back when all they had to worry about where charges of unbalanced conferences and how’d they would run the next series of state tournaments. A time when their biggest problems were charges they were manipulating playoff brackets and playing Madison against Green Bay over which city hosts the state basketball tournaments. …
While on the field criticism of the WIAA has and will remain common throughout the state; most of that was for things regarding on the field action. What the entire April Gehl / chant ban incident has done is show the state not only how over reactive and out of touch the WIAA is. But also, where its political leanings lie; clearly on the center-left.
Learned conservatives often debate the merits of something called “O’Sullivan’s Law” and how quickly it takes hold. Named after British writer and former National Review editor-in-chief John O’Sullivan, the axiom states that for any organization or enterprise not expressly conservative; regardless of size, will eventually become more and more liberal as time goes by.
The WIAA is a prime example of “O’Sullivan’s Law” in action. The organization’s original purpose was to organize the games and tournaments between Wisconsin’s high schools. Now, it’s acting as the state’s “Bully Police” and doing all it can to ensure no one’s self-esteem is hurt.
But this isn’t the first time the WIAA has ventured into politics, or has used its capacity as “State Games Master” to advance liberal causes. The organization’s leadership has hardly hid its antipathy of high schools using Native American mascots and was believed to be heavily involved in the law which tried to ban them during the Doyle Administration.
When that law was repealed in 2013, lawmakers included a measure forbidding the WIAA from barring membership to any school with a Native American mascot. This prompted Wisconsin State Journal columnist Chris Rickert to ponder in early 2014 if the next step was for the WIAA to do what its collegiate big brother, the NCAA, has done and bar any school with a Native American mascot from post-season play.
But it wouldn’t appear to keep the WIAA from doing what the National Collegiate Athletic Association did in 2005, when it banned colleges with Indian mascots from taking them or related imagery to NCAA tournaments and prohibited such colleges from hosting tournament games — unless they got the OK from their namesake tribes to retain their mascots or nicknames.
The results of the NCAA’s move were substantial and, in some cases, swift. Of the 18 schools whose mascots the NCAA deemed “hostile or abusive,” 13 have made changes to comply with NCAA rules and five have gotten the OK from tribes to maintain their mascots.
Now, no one currently thinks the WIAA is going to go to that extreme against schools with Native American mascots. But then again, no one thought 2005 revisions the organization established for sportsmanship would lead to this round of idiocy.
Perhaps the time has come for WIAA leadership to stick to what it does best and run sporting events, not act as an agent of liberal social engineering. Of course, that would have to imply they learned their lesson this time.
All the chanting in the world might not be able to accomplish that.
-
-
I generally find productive uses of my time (for instance, work) instead of watching politicians talk.
Collin Roth watched Gov. Scott Walker’s State of the State speech and found six things missing:
1.) Act 10 Savings – However many terms Scott Walker serves, it is hard to imagine he’ll have a more revolutionary and consequential reform than Act 10. According to the most recent estimates from The MacIver Institute, Act 10 has saved taxpayers and local governments well over $3 billion and counting. What was so controversial five years ago (recall the recalls?) is now understood by local officials of all political stripes to be an important tool in managing budgets. Given this reality, I wish Walker would tout these savings, tout the flexibility afforded to local governments, and remind voters that his steadfast commitment to Act 10 was profoundly important.
2.) Education Reform – In the 2015 State of the State, Walker encouraged lawmakers to pass a school accountability bill and expand school choice statewide. The accountability bill got bogged down and the school choice expansion went into the budget. This year, Walker touted job training, ACT scores, and graduation rates; but failed to offer any bold new reforms. Jim Bender of School Choice Wisconsin said, “Wisconsin has lost its national leadership position in the field of school reform.” After Walker’s speech last night, one has to have modest expectations for further education reform in Walker’s second term.
3.) Milwaukee Crime – The 2015 spike in homicides in Milwaukee was a major story not just in Southeast Wisconsin but across the state. Milwaukee is the state’s largest city and the economic engine for the rest of the state. But it goes beyond that. This problem may be brushed off as a local problem, but the human tragedy is snuffing out lives, hurting families, and badly damaging the perception of the city for potential employers and young people. The problem of violent crime in Milwaukee requires leadership. Local officials have largely taken a pass. Walker could have used the State of the State address to send a message that crime in Milwaukee matters and is a problem that requires collaboration and cooperation from all levels of government.
4.) Heroin Epidemic – The heroin epidemic has been a priority for the Attorney General and the state legislature. Just last week, the legislature passed a series of bipartisan bills that will hopefully save lives and assist those suffering from addiction. But this is a huge problem, and one that cuts across geographic, racial, and socio-economic boundaries. Like Milwaukee crime, tackling this problem with executive leadership would be a healthy signal to the state that this a problem that requires resources, collaboration, and cooperation across party lines and at all levels of government.
5.) Minimum Markup – In last year’s State of the State, Walker took a pass on Right to Work, arguably the most important conservative reform passed in 2015. In 2016, he took a pass on minimum markup repeal, an issue that would put him squarely on the side of consumers. This issue is about to get a head of steam and has excited many of Walker’s conservative supporters. Failing to make this reform a priority leaves little for conservatives to be excited about.
6.) Transportation Funding – Walker made a big deal about coming up with a vision and plan for 2020. But one of the nagging issues in state government is transportation and infrastructure funding. So far, Walker and Republicans have taken a pass on solving the long-term problem by running up the credit card and floating bonds for transportation projects. This obviously isn’t sustainable. It may not be fun, but this state deserves an honest debate on transportation funding and spending for a sustainable transportation future.
The reason for the omission of points five and six may be the GOP’s disagreement on those two issues. The minimum markup law should never have become law in the first place, so why some Republicans defend a Depression-era law that is anti-consumer and anti-business is hard for me to understand.
The transportation funding issue is stickier. Some Republicans oppose tax increases, favoring cuts in transportation spending or cuts in non-transportation funding to fund more transportation spending. Others favor a gas tax increase, which puts the GOP in the politically difficult position of favoring a tax increase that will hit home every time someone gets gas. Democrats, being in the minority, see no need to bail out the GOP on this issue.
-
For those who think that those on the left side of the political spectrum come up with all the idiotic political ideas, The State of Columbia, S.C., reports otherwise:
State Rep. Mike Pitts, R-Laurens, filed a bill in the S.C. House Tuesday to establish a “responsible journalism registry” to be operated by the S.C. secretary of state.
Details of the proposal were not available Tuesday, only a summary.
That summary says the bill would “establish requirements for persons before working as a journalist for a media outlet and for media outlets before hiring a journalist.” The summary also includes registration fees, and sets fines and criminal penalties for violations.
The proposed registry “is ridiculous and totally unconstitutional,” said Bill Rogers, executive director of the S.C. Press Association. The State newspaper is a member of the Press Association.
The government can not require journalists to register, Rogers said, citing the First Amendment to the Bill of Rights, which ensures freedom of the press.
Why would a legislator blatantly insult the First Amendment like this? The Post and Courier of Charleston, S.C., reveals the answer:
An Upstate lawmaker who tried to keep the Confederate flag flying and whose campaign spending habits were part of a Post and Courier examination of Statehouse money trails says it’s time to register journalists in the state. …
The measure is at least the second bill filed in the Statehouse this year with virtually no chance of advancing, but is meant to emphasize a lawmaker’s personal statement. …
Pitts told The Post and Courier his bill is not a reaction to any news story featuring him and that he is “not a press hater.” Rather, it’s to stimulate discussion over how he sees Second Amendment rights being treated by the printed press and television news. He added that the bill is modeled directly after the “concealed weapons permitting law.”
“It strikes me as ironic that the first question is constitutionality from a press that has no problem demonizing firearms,” Pitts said. “With this statement I’m talking primarily about printed press and TV. The TV stations, the six o’clock news and the printed press has no qualms demonizing gun owners and gun ownership.”
Under the bill the Secretary of State’s Office would be tasked with keeping a “responsible journalism registry” and creating the criteria, with the help of a panel, on what qualifies a person as a journalist–similar to doctors and lawyers, Pitts said.
Pitts said the criminal penalties mentioned in his bill for violations would be “minor fines” similar to those concealed weapons permit holders face.
The Laurens lawmaker questioned whether working journalists actually follow the Society of Professional Journalists’ Code of Ethics, which outlines principles for professional journalists to follow to ensure fair and accurate reporting.
“Do journalists, by definition, really adhere to a code of ethics?” Pitts asked. “The problem that I have with the printed press is, like I said, it appears especially in the last decade to me each story has become more editorial than reporting. It might just be my perception.”
The bill was sent to the Committee on Labor, Commerce and Industry and Pitts is hopeful for a hearing, at the least, and he said he received strong support from several representatives.
“Let’s be realistic this is an election year, it is well into the second year and the Senate is not going to do anything this year and certainly not going to do anything controversial,” Pitts said. “So no I don’t anticipate it going anywhere. Would I mind getting a hearing on it to further the debate and discussion? I would love to have that.”
Pitts, who sits on the House Ethics Committee, was featued in the Post and Courier report “Capitol Gains” for his trips out West to Alaska, Oregon, South Dakota and Montana to hobnob at summits with “sportsmen legislators.” On one occasion he received a $1,104 trip in 2014 to attend the annual National Assembly of Sportsmen’s Caucuses Summit in Sunriver, Ore., where he was also went hunting. He used campaign money to gas up his rental car on the trip. There was nothing illegal in the spending.
Pitts also was the leading advocate for keeping the Confederate flag flying outside the Statehouse during last summer’s flag debate in the wake of the Emanuel AME Church shootings.
University of South Carolina journalism professor, veteran newsman and Dean of the College of Information of Communications Charles Bierbauer was one of several media sources in the state that said Pitts’ proposal had no chance of ever becoming reality.
“It says here in the building where I work that ‘Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press’ ” Bierbauer said in reference to the new journalism school.
Of Pitt’s proposal he added, “These are nuisance bills that allow an elected official to say ‘I proposed to bring down those muckrakers.’ ”
So Pitts is trying to compare the First Amendment to the Second Amendment. Fine. He should be a fan of both. Apparently he is a fan of the former only until he is a target. This is why journalists worthy of the title are skeptical of all politicians, regardless of party, or lack of party.
-
Today in 1968, Jimi Hendrix recorded “All Along the Watchtower,” musically assisted by Brian Jones of the Rolling Stones and Dave Mason of Traffic:
The number one album today in 1978 was the best selling movie soundtrack of all time:
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 