Tim Moore at 94.9 WHOM

Whitney Houston: Talent Personified

2012-02-13T14:56:00.002-05:00

Another superstar icon has departed us, and despite the world’s collective shock, we all saw this one coming.

Whitney Houston’s death on Saturday was the bitter end to both a majestic and tragic life. What she represented to her fans—and the truth exposed by the personal demons that haunted her must clearly have been worlds apart, but many of us felt this death more acutely than others.

Why?

Perhaps it was because we felt we knew her. She was the beautiful and talented singer of superstar lineage, one who was blessed with a voice from heaven. The deaths of tormented artists couldn’t befall HER, could they?

Here’s the video of her hit song “The Greatest Love of All”:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYzlVDlE72w

Ironic that the lyrics of that song refer to “love of self” as the greatest love of all. Loving oneself, accepting oneself were the values espoused, but perhaps not actually lived out by the singer herself

Since the news, I’ve been struck by the number of people who blame her husband and co-addict Bobby Brown. That this “bad boy” of rap would appeal to Whitney was the stuff of tabloid trash back in the 80’s. Frankly, that same thought occurred to me as well.

It was all his fault.

Well, no, not really. She was a grown woman who made her own decisions, but I’ll always believe that were it not for that destructive relationship, Whitney would not only still be with us, but her career would still be going strong.

I was a DJ in Ellsworth, Maine when that first album came out in 1985. I have never seen an artist rocket from total obscurity to complete and total superstardom in such a short period of time. Even Michael Jackson-already famous from the Jackson Five—had only minor success with his solo project “Off The Wall”. When “Thriller” was released, we all heard the future hits that would define his trajectory.

With Whitney, her mother’s minor renown and her relation to Dionne Warwick were the only elements that foreshadowed the career that would follow.

NBC may own the TV rights to “The Voice”---but Whitney really was THE VOICE. Soaring, crystal clear and commanding, yet sensual and inviting, the young Ms. Houston could do it all. Straight ahead pop, dance and beautiful ballads, she handled them all with apparent ease.

As the hits piled up, the Grammys and other awards accumulated and sales records were broken, I suppose it only made sense for Whitney to segue to the big screen.

While never touted as a threat to Meryl Streep, I thought her to be a pretty good actress. Her movie, “The Preachers Wife” was filmed in part in Portland, Maine—and I recall vividly the excitement of this town as she and co-star Denzel Washington descended on the city. It seemed that everyone in town wanted to be an “extra” for the skating scene in Deering Oaks Park—and a great many of them were!

How then, is it possible that someone with so much talent, beauty, poise and wealth could degenerate into the frail and insecure woman we saw on TV in recent years? How can it be that this icon of music whose rendition of the “Star-Spangled Banner” at a Super Bowl in the 90’s still gives us goose bumps—and yet, whose voice failed her onstage when millions were watching?

The devastating effects of drugs are, of course, to blame. These substances---pills, cocaine, you name it—and the person closest to her who enabled and fed that dependency are the smoking gun.

There is perhaps no greater illustration as we teach our children to stay away from drugs than to point to Whitney Houston. That these substances could take away someone so vital and compelling is appalling—and frightening.

So, as much as she gave to the world---her contributions of music and performances both in concert and onscreen, it very well may be that her biggest contribution is yet to come----that of a deterrent to those who seek escape though the use of substances.

It’s too late for Whitney, but maybe not for some of her fans—who may now make better choices.

She had the voice of an angel.
Now, she is one.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Super Commercials

2012-02-01T13:32:00.002-05:00

Since the NFL may have attorneys reading this—and I can’t afford to be sued, I’ll have to be careful in the phrasing, but dammit, this weekend will be exciting!

As you know, the football team from New England is playing one of the teams from New York in the “Big Game” this Sunday.

It will be Super. It will be a Bowl. And neither were in the same sentence.
So there.

And as riveting as the gridiron contest is in and of itself, the spectacle that IS the Super….oops…the “Big Game”---has as much to do with the TV commercials that surround it. In fact, the Monday post mortems are often about the caliber of the ads than they are about the quality of play on the field.

After all, these companies are shelling out HUGE dollars to grab our interest, make us laugh----- and eventually buy.

The Doritos “home-made” ads are great—and the audience gets to pick the winner from five finalists. This year, Jerry Seinfeld is pitching a particular Nissan sportscar.

Check out the preview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUFSHzT2xuY

Funny!

With the “New England” team involved this year, the outcome of the game itself will keep me glued to the plasma, but I too am interested in the ads. There is only one problem with this.

When the game is good and the ads are sometimes better, exactly WHEN do you go to the bathroom?

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Sense of Flying

2012-01-30T16:49:00.001-05:00

Warning: If you are afraid of heights, you may not be able to watch the video.

And today, it’s all about the video.

Hats off (little cone party hats) to birthday boy Rick Cooper, who sent this from Hawaii, where I doubt you’ll find him taking part. This little clip was shot in Norway.

Check out this amazing video of someone literally jumping off a cliff—and coming as close to flying as humanly possible (or as Buzz Lightyear would say “Falling—with style!”)

It truly is controlled falling, but with cameras mounted everywhere, you’ll feel the ride with the sensation that you are about to wet your pants.

For this alone, I am grateful.

Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER1PGYe9UZA

Wow.

Makes my life seem boring.
And I am fine with that.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Tim Thomas: You Let One Through, Dude

2012-01-24T16:17:00.001-05:00

To be a top goalie in the NHL, you have to be quick----and fearless. Pucks are flying at you rapid-fire and even with a mask and pads, a hard rubber disc hitting ANY part of your body has got to smart.

For the Bruins’ Tim Thomas, his refusal to join his team at the White House yesterday may have been fearless, but it wasn’t smart.

Here’s a quick overview:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkeTAKxsCyk

By now, virtually everyone has heard of Thomas, his snubbing of the Presidential ceremony that recognized the World Champion Boston Bruins—and his “reasons” for doing so. Unfortunately, they ring hollow, revealing a self-centered, pampered athlete who has the mistaken notion that anyone cares about his views re: the government.

Talk hockey, Tim and we’ll listen. Expound on matters outside your expertise and we’ll collectively yawn.

Let me see if I got this right: Thomas declined to appear with his team because he is upset with the U.S. Government. The politicians are cheating us, the system is corrupt and the problem is independent of party or individual. In short, it didn’t matter if a Democrat or a Republican was the Chief Executive. He was not going to take part in any ceremony held by a representative of a government he holds in contempt.

He had the right to say what he said.
He had the right to avoid the ceremony.
His assessment of the situation may also be dead-on.

Unfortunately, none of that matters.

In choosing to grandstand and draw attention to himself, he cheated his teammates out of the full measure of attention and honor they earned with their Stanley Cup win.

Selfish and rude, that’s what it was.

If the problems of our government are to be solved, you can be certain that the method to do so will involve committed individuals who will work WITHIN the system. It will not be changed by those who choose to hurl verbal bombs without even the suggestion of a solution.

In the NHL, there are plenty of players who hail from Russia and other formerly (or currently) communist countries. Maybe Tim Thomas should seek these individuals out and ask them about THEIR country—and its government. This country—and its government—“awful” as it is, has treated Mr. Thomas pretty well.

In a culture where athletes are glorified—and showered with untold riches, fame and recognition, Tim Thomas has been the beneficiary of these uniquely American opportunities. The working middle class gains entertainment from sports (at no small cost, I might add)—and they collectively finance the extravagant lifestyles of these prima donnas, elevating their status and influence far beyond what would be reasonable to expect.

Scientists, teachers and social workers often toil in obscurity, barely making ends meet.
Athletes and entertainment stars are obscenely compensated—and worse, their opinions are often sought out on moral, social and political issues for which they have no expertise whatsoever.

Just to be clear: Tim Thomas’ sole job responsibility is to keep a puck from getting past him and into the goal. Without a doubt, he may be the very best in the business at this task. It’s worth a Stanley Cup—and an MVP trophy.

What it DOESN’T qualify him for (in my opinion) is the right to ruin the experience of his teammates at the White House. He knew that his “statement” would be a distraction, that it would create controversy and that it would draw attention away from the TEAM and instead, direct it to HIMSELF.

Bad form, crappy timing and exceedingly bad manners.

I’m still a Bruins fan, but no longer a Tim Thomas fan.
You let a big one through, dude.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Frisbee: Cash Cow for Wham-O!

2012-01-23T16:51:00.000-05:00

Was there ever an invention that required less actual thinking than the Frisbee?

Don’t get me wrong. I love the flying disc and am merely jealous that I wasn’t the one to cash in.

The Frisbee is 55 today—as this was the day in 1957 that new toy company Wham-O started turning out the plastic flying saucers. America has been buying them and losing them in lakes and trees ever since.

A little background is in order. William Frisbie opened a bakery in Bridgeport, Connecticut back in the 1870’s—fast-forward to the forties and it appears that nearby university students were flinging his pie plates around, screaming “Frisbie!” as they did!
Walter Frederick Morrison and his partner then created a plastic version and sold it to Wham-O as the “Pluto Platter”, trying to cash in on the public’s craze with outer space and UFO’s.

Wham-O renamed the disc “Frisbee” in honor of the pie company (even though they misspelled the name) The company that gave us the Hula Hoop and the Super Ball now had another hit on their hands.

Check out this old TV ad for Frisbee:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3rXoJdu_Ek

That’s hilarious—and the profits were ridiculous. Over 100 million of the discs were sold by 1977—and in the process, a new sport was born.

Variations of Frisbee competition, from Frisbee Golf to Ultimate Frisbee have proven that the appeal is still very much alive.

Although up to sixty manufacturers produce a flying disc, the official “Frisbee” brand is owned by Mattel, which bought the toy from Wham-O in 1994.

Something so simple---yet so much fun. And so darn lucrative, too!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Etta James: Rest In Peace

2012-01-20T13:25:00.001-05:00

Legendary jazz and R&B singer Etta James passed away today—just a few days shy of what would have been her 74th birthday.

A pioneer for both her race and gender, she was—and continues to be an influence on singers to this day. Current star Adele has credited James with being hugely influential to her style.

In fact, that style crossed the boundaries of several genres, from blues to rock. She was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, the Blues Hall of Fame and the Grammy Hall of Fame (she won six)

The illegitimate daughter of a fourteen year old mother, Etta James had a tough life. From a broken home to substance addiction, James managed to rise to stardom even though her own life was anything but storybook.

Of all the songs she sang, there is none more identified with her than the hit “At Last”.
Here it is—the original, followed by a terrific rendition sung by Beyonce at a Fashion Rocks event in which Ms Etta James is sitting in the front row.

Goosebumps.

Enjoy both:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_1uunRdQ61M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=fvwp&NR=1&v=Vx_AhWeFcOU

Etta James---listed at #22 on Rolling Stones list of the 100 Greatest Singers of all time, she was a true original.

Rest in peace!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

SOPA: Over The Top

2012-01-18T14:54:00.002-05:00

You can’t go to Wikipedia today. It’s not up.

Google?
It’s there, but there is a black “censor” banner across the logo today.

It’s all in protest of the legislation now pending in Congress that would affect virtually everything we do in our internet-focused, facebook-centered technological world.

SOPA—or the Stop Online Piracy Act—is meant to protect copyrighted material from being infringed upon—a reasonable outcome one would think.

Unfortunately, there are far-reaching unintended consequences. Check out this video, which explains the issue from the perspective of those who oppose the legislation:

http://www.ted.com/talks/defend_our_freedom_to_share_or_why_sopa_is_a_bad_idea.html

So, who’s for SOPA—and it’s related bill? It’s the content providers, the big media companies. While I’m not sure that they are somehow missing out, they've spent millions to lobby that they have in fact, been victims.

True, copying and sharing may cost the originator revenue in the short term, but who’s to say that legitimate SALES haven’t been positively affected by exposure that occurred via (illegal?) sharing? Those doing the sharing in most cases are not “selling” the content—and thus are not making a profit, but huge sites like YouTube and Google are making it hand over fist.

Of course, the distinction here is that these massive sites are merely aggregators—this simple function justifies the traffic—and the dollars earned from it.

A cassette copy of analog audio or a Xeroxed book is inferior in quality - and that fact alone mitigated the rush to create pirating legislation. However, in the digital age, there is no loss of quality from the first to the millionth copy.

Hence, there is a school of thought that says this boldly:

“Anything that can be copied infinitely-indistinguishable from the original---is inherently worthless”.

Think about it.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

The Three Stooges: Not For Women

2012-01-16T17:20:00.001-05:00

Girls just don’t get it.

In my fifty-plus years of roaming the earth, I have yet to find a female fan of the Three Stooges.

Conceived perhaps just for children, I know that men and boys are all the same when the Stooges are on TV. We giggle and laugh out loud.

Most guys do a decent imitation of Curly –and all of us believe Shemp was an interloper.
Of course, the Three Stooges are everything that women hate in us men:

Rude.
Obnoxious.
Violent.
Stupid.
Juvenile.

That about sums it up. When many of these mini-masterpieces were produced, the United States was in the midst of the Great Depression—and we needed a laugh or two. That’s not necessarily a bad idea in 2012, although I will say that exposing very young children to this incessant slapping and physical violence is probably not a good idea.

For kids ten and up, though, it’s far less violent than the movies or video games they’re exposed to—and a tad better than your average hockey game.

Thanks to Q97.9 Music and Promotion Director Mike Adams, who supplied me with this subject as he forwarded a YouTube video of “The Curly Shuffle”, that horrible sendoff from the 80’s that gloried Larry, Moe and Curly! Here is that immortal song—spiced up with some great Stooges scenes—and a bonus clip of some truly memorable moments.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mBiHysKnvGs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FRsBa4KRkc&feature=related

OK, guys! How was that? Ladies, I already know what you’re thinking—and you are right.

We are idiots.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Presidential Bloopers!

2012-01-09T16:06:00.000-05:00

On the eve of the Republican Presidential primary in New Hampshire, I though I’d share this funny video montage.

This young political season has already had its share of gaffes, bloopers and blunders—and we’re just getting warmed up! Lest we forget that the stupid comment or physical mishap is confined to this year, I give you a compilation of some pretty good ones from yesteryear.

Now, to be fair, it has to be tough to live your life in the public spotlight. Especially now, with cell phone videos and YouTube, there isn’t a waking moment that couldn’t end up on the evening news.

All of us trip, all of us misspeak and embarrass ourselves. If you’re a politician today, it’s just part of the process. We all wonder why candidates are so “stiff” and robotic. It may be fear of doing any of the following that causes such behavior----enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9L2rq3woXs&feature=related

You can load up the next 3 segments if you like---I’ve had enough tripping and slipping!

As Rick Perry would say: “oops!”

Don’t let that be you if you’re a New Hampshire Republican! Make sure to vote tomorrow!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

HAPPY New Year!

2012-01-05T17:06:00.000-05:00

Ah, the first blog of 2012!

I’ve been so darn busy of late that I have chickened out of the daily blog—and hope that I can ramp it up soon.

In the meantime, I may cheat a bit and really let the videos take over when I get something worth sharing. Thanks to Roberta Solomon for sending this one to me!

OK—the economy still stinks, prices may be headed north and Europe could be headed south. I’m sick of the bad news, so watch this—and smile:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXvJ8UquYoo

Hope that brightened your day!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Pat Boone: The Anti-Elvis Scores Another #1

2011-12-29T16:12:00.001-05:00

The comparisons are unavoidable—it’s the mid 50’s and two young men are launching their careers. Both are white, raised in the south and influenced heavily by gospel music while growing up. One is from Tupelo, Mississippi----something of a “bad boy”—but this one, Elvis Presley—goes on to become the King of Rock and Roll.

The other guy is Pat Boone.

He’s the “good boy” from Nashville, Tennessee. Clean-cut, handsome and wholesome, he’s the dream of many a young girl—and their Moms too!
Unlike Elvis, Pat Boone’s style was strictly conservative—and mainstream.

It was on this date in 1957 that Pat would score his second chart-topper with the ballad “April Love”. He actually rivaled Elvis on the charts for a short time—and was a huge star-albeit of a different sort. A movie star too, here he is performing that hit song in the movie of the same name:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLaKFpMoRt0

Although Pat Boone played a juvenile delinquent in the film, it’s hard to imagine him pulling it off (but then again I haven’t seen the movie!) Looks like he lands the girl (Shirley Jones) in the end—and isn’t that how all mainstream 1950’s movies were supposed to end?

Completely embraced by establishment advertisers, Pat Boone was a big star for quite a few years—and oddly became enamored with the R&B music that black musicians couldn’t get radio airplay for at the time. Although perhaps best known for songs like “April Love” and “Love Letters In The Sand”, Pat Boone also covered more than a few R&B hits. In fact, his “whitewashed” versions of Little Richard’s “Tutti Fruitti” and Fats Domino’s “Ain’t That A Shame” actually charted higher and were bigger hits than the original recordings by these legendary artists.

And that IS a shame.

Nothing against Pat Boone—he was on the trailing edge of entertainers who catered to the conservative mainstream for their success. The soon-to-come parade of Elvis, the Beatles, Rolling Stones—as well as movie stars like James Dean proved that a counter-culture angle that defies the status quo also had a ready market.

Years later, Pat Boone released a CD of heavy-metal classics. Funny—and in fact a bit disturbing.

His time had passed—and his image would never withstand an effort to modify it. While not necessarily my cup of tea, he was an icon for many—and holds a unique place in music and entertainment history.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Philly Mayor Tells It Like It Is

2011-12-27T13:36:00.001-05:00

Today’s blog is all about the video—maybe you’ve seen it. Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia addressed a church congregation in August of this year.

The topic was originally meant to focus on the “flash mob” violence that the city was experiencing, but Mr. Nutter fanned out a bit and spoke to some larger issues. Citizens of the city were being randomly targeted for violence by groups of young people. Random is the key word here, as robbery was not a motive—nor was revenge . Rather, there seemed to be no provocation whatsoever—just a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mayor Nutter’s full speech is over a half hour (and worth watching-available on YouTube as well)—but here is an edited clip with some of the highlights:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL0QFZBLca4

It would probably be tough for anyone other than a person of color to deliver these harsh words to the audience. Things that need to be said—and an urgent need for parental follow through—the really tough part.

Only time will tell if Nutter’s words have an impact on the “City of Brotherly Love”, but I believe that he’s dead serious about tackling the city’s problems head-on.

I would be thrilled to have him as my mayor. No nonsense. No B.S. Just straight talk that needs to be said---and heard.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Catch-22 For The G.O.P.

2011-12-22T11:41:00.000-05:00

It’s been amusing to see the verbal gymnastics surrounding the proposed extension of the payroll tax cut from the Republicans.

No one is buying the argument that the holdup is over an extension that lasts a year rather than the two months that could be accomplished right now.

Who knows if any of this is good fiscal policy? I won’t pretend to. What I do know is that it’s great politics (for the Democrats)—who can get away with it all and not appear to be “playing politics”

Hoisted on their own petard, the G.O.P. has successfully fended off tax increases for the wealthy on the sole premise that raise taxes on ANYONE during a recession is a bad idea. Well, now that increase falls squarely on the shoulders of 160 million Americans, many from the ever-shrinking “middle class”. A thousand bucks in extra taxes starting next year if you make $50,000—and double it if you clear $100,000. For the average working stiff, the $40 a paycheck angle drives the point home better.

Republicans who fearfully signed a “no tax increase pledge” with Grover Norquist are now about to violate it—and even Grover stumbles in his explanation on how this situation is somehow “different”.

Note to the G.O.P.: When even the Wall Street Journal takes you to task, you’ve got a problem. Jack Kennedy once quipped that the Journal criticizing a Republican was the equivalent of the Vatican newspaper taking on the Pope.

While Speaker John Boehner assails the President for a lack of leadership, it appears that he cannot even count votes in his own chamber. A Tea Party revolt over a compromise between Democrats and Republicans caused the good Speaker to trash that compromise and keep a measure that would surely have passed from even reaching the floor for a vote. For Republicans in tight re-election races, this is toxic stuff. Even Senator John McCain attacked the bickering and urged the passage of the bill.

The presidential candidates are largely keeping mum (except the ever-babbling Newt)—and yet they can see this critical moment as another nail in the coffin for their chances of taking the White House next year. In an election year where the incumbent would seemingly be vulnerable to a credible counter-campaign, the G.O.P. cannot decide which walking disaster they’ll nominate to take Obama on. With each passing day, the Democrats store up more ammo.

So, what should the G.O.P. do? Seems the choices all have costs:

1) Stick to their guns and refuse anything less than a year. President Obama would be happy to blame a tax increase on 160 million Americans on Republicans. And it WILL stick. At least the Tea Party will be satisfied. Unfortunately, this course will not only sweep Obama back into the Oval Office, but the G.O.P. could seriously risk losing the House of Representatives (again)

2) Swallow hard, extend the payroll tax break—and thus anger Grover Norquist and the Tea Party too. Republicans with elections looming could be targeted for removal with either scenario.

Good luck, G.O.P.! The public admonishment of the President’s planned holiday trip to Hawaii when there was still unfinished business in Washington backfired when he decided to stay in town. Now, it’s the Republicans who want to go home for Christmas and must face the fallout from their own words.

The American people are watching very carefully what the clowns on Capitol Hill do with their money in the coming days. Since there will be consequences whatever they decide, a smart Republican would do well to considering the following:.

An angry Tea Party/Base/Norquist----------or an angry 160 million Americans?

Do the math.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Happy Birthday, National Guard!

2011-12-13T14:53:00.002-05:00

Some people have termed the National Guard the “Rodney Dangerfield” of the military---it’s the branch of the U.S. Armed Forces that “Don’t get no respect!”

Never deserving of second-class status, I nevertheless believe that pecking order no longer exists—or at least is not as prevalent—since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the aftermath of 9-11, it was often National Guard units that deployed multiple times and bore a huge burden.

While the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines may have good-naturedly chided the National Guard for duty on American soil (while the aforementioned branches fought on foreign shores), this distinction evaporated in the so-called “War on Terror”. Everyone went abroad.

It was on this date in 1636 that the Massachusetts Bay Colony authorized an organized militia—primarily to fend off Indian attacks. That humble beginning marked the birth of the Guard.

Today, the National Guard is unique in its role as a reserve military force. It is comprised of “citizen soldiers”, who pursue a civilian career and then serve part-time.

Enjoy this short video on the Guard—and their mission:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE7dKlHL_5w

Whether it's fighting a war overseas---or rescuing Americans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. National Guard has been a vital part of the fabric of our country—and indispensable to safeguarding the freedoms that we enjoy.

If you are a member of the Guard—or a veteran of National Guard service, we salute you today.

Happy 375th birthday, National Guard!!!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Helen Reddy: Gender Icon

2011-12-09T13:26:00.001-05:00

I must admit up front that I’ve never been a fan of Helen Reddy, but then again, I’m a guy.

Men were never the target market—and that point really hit home on this date in 1972, as Helen’s first hit song “I Am Woman” reached #1 on the pop charts. Maybe I felt threatened back then, even at the tender age of 14. The ladies were asserting themselves!

The timing couldn’t have been better, but the messenger was an unlikely one.

The women’s liberation movement had just started to gain momentum—“Ms. Magazine” had recently been launched—but Helen Reddy gave no prior clue that she would be the voice of an entire gender. The “breakthrough” for this young Australian singer came with a cover from the score of “Jesus Christ Superstar”—“I Don’t Know How To Love Him” (hardly a song of female independence!)

Even so, Helen was influenced by the growing women’s lib movement—and set out to write a song that captured its spirit.

Safe to say she succeeded.

Released in the spring of 1972, “I Am Woman” struggled to get airplay---perhaps because most radio stations were programmed by men! It dropped off the Hot 100 chart altogether, but thanks to multiple TV appearances and the subsequent avalanche of requests from women to radio stations, the song found a second life and re-emerged on the chart—a rare feat indeed!

Here’s a clip of Helen Reddy performing her first hit song on the old TV show “Midnight Special” (remember that one!?)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmifO2sKT7g

Helen would go on to have several other hits, including: “Delta Dawn”, “You And Me Against The World”, “Ain’t No Way To Treat A Lady” and “Leave Me Alone(Ruby Red Dress)”. She stated in 2008 that she would never perform in front of another audience, saying that her voice had “deepened to another level”—and she wasn’t sure she could even pull off “Delta Dawn”.

That’s OK—her voice was heard loud and clear in the 70’s, when her gender needed it most. To steal from her lyrics, she is woman—and we definitely heard her roar---to an audience too big to ignore.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Pearl Harbor-70 Years Later

2011-12-07T15:11:00.002-05:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATEDENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

Most Americans had never heard of Pearl Harbor—until this fateful day 70 years ago

At around 7:55am local time, the first of some 350 Japanese aircraft appeared over the horizon of Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor, beginning the attack that would finally draw the United States into World War II.

A couple of years ago, I read a great book, “FDR” by Jean Edward Smith. This highly detailed biography (636 pages, with another 200 or so of notes and supporting facts) is fascinating on many levels-mostly personal-but it also recreates the landscape of American and Japanese relations just before the deadly attack. An attack by the Japanese was expected—just not where it occurred.

FDR got the news at around 1:30pm Washington time—in his study with advisor Harry Hopkins—when Navy Secretary Frank Knox burst in and delivered the news that Pearl Harbor had been attacked and that damage and casualties were heavy.

The U.S. had been expecting an attack any day from Japan, but most military experts were anticipating the target would be the Philippines, where the U.S. Fleet had a significant presence. Instead, a highly coordinated attack that pushed the geographic limits of the planes and ships involved caught everyone off guard. No one expected that U.S. soil could be reached from the Japanese mainland—and as such, no level of preparedness or emergency was imposed on the U.S. Naval installation in Hawaii.

Check out this compelling video clip of the attack, with some rare footage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt13c3olXkU

Here is the NBC broadcast audio of the attack-coupled with more footage of the carnage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePe5s0E5MeA&feature=related

FDR’s demeanor in the wake of the attack was said be very calm and measured-even though he was furious. Interestingly, it was Eleanor Roosevelt, not Franklin who addressed the nation first following the attack. In her already scheduled weekly radio broadcast, she said she was confident that “whatever is asked of [America], we shall accomplish it; we are the free and unconquerable people of the U.S.A.” Her husband that evening dictated a speech that he would deliver to Congress the next day—complete with the memorable phrase regarding December 7th, “ a date that would live in infamy”

Looking back, it seems like the height of stupidity for the Japanese to attack the United States—and for Germany to follow with a declaration of war. America’s isolationist sentiment was still strong—and it would have made sense for the Axis powers to keep the United States out of the war.

Instead, the attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized public opinion and completely squashed political infighting. America has never been more united, it is said, as the country plunged into a war effort that would affect every single person in the U.S.

Such unity, also evident after the terrorist attacks in 2001—is always desired, but never at the cost we have borne.

The times have changed—and the enemy has as well. It would do this country well to remember the lessons of Pearl Harbor-namely, that threats to our homeland could come at any time---but vigilance on OUR soil (as opposed to an amplified focus overseas) is most important to thwart the criminal plans that are being made as we speak. Whatever attack comes next will, without a doubt employ the element of surprise.

This year marked what likely will be the last major anniversary of the attack where survivors will gather to remember. The youngest of them are in their late eighties—and they are now dying at a rapid rate. My family and I were treated to a speech by a survivor this past Sunday at the Wreaths Across America ceremony at Cheverus High School. Semis loaded with wreaths bound for Arlington National Cemetery made a stop—and former Naval Chief Petty Officer Robert Coles was on hand to speak about what he experienced that day 70 years ago. Mr. Coles was as sharp mentally as any one of us in the gymnasium—and funnier than most. His short speech was remarkable.

We owe these veterans a debt we can never repay—but it is important that we never fail to say, “Thank you”.

If you’d like my weekday blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

No Obstacles For This Lady

2011-12-06T15:19:00.003-05:00

Sometimes I run across a video that I feel compelled to share with my faithful blog readers, thus becoming the topic and focus of the day.

I saw the following video of Amy Purdy, who lost both legs as a young woman. Instead of defining her life in a negative way, she has managed to not only overcome the obstacles, but has succeeded beyond even her wildest dreams.

Personally, I have had a few challenging weeks at work. The natural tendency is to narrow your focus and hone in on your own mountains, climbing them and getting wrapped up in your own troubles. That’s what I did.

What a wake-up call young Amy provided to me.

The holiday season is beautiful and wonderful, but it can also be hectic, stressful and somewhat sad if you have recently lost a loved one or are going through a particularly tough time. The Christmas season can magnify the areas that may be lacking in your life.

If so, this is for you. May it be the inspiration to you that is has been for me:

http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_purdy_living_beyond_limits.html

Wow.

Wise beyond her years—and someone to think of whenever we run into seemingly insurmountable challenges. Whatever they are, Amy may have you beat—and her story will hopefully continue to inspire you.

Merry Christmas!

If you would like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Turmoil In The G.O.P.

2011-12-05T15:10:00.002-05:00

It’s only been a couple of weeks since my last blog (sorry! Exceedingly busy at work these days..), but a lot has happened in just the past few days in the race for the Republican nomination:

1) The Herman Cain train has permanently derailed
2) Newt Gingrich has surged ahead to be the newest frontrunner
3) Rick Perry has put his foot in his mouth (again)
4) Mitt Romney has faded

The G.O.P. has never been in such disarray. It may be Old, but it is not too Grand right now and no one is Partying.

All the while, the most intelligent and most conservative candidate of the bunch can’t get arrested. John Huntsman may be the best the Republicans have to offer—and yet he cannot seem to break out of the single digits.

After a Georgia woman came out last week and admitted to a THIRTEEN YEAR affair with Herman Cain, it became increasingly clear that the pizza guy couldn’t possibly be nominated. If the personal behavior could be forgiven, certainly the denials could not be. Many Presidents have lied—and a few have strayed, but the knowledge didn’t hit the public consciousness until after the offender was in the Oval Office. We simply cannot vote for a man whose sole response to a litany of credible accusations is “I didn’t do it”—or worse…”9-9-9”

Please.

Herman Cain is not ready to assume the office. Besides an inability to tell the truth, he has exposed his complete ignorance of foreign policy. When I want extra cheese on my stuffed crust pie or an order of crazy bread, Cain is the man to call. Otherwise, he is the sideshow he has always been. Interesting and entertaining, but not credible.

Newt Gingrich?

Really? If the Obama White House is smart, they will keep their hands off him. Continue to batter the candidacy of Romney on TV—he still represents the best chance for the GOP to take the White House. Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of facing his Newtness as the standard bearer of the Republicans in 2012. Over his long and rocky career as the ultimate Washington insider, he represents everything that Tea Party conservatives loathe. Gingrich has made millions from taxpayer dollars in “consulting fees”—there is no way he won’t be fried alive in his own juices should the GOP award him the nomination. He may be the latest “shiny new toy”, but closer look reveals a “slimy old boy”.

Rick Perry’s latest gaffe-not knowing that the voting age in America is 18, not 21—and not even knowing the date of the election—has sealed his fate. It must be embarrassing to be from Texas. This is the guy YOU voted in as your governor?

Ron Paul’s stature as the #3 guy in most polls is more of a slap in the face to the other aspirants than it is an endorsement of Paul himself. An isolationist, a libertarian and someone who is viewed as extreme on most issues, he too cannot be the nominee.

So, who will it be?

Mitt Romney will take New Hampshire, but Newt will finish second. Gingrich will likely take Iowa, South Carolina and Florida. That momentum will make him the frontrunner until he has a Rick Perry moment.

And he most assuredly will.

It won’t be a Perry “$^&*-for-brains” gaffe, but somehow Newt’s own mouth will torpedo his hopes of winning the nomination. In desperation, the party elders will have to either hold their collective noses and line up behind Romney---or maybe pluck someone from the wings.

Michael Bloomberg is the best option, but he says he doesn’t want the job. If ever there was a year in which he could win the Presidency, this is it.

All we know is that it cannot possibly be Bachman, Santoro, Paul, Perry or Huntsman (even though he most likely has earned the consideration based on his resume alone)

Romney…or….whom?

This is starting to get interesting!

If you’d like to have my blog land in your mailbox, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Golf Carts Are Safe….Right?

2011-11-17T16:28:00.000-05:00

Sometimes, it’s all about the video.

When my kids were younger, the most appealing part of playing golf was riding in (and nagging me to let them drive) the golf cart.

“No”, I’d say. “Golf carts are dangerous—they’re like real cars!” I didn’t really even believe it as the words left my lips, but being the over cautious parent that I was, this was one little white lie told to protect my “young’ns”!

However, after watching this video, I have changed my mind.

Sit back and enjoy the following idiots try to kill themselves with a Cushman:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtHe_ns7cHk

Thanks to good friend and golfing buddy Rick Cooper for forwarding this video. He may have been the one doing a little ill-advised roof surfing in the segment you just saw.

As the weather gets colder and the dark settles in earlier, there may be no more golf in New England this year. As such, the countdown to Spring begins….now.

Is winter over yet?

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Penn State: Shame Is The Price For Protection

2011-11-14T16:05:00.000-05:00

The tragedy of the Penn State situation is multi-faceted—and it appears that much more has yet to be revealed. The scandal-hungry media is eating it up, essentially “piling on” to the football program and the university in order to get ratings. This is red meat---and although complete exposure is warranted, I’m disturbed that at least some media networks appear to be enjoying the controversy a tad too much.

Sorting out the bad guys from those who merely “acted badly” is a scenario that clearly has been weighted against the latter because of their celebrity. Joe Paterno is being mentioned more than the alleged rapist, as if he committed the crimes in question.

Here is a PBS report on the scandal from a couple of days ago:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc7TwZq0bpU

Lost in all of this is the perspective of the victims—and of the one perpetrator (that we know of so far at least) who committed these horrible crimes. Coach Sandusky’s disgusting and morally bankrupt behavior has been overshadowed by the inaction of those who were in a position to have him arrested.

At the top of the list is Mike McQuery, who unbelievably did not ACT to stop the rape of a young boy in the Penn State showers. The world is asking how is it possible that a 6’4” former quarterback would simply walk away and merely report to his father and Coach Paterno the details of what he saw.

What we see from that point on--- crystallizes the central issue in this scandal, namely that institutional reputations are more important than the truth—or protecting children.

McQuery didn’t act more forcefully because of WHO he encountered in the shower. A coach with a solid reputation and perhaps a mentor to him as a player with the Nittany Lions. His quandary over how to respond was what propelled him to seek out Coach Paterno and his own father for advice—instead of acting to stop a rape from continuing. He placed his own future, the reputation of his coach and the university ahead of the safety of a little boy.

Paterno, while being applauded by some as having “done the right thing by going through channels”—also valued the school’s reputation—and that of one of his coaches—ahead of the safety of children. Up the chain, from the Athletic Director to the University President—it seems a decision was made to cover up, to conceal, to sweep under the rug this horrible crime and not bring Sandusky to justice.

The reasons for this appear abundantly clear. To expose the scandal and have Sandusky arrested immediately would:

1) taint the school’s reputation
2) diminish the football program’s reputation
3) hurt recruiting
4) hurt enrollment
5) open the school to legal exposure.

Is it not ironic that the failure of Penn State officials to take swift and decisive action has resulted in a scandal whose magnitude dwarfs the original scenario and makes points 1-5 far more injurious?

This is a scandal on steroids.

The full measure of punishment has yet to be meted out—and the lawsuits will cost Penn State hundreds of millions of dollars on the conservative side. The football program will be in shambles for years as those committing verbally to PSU have already started to withdraw their names. Who can possibly coach this team? A complete housecleaning is certain.

Criminal charges of perjury against University officials will cause enrollment to plummet and the once proud student body will go to Pitt or the University of Pennsylvania or ANYWHERE else. The damage is profound—and even if more dirt is not uncovered in the probe (an unlikely event), it could be decades before the school will recover.

“Joe Pa” didn’t do enough. He knows this and must be ashamed of his lack of leadership---sadly ironic when he has been praised for nearly 50 years as a inspirational leader who always put proper conduct ahead of winning.

“Victory With Honor” was the battle cry as the faithful gathered in Happy Valley on autumn Saturday afternoons.

The valley is no longer happy—and there is no longer any honor.

If you would like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Texas Toast: Put A Fork in Rick Perry

2011-11-10T11:33:00.000-05:00

The most uncomfortable 53 seconds in Presidential debate history last night has effectively ended the stumbling, bumbling campaign of Texas governor Rick Perry.

He’ll continue for awhile, but to rip off Meatloaf’s hit song, “Two Out Of Three IS Bad”. Perry boldly declared that he would eliminate three federal agencies—then couldn’t think of the third one. Especially devastating since the omission was the Energy Department---especially curious coming from the governor whose state is the one of the largest energy producers and whose entire jobs platform revolves around energy.

Oops.

If you haven’t seen a campaign unravel before your eyes yet, check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg

“Not ready for prime time” was a label often attached to a man who was said to be weak in the debate forum, but the actual problem is much deeper.

Stripped of campaign slogans and rehearsed lines, it is abundantly clear that Perry is almost incapable of articulating specific policies or explaining complex issues without getting confused. Being a poor debater in my view relates to the repartee where candidates can spar with each other. Being slow on the uptake when challenged or unable to respond appropriately to an attack are the hallmarks of a poor debater.

Perry doesn’t need an opponent or a debate setting to look like an idiot. He can do that all on his own. His fatal flaw is an inability to communicate----a real liability for a job that requires expert communication skills above all else. (see: George W. Bush) That’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that he may just not have the intellectual capacity for the job.

To be fair, everyone has had a “brain freeze”. Who among us has had their train of thought get derailed?. It happens to me multiple times daily—and seems to have increased with age. With an error that is so human—and so common, perhaps we are all being too harsh on Rick Perry. I may be, but, then again, I am not running for President—and politics will expose every Achilles heel.

Mitt Romney’s failed bid in 2008 was the education he needed to look so (comparably) good in 2012’s race. He seems relaxed, has a great command of facts and specifics and has displayed both humor (self deprecating) and deference to his opponents this time around---increasing his stature as “Presidential”—that nebulous quality that no one can define, but all of us can identify when it’s either there—or missing.

In fact, the demeanor and countenance of the Republican prospects is the major factor in their standings—in my opinion.

Here’s how they stack up to me:

Mitt Romney-looks confident and competent, “presidential”

Rick Perry-good-looking, appears “presidential”-- until he opens his mouth. Check him out when the camera is on him while other candidates are speaking. There seems to me to be a mixture of envy and admiration for the way other hopefuls can articulate points that he himself cannot.

Herman Cain-looks confident and speaks well-and plainly-very appealing to the conservative base because Cain has a way of simplifying complex ideas.—his other troubles will sink him, however. His lack of knowledge on the most basic of facts (for instance that China has nukes) will make even staunch Republicans realize that he is not up to the task. He too, is now all but done.

John Huntsman-has the credentials, speaks well and conducts himself in a “presidential” manner---HOWEVER, he has a way of speaking that seems a tad patronizing. His mannerisms bother me and remind me of John Edwards-a bit “holier-than-thou”

Newt Gingrich-Probably the smartest of them all—and will be the first to tell you so. His sneering contempt for the media and combative stance makes for great theatre, but his “intellectual” image—carefully cultivated in the way he dismisses the ideas of those who don’t agree with him—is both arrogant and uncomely for the leader of the free world. He is, at his core, a grouchy old man who missed his shot years ago. His deft avoidance of the $300,000 paid to him by Fannie Mae last night as “advice by me they didn’t take” was just the tip of a corrupt iceberg that would be red meat for the media should he ever rise to the level of frontrunner. There is no one the White House would rather run against than Newt---and Republicans know it. He cannot be the nominee.

Michelle Bachman-definitely smart, but like Cain, has been left short-handed at times when facts are demanded of her. There is a wild-eyed look about her at times that makes her appear a tad crazy. Unfair, but don’t you see it too?

Rick Santorum- not one ounce of “presidential” in him, unfortunately. While he should be a front runner based on experience, conservative positions and his staunch faith, he is not. His ever-present $&^@-eating grin makes him appear more like the 4-H kid whose cow won a blue ribbon at the State Fair than a serious Presidential candidate. Most of his opportunities to speak focus on bragging about his past accomplishments than in framing a vision for the future. His numerous compliments to Newt Gingrich border on hero-worship and makes one wonder whether he secretly thinks Newt is more qualified than himself.

Ron Paul-While he has some very important things to say, his radical views on everything from the economy to the military make him unelectable. I think he was far more effective in the 2008 campaign. This year, he looks like the “Crazy Uncle” that Ross Perot referred to in his failed presidential bid years ago. Not a factor any longer.

So, Republican leaders who don’t like Romney’s conservative credentials—may need to “hold their nose” and make Mitt their standard-bearer.

No one else in the field can weather the storm. Romney has a chance to win—and to Republicans, removing President Obama from the White House is worth putting ANYONE else in there…including the former Governor of Massachusetts.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

We Gotta Make Things!

2011-11-08T16:06:00.000-05:00

Our current unemployment problems are largely due to the exportation of manufacturing jobs overseas.

A simplistic conclusion perhaps, but few will argue that the American manufacturing base is merely a shadow of its former self. Economic theory holds that efficiencies are gained by allowing the least-cost producer to emerge. Prices are lower for consumers and this is good.

Unfortunately, national security doesn’t factor into the equation, but it should.

Higher American wages that produced the great American middle class for several decades provided the earning power for consumption on domestically produced goods and enhanced our standard of living. Labor unions, in their zeal to lift the lowly worker up, did just that---but didn’t stop there. Empowered by their ability to shut factories down with strikes, they saddled American business with wage and benefit packages that greatly increased the cost of production.

American companies reacted by moving their manufacturing overseas. There, lowly paid workers can crank out the same products at a fraction of the cost, even with shipping and handling added in.

The result is not only idle factories and people, but a national vulnerability should hostilities arise in the future.

At the onset of World War II, factories producing consumer goods were quickly retooled to provide the implements of war. Tanks, planes and guns rolled off the assembly lines in a never-ending stream. How equipped would we be today for such a turnaround? How many of our critical components are made elsewhere---and perhaps by people who might be our enemy?

Check out this short video for the Ford Manufacturing Exposition—in 1934—what was “cutting edge” back then is rather ho-hum today, but therein lies a lesson, I think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91c7yNB5X3w

Remember that this exposition was held during the Great Depression. Times were much worse than they are today—and yet, investment and optimism for the future fueled the spirits of those who still very much believed in the so-called American Dream.

Just 77 years ago, but think how far we have come! What new innovations exist for the balance of THIS century?
Whatever they are, we need to create conditions that allow us to make those things right here in the good ol’ USA!

If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Verdict in Jackson Doctor’s Trial

2011-11-07T16:55:00.000-05:00

I am starting the writing of this blog before the verdict has been announced in the trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor.

By the time you read this, we’ll all know the outcome.

Was Dr. Conrad Murray criminally negligent in the death of Michael Jackson? We’ll hear what the jury says, but in my mind, the answer is both yes and no.

Yes, because any physician who earns $150,000 a month is clearly being paid to say “yes” to his patient’s plea for drugs—whether they should be medically administered or not. While the good doctor may not have been aware of the level of the lethal drug in Jackson’s system at the time, he may not “technically” have administered the dose that took Jackson’s life. Nevertheless, he should probably be stripped of his medical license and should face a civil suit, which he will undoubtedly will. To create any hope of a deterrent to other doctors, a “guilty” verdict would make sense.

No, because Michael Jackson was a tormented star whose drug addictions ultimately land at his own doorstep. He was responsible for his own demise, as he most certainly could have “bought” any other doctor willing to trade his conscience for a hundred a fifty “G’s” a month.

Sadly, this story is all too familiar. A huge star becomes a recluse, unable to mingle in the real world due to his celebrity. The wealth that fame confers on such people is used in part to create another world……

Guilty.

Verdict of involuntary manslaughter has just been rendered against Conrad Murray. No real reaction from Murray the reading of the verdict.

As I was writing prior to the verdict, it is the famous who fabricate a secluded world, one where they can live in relative peace---away from the public who adulation created both the wealth and the prison.

For Elvis, that haven was Graceland. For Michael Jackson, it was Neverland, where accusations of child molestation mixed with the suspicions of drug abuse. A superstar who never had a childhood, let alone a normal life as an adult—spiraled into a haze of drug induced escape.

Escape was the objective—and only in death was it complete.

Now that Murray has been found guilty, maybe there is closure for some of Jackson’s misguided fans, who sought out a guilty party, a scapegoat.

As for me, Jackson took his own life over an extended period of time. Dr. Murray was Michael’s own personal Dr. Kevorkian, easing him out. It’s obvious that Murray wanted to keep Jackson alive. He had a hundred and fifty thousand reasons each month to keep Jackson alive.

He failed—and will now pay dearly. To many, that is justice.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Birth Of The Hockey Mask

2011-11-01T13:16:00.001-04:00

Some things are just so commonplace nowadays that their previous absence seems hard to fathom.

Such is the case with hockey—and in particular, the goalie’s use of a mask. Protecting one’s FACE from a hockey puck travelling hundred miles an hour would appear to be common sense, no?

Well, in fact, it was never done—until this date in 1959.

Montreal Canadiens goalie Jacques Plante became the first NHL goalie to wear a mask during a game. Oftentimes, goalies would employ them in practice, but never during an actual game. Of course, these were the days when helmets were never worn either. At least that omission is more reasonable, but the goalie?

He’s the TARGET, for cryin’ out loud!

Barely three minutes into a game against the Rangers at Madison Square Garden, Plante took a close-up backhand shot to the face. It split his lip all the way up to his nostril. Blood was everywhere, but remarkably, Plante kept playing.

After a time, however, it was clear that he needed stitches—an operation performed in about 20 minutes in the locker room. When he returned, he carried with him his cream-colored mask.

Canadiens head coach Toe Blake threw a fit.

Blake never allowed Plante to wear a mask in a game, but this time, Plante dug in his heels. In an era when teams didn’t carry an extra goalie on the roster, Plante told Blake that he simply would not play without the mask. The coach backed down—and a new era of protection in hockey was born.

Plante was ridiculed for weeks—even by fellow goalies—but since he was a premier player and it was clear the mask didn’t adversely affect his game, the hockey community finally came around to the notion of protecting their goalkeeper.

Here’s a short video on Plante’s bold move:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMbXU4njAw4

When jeered by fans and reporters about the mask, he simply said, “I already had four broken noses, a broken jaw, two broken cheekbones and almost 200 stitches in my head. I don’t care how the mask looks!”

Indeed.

Maybe he should have pioneered the hockey mask a tad earlier in his career.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

The Gateway Arch Opens

2011-10-28T14:27:00.000-04:00

The day after the St. Louis Cardinals played one of the greatest World Series games in history, finally defeating the Texas Rangers to force a decisive 7th game tonight, I think that history will favor the Cards.

After all, today is the 46th anniversary of the completion of the Gateway Arch. This symbolical identity for the city as being the “gateway to the west” was forever immortalized on this date in 1965. The Cards play in the shadow of that Arch—and maybe the magic is rubbing off.

If last night’s game wasn’t a miracle (the Cards were down to their last strike TWICE, each time coming back), then certainly the Arch itself is a wonder to behold.

A miracle of engineering, one of willpower and one of spirit.

The brainchild of local businessman Luther Ely Smith, original grants were made in the 1930’s---but construction didn’t actually begin until 1959.

At 630 feet, it is the tallest man-made monument in the United States. Check out this fascinating footage of the Arch during construction:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txQO3vxfinA

Despite an actuarial firm predicting thirteen people would die during construction, no one lost their life in the building of the Arch.

There were others who were predicting the two triangular legs would not match up when then met in the middle. Although fire hoses had to cool down the legs enough to contract a suitable amount to insert the capstone piece, everyone was amazed at the precision of the design and its implementation.

Sitting on the west bank of the Mississippi River, the Gateway Arch cost $13 million dollars, which translates loosely to about $90 million in today’s dollars. Original detractors of the plans for a monument were in favor of reviving the St. Louis waterfront, but favored more practical elements, believing the Arch was “folly” and a waste of money.

Of course, time has proven them wrong. In addition to lifting the spirits of a community and enhancing civic pride, the Gateway Arch has proven a real money maker, attracting tourists from all over the world.

It all started as dream—and now sits as a reality that is still (at least to me) a miracle!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Whitney Houston: Launching A Career

2011-10-26T13:10:00.001-04:00

If the subject of singer Whitney Houston comes up nowadays, the talk will turn to how much of a mess she is. Substance abuse, a rocky relationship with her husband Bobby Brown and her largely non-existent career will dominate the conversation.

Not so on this date in 1985.

Twenty six years ago today, Whitney Houston established herself as the next big superstar, reaching the #1 spot on the charts with her hit song “Saving All My Love For You”.

There’s no doubt she had the genetic pedigree. The daughter of soul singer Cissy Houston and the niece of pop star Dionne Warwick, Whitney was blessed with an amazing voice and stunning beauty as well.

It was a “can’t miss” proposition.

The lyrical content of the “other woman” involved with a married man made the song a tough sell for some radio programmers, but the vocal performance and allure of this new talent was too much to resist.

Here’s the original video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewxmv2tyeRs&ob=av2e

Whitney’s first single, “You Give Good Love” peaked at #3, but the second release went all the way to the top. Over the next ten years, Houston would reach the top spot on the charts eight more times, in the process selling tens of millions of albums.

That debut album “Whitney Houston” ranks among the 40 biggest sellers of all time. Her version of “The Star Spangled Banner” was a top 20 hit not once, but TWICE—in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War—and then again in 2001 after the September 11th terrorist attacks.

It seems unlikely that Ms. Houston will ever resurrect her career—she’s had more than a couple “second chances”---but those of us who at least respect her talent—like me---are hoping that I’m wrong.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Have You Been Lied To Today?

2011-10-25T13:57:00.001-04:00

The title of this piece has an immediate answer for most people—and the answer is:

Yes.

I have been lied to today—and so have you, whether you choose to believe it or not.
In fact, the estimate of our featured speaker today is that you will be lied to between 10 and 200 times….TODAY.

Most of these fibs are of the “white lie” variety—the seemingly innocent untruths told to protect the speaker’s ego or perhaps not injure the recipient (you).

But, as Pamela Meyer, the author of “Lie-spotters” indicates, you are complicit in lies being told to you and are therefore charged with seeking out the truth yourself.

Thankfully, there are a multitude of both verbal and non-verbal clues that reveal deception. Check out this enormously entertaining video—and learn!

http://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar.html

While most of the verbal and body language clues I had heard of before, there were some new ones—and I must admit that the notion of me actually PARTICIPATING in a lie by believing it is a new concept.

So it’s partly MY fault?

The only thing that I wonder is----and this is a belief---is that our sloppy patterns of language may often convey deception where there really is none. Here’s an example:

Many experts say that a person who starts a sentence off with: “Well, to tell you the truth…” invites a response such as: “what, you’re usually LYING to me?” This figure of speech is said to both alert the listener to the fraud that follows or does indeed convey the sense that everything else this person utters is suspect.

Me?

I just think it’s a verbal crutch that many people use without thinking a whit about the literal meaning it conveys. As such—and I’m sure that I am guilty myself with other phrases like, “to be completely honest”, “as a matter of fact” or “the truth of the matter is…”---and the list is long I’m sure. I’m not ready to brand myself or others with the label of “liar” just because of a lack of verbal discipline.

But if you believe Pamela, we are all liars anyway.

Really.

I mean it.

Nevermind.

If you’d like my blog in your e-mail box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Worst Drivers Ever!

2011-10-24T14:33:00.000-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

Everyone knows someone who is a particularly bad driver. Maybe you’re married to that person or maybe they’re a member of your family.

The one common trait that all bad drivers share is this: they are BELIEVE that they are good drivers. Travelling 20 miles below the posted speed limit in the passing lane is seen as “careful”. Drifting in and out of one’s lane is never actually noticed and slowing a crawl to check out street addresses is someone else’s problem!

It was this month in 1966 that what could be the WORST string of traffic infractions were recorded.

A 75 year old male driver from McKinney, Texas received 10 traffic tickets, drove on the wrong side of the road FOUR times, committed four hit-and-run offenses and caused SIX accidents-----all within 20 MINUTES!

Ironic in a sense, since Texans-especially residents of Houston are consistently ranked as the best drivers in the country.

Here is a video clip of some truly horrid vehicular mishaps and near misses-CAUTION-some of it is pretty hard to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqt9EMYyZwc

Ouch!

Another bad driver record was set this month in 1978 when Mrs. Fannie Turner of Little Rock, Arkansas finally passed her written test for drivers—on her 104th attempt. Hope there was a general alert issued when she finally took the wheel.

If you’d like my weekday blog in your e-mail (free), just drop me a line! Tim.moore@cumulus.com

Let’s be careful out there!

Facts Do Matter When Making Policy

2011-10-20T16:42:00.000-04:00

Sometimes, a myth is repeated so often that it becomes a universally held “truth”.

Such is the case regarding the widely held beliefs about small business and their relative importance in the economy.

Elections hinge on and decisions rely upon our perception of what small businesses mean to the American economy. Part of the problem rests on the definition of “small”, but a generally accepted level is 20 employees or less.

President Obama says, “Small business is the backbone of our economy”
Other well-meaning, but equally false statements are:

“Most American jobs come from small business”
“Small businesses drive the economy”
“Most job growth comes from small business”

On and on.

And wrong, wrong , wrong.

So, what are the facts?

A recent article in Bloomberg illuminates the true situation. Charles Kenny wrote an excellent piece explaining the results of a University of Chicago study on American business.

Check out these facts:

1) In 2007 (most recent year of comprehensive data), there were about 6 million businesses in the U.S.

2) Of those 6 million businesses, about 90% would qualify as “small business”-20 employees or less.

3) Here’s where it gets interesting: those 90% of all businesses account for about 20% of all jobs. Yes, only 20%.

4) Said another way, 80% of all American jobs do NOT come from small business.

5) Between 2004 and 2008, only 3% of these small businesses added more than 10 employees. So, while companies like Apple and Hewlett-Packard start out as “small businesses”, only a VERY small percentage actually grow to be substantially bigger businesses.

This makes some sense, as many small business owners have no desire to grow big. They started their businesses in order to be their own boss or earn more than they could as the employee of a firm owned by someone else.

Of course, this has enormous implications on tax policy—and the politics that drive it. Republicans have fiercely protected the tax breaks of those making over $200,000 a year or more largely on the argument that these people are small business owners who are creating jobs.

False.

Fewer than one third of those self-identified small business owners even belong in the top two tax brackets.

In order to solve our unemployment issue, we need to encourage medium to large businesses to hire. Most of these behemoths are either privately held by extremely wealthy individuals and families or are publicly held companies.

The facts have borne out that the larger companies generally pay higher wages, have better benefits and attract workers of a higher education level.

Manufacturing is the true backbone of our economy—and so many of those jobs have drifted overseas that we have left ourselves in a vulnerable position. To bring jobs back, we need to do one or both of the following:

A) Impose tariffs on imported goods, thereby eliminating the competitive advantage of lower cost-to-produce that caused the exportation of jobs in the first place…or

B) Lower corporate tax rates for goods manufactured in the U.S. and/or raise them for good produced in other countries by U.S. firms and then imported.

Personally, I like option B better.

Eliminate the incentive to export labor and voila! The jobs return. While doing this, eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and bring the ultra-wealthy in line with the vast majority of Americans who are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

It’s not “class warfare” to correct an injustice. The reality is that the gulf between the wealthy and the middle class has widened because of tax policies that favored the rich---class warfare, institutionalized as an inequitable tax structure has created the conflict. Correcting the imbalance has been attacked as if it were the cause, not the effect.

Restore a balanced tax code (or better yet, start from scratch) and do the two things above to super-charge the economy. It’s really that simple. We don’t have to scrap our environmental laws to attract big businesses to expand. We just need to make it more profitable to keep jobs in the U.S. than to ship them overseas.

Americans like Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” tax proposal because it is two things to them:

1) Fair and
2) Simple

Maybe it is a bad idea-maybe it won’t work, but it is straightforward and easy to understand. Washington politicians don’t like simple solutions because they are transparent—and their violation is noticed. No, the lawmakers (most of whom are lawyers themselves) favor complex formulas and a myriad of exemptions because tax hikes can be embedded more easily.

The terrific Bloomberg article can be read online at:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/rethinking-the-boosterism-about-small-business-09282011.html

Send it to your favorite politician. He or she needs to operate from facts, not fantasy.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Playing Politics versus Real Life Problems

2011-10-17T12:49:00.000-04:00

As the politicians snipe at each other and the media focuses on the insults and pithy barbs, the American people are paying the price.

A sluggish economy, high unemployment, a volatile stock market and rumors of a “double-dip” recession live in tandem with some seriously positive pockets of vitality in certain segments and companies. There are many firms out there doing quite well, thank you.

A recent report stated there were 3.2 million job OPENINGS across the country. How can this be, with 14 million people presumably looking for work? The CEO’s will tell you that finding QUALIFIED workers is the problem. America’s education system is churning out young people unable to hold the jobs now available.

How did we get into this mess? More importantly, how do we get out?

Following the sequence of events, tell me-------which of the following is NOT true?

1) Lack of regulation/oversight and/or enforcement of banks and financial institutions created an environment where risky mortgages, derivatives, suspect financial instruments and bundling of debt and sell-offs to other financial institutions reached a fever pitch. The deposit to loan ratios were skirted or ignored. It was a shell game---with no referee. TRUE?

2) When capacity exceeded demand and housing values started to fall, the house of cards caved in. As all bubbles must, this one burst. TRUE?

3) The “too-big-to-fail” institutions teetered on the brink of collapse—and both Democrats and Republicans supported the bailout, citing impending economic collapse as the reason to intercede. Both parties vowed that such unfettered and unregulated business practices leading to the crisis must “never happen again” Much of this was done in front of TV cameras for the folks back home. TRUE?

4) Once rescued, the large banks and financial institutions rebounded, but little “trickle-down” to the American consumer was evident, from the difficulty in acquiring a car loan to getting a mortgage. The little guy’s world was largely unchanged. Those whose homes were in foreclosure saw little or no relief, re-structuring or re-financing. TRUE?

5) Legislation designed to prevent a repeat performance—introduced by Democrats—was universally trashed by Republicans as excessive government control of private institutions. TRUE?

6) The government bailout of General Motors—largely decried by conservative Republicans (except in Michigan) has been proven the correct move. More than 1.2 million jobs were saved—in direct and related industries. Further, the U.S. Treasury is being paid back, in much the same manner as the Chrysler bailout decades ago. TRUE?

Are any of the above statements NOT true?

Whether we like it or not, there are indeed financial entities that are too big to fail. In dealing with these institutions, one of two things must happen:

1) We must either break them up into smaller, unrelated entities—much like the Standard Oil monopoly or…

2) They must be officially designated as “too big to fail”---thereby agreeing to a tradeoff whereby they accept a higher level of government scrutiny and regulation in return for the security of a government bailout.

As the protesters gather on Wall Street—and high above them in their glass & steel cathedrals of finance, the captains of capitalism look down on these scraggly demonstrators with disdain, there is an inescapable irony:

These Wall Street-types, who are almost universally conservative and vote the straight Republican ticket-------are largely still in business BECAUSE of Democratic party efforts to bail them out—the same “big government” strategy that they condemn may be the sole reason they still exist.

Conversely,

Democratic efforts to save these institutions are done with the “little guy” in mind. Not caring a whit about the millionaires, it is the potential effect on the working man and woman that motivates these liberals to bail out the fat cats. How disappointing it must be to look back and see that your vote to save a mega-firm seems to only help those same millionaires.

The American people demand political action to reverse the economy. This plays directly into the Democratic ideology that government intervention—in the form of tax breaks, job programs and such—can have an immediate effect. The downside is that they may largely be temporary and artificial.

Republicans are left in a politically more vulnerable position. Their “hands-off” approach centers on lifting the very regulations whose absence contributed to the melt-down, cutting spending (including some of the safety net and social programs) and giving further tax breaks to corporations. Their assertion is that “Obamacare” is the root cause of the hiring drought—and that it’s repeal will “stimulate” the economy.

Not only will these moves take a lot of time to work (if they do at all), but each component exacts harm to the middle class in the short term and extends further relief to big business. The Republican’s adamant stance against increasing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans will further alienate them from a huge segment of the electorate.

For a country that demands action, anything that looks like more pain is not a saleable strategy in an election year.

Over 60% of Americans are in favor of the President’s Jobs Bill—and yet it will die at the hands of Republicans. In 2012, it will be easy to convince voters that a Congress held hostage by Republican intransigence is keeping the country from moving forward.

The Democratic storyline goes like this:

1) George Bush and the Republicans created the economic meltdown of 2008
2) President Obama saved GM and tens of thousands of other jobs, thus averting the second Great Depression
3) Republicans in Congress are defending the wealthy and obstructing Democratic efforts to create jobs and turn the economy around.

The Republican storyline looks a bit different:

1) Obama made a bad situation worse
2) Government spending and “Obamacare” are the reason why the economy has not recovered.
3) Recovery turns on drastic cuts in federal spending and retreat from excessive regulations that hinder business.

Both sides have their points to make, but I’d hate to be the Republican nominee—on the campaign trail defending a non-proactive approach. The Democrats need only refer to the failed Bush tax cuts---designed at the time to stimulate the economy—as evidence that market forces alone cannot solve the problem in a timely manner.

What do you think?

To get this blog in your e-mail, just let me know and I’ll add you to the list: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Occupy Wall Street: For What Reason?

2011-10-13T16:43:00.000-04:00

The “Occupy-Fill-In-The-Blank” movement is curious to me.

It started on Wall Street and has spread to other cities around the country, including right here in Portland.

While I can sympathize with the frustration of many Americans over the current state of the economy and the excessive wealth of a very few—the so-called 1%--- embodied by the term “Wall Street”(in comparison to those in dire economic straits), I must admit that I am at a loss concerning their objective.

In Portland, driving down Congress Street by Monument Square, I see signs that:

1) Decry the politicians who have betrayed us
2) Express outrage at the war in Afghanistan
3) Implore the government to “create” jobs
4) Call for the prosecution of Wall Street executives
5) Complain about excessive taxes.

The list goes on. If you have a gripe, you’ll be welcome at the pity party, regardless of its nature and in absence of any solution that might be proposed.

I guess that’s why I am confused.

I know what each of them is AGAINST. I just don’t know what ANY of them are FOR!

Check out the video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGoPFRUdc

Now there’s a seemingly intelligent young man who cannot for the life of him articulate one good reason why someone should pay his college tuition, other than, of course, because that’s what he wants.

While the reporter is sometimes inaccurate in castigating him over taxation, he knows that he is dealing with someone who has spent more time creating his protest sign than he did in thinking about why’s he’s there in the first place.

Worlds collide when I find myself agreeing with Newt Gingrich over ANYTHING, but I think the old sourpuss was dead-on in his assessment of the protests the other night, essentially dividing the throngs into two groups:

1) The extreme left fringe that jumps at the chance to protest against anything—and
2) Many serious and thoughtful people who have arrived without an agenda other than a need to express their frustration.

I think that’s accurate.

At some point, however, the crowds will disperse—and not because their demands have been satisfied. They’ll leave because it’s getting colder by the day and the deaf ear they’ve been shown so far will continue. Their lack of cohesion over a satisfactory outcome will do them in. In the end, they’ll be reinforced in their conviction that the system is rigged to favor those who control the vast majority of the country’s wealth.

Dejected, they will wearily go back to the unemployment line.

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan has a petition drive that also taps into the discontent, but one that has a specific purpose—the introduction and ratification of a Constitutional Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit campaign contributions.

The premise is simple. Our politicians are bought by corporations and special interests.
Campaign contributions are the grease that slide them into office. Once elected, these politicians orient federal legislation and regulations to protect and favor these wealthy contributors. The net effect is a system where the collective good of the country’s population is subordinated to the wealth-generating goals of those few who quite literally have bought Congress. By eliminating the corrupt cash from the system, the will of the people would then prevail in the settlement of any issue.

Agree or disagree, at least there is a specific outcome targeted.

The website link is here: http://www.getmoneyout.com/

As of this writing there were nearly 200,000 signatures. Will the effort be successful? Maybe a long shot, but I have to give Ratigan credit for soliciting some bright minds to draft an amendment that is concise and would be a game changer if passed.

Of course, no one who has purchased their Congress member wants to see this---and they would undoubtedly operate the marionette strings to keep this from reaching the floor of the House.

Cynical?Maybe, but politicians everywhere had better start to realize that many Americans are starting to recoil against the corruption that’s been part of the American landscape for as long as anyone can remember.

The squeezed middle class has woken up.

Not having a job has afforded them the time to realize, perhaps for the first time just how the game is played. It’s a game they are losing.

If you are lucky to have a job, you are still losing. America itself is losing—and only a gravitational shift in the way we approach our system will correct the problem.

So, do you align more with the protesters or the status quo?
What are YOU for?

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

The Carpenters: They Had Only Just Begun

2011-10-10T16:52:00.001-04:00

Sometimes pop songs are made into commercials---and sometimes, it’s the other way around.

On this date in 1970, The Carpenters were sitting at #2 on the U.S. charts with the song “We’ve Only Just Begun”. Not the product of divine inspiration, but rather the kind of creative spark that comes from watching late night TV.

That’s what Richard Carpenter was doing when he saw a commercial for Crocker Bank—and a snippet of songwriter Paul Williams doing the vocals for this wedding-themed spot for the bank.
Carpenter recognized Williams and called to ask if there was a full length version. Although there wasn’t, Mr. Williams decided to say “Yes!”------and began to write in earnest the rest of the song! Roger Nichols had written the melody.

Here’s the ad—and Paul Williams with the story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dctl8x405GE

Now, here are the Carpenters performing the entire song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__VQX2Xn7tI&feature=related

I must admit that I am something of a Carpenters fan. Cheesy, I know, but I was growing up during that time—and this Carpenters tune (along with many others) were on the radio all the time. Collectively, they became part of the soundtrack of our lives.

Not the epitome of cool, but the harmonies were good—and the voice of Karen in particular was unique and compelling.

“We’ve Only Just Begun” was named by Rolling Stone magazine as #405 on their list of the “500 Greatest Songs of All Time”

If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Are You Ready For Some…..Free Speech?

2011-10-06T14:40:00.002-04:00

Hank Williams, Jr.’s interview on Fox News Monday morning was probably not meant to cause headlines, but the good’ol boy just couldn’t help himself.

He went off on President Obama, comparing him to Adolf Hitler and saying that his golf match with Republican Speaker John Boehner was like “Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu”. As if that didn’t go far enough, he called Obama “the enemy” along with Vice President Biden, referring to the duo as the ”Three Stooges”—apparently, math wasn’t a strong subject for this country boy. He’s no political-science whiz either, despite his introduction as such on the Fox News morning program.

Despite having what might be considered in advance a sympathetic network on which to spew such venom, even the Fox News crew was taken aback. It appeared as though as Mr. Williams was intoxicated or high or both. The dark glasses and wary approach to the interview itself should have been a foreshadowing that this segment would be anything but tame.

Fast forward to Monday night—and ESPN’s decision to drop the “Are You Ready For Some Football” opening segment to Monday Night Football in direct response. Reaction to that decision was mixed as well. Some say that it was censorship—or punishment to Williams for merely exercising his right to free speech.

I disagree.

Williams has the right to say whatever he likes, no matter how ignorant, insensitive or inflammatory his remarks. ESPN also has the right to broadcast what it likes. Both entities are free to spout off—or withhold material. After the interview, Williams made several attempts to explain what he meant, trying to diffuse an outcry over his remarks. Now, it appears that he has decided to stop apologizing.

On Hank Williams, Jr.’s website today, he fired the final shot, deciding not to wait for ESPN’s decision on whether or not to reinstate the popular opening to Monday Night Football. Next to his video “If The South Woulda Won” (which says a lot all by itself, no?), he posted the following statement:

"After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision. By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It’s been a great run.”
So there.

If you missed the original FOX News segment, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eF6vCv13bw

Notice how Williams displayed his disdain at the Republican presidential field—but then backtracked a bit when reminded that he earlier supported Sarah Palin for President. He deplored the “polarization” of the country, apparently unaware that the statement he just made criticizing both sides for trying to reach compromise was an instant contradiction.

So much for Hank Williams, Jr. and his political savvy.

While not a fan of “political correctness”, there are those whose opinions should probably not be broadcast to a national audience. Were Fox to have confined the interview to area that Williams knows something about----say…..MUSIC, we might have something worth airing. Ignorant or inarticulate comments are great for “man-on-the-street” sound bites, strung together rapid-fire, but few news organizations would grab someone off the street and devote an interview segment to them without gleaning some relevance---or competence ahead of time. The Fox News crew might as well have asked Williams about nuclear fission.

For me, I’ll miss the opening segment of Monday Night Football, but were both sides able to kiss, make up and reinstate it, I would forever have a hard time watching it without thinking about what a creton the guy in the cowboy hat is.

As the old saying goes: “’Tis better to remain quiet and have people believe you are an idiot—than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

And Now A Word From Our Sponsor….

2011-10-05T14:19:00.000-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG

Being in the radio biz, commercials are a big part of my life. The afternoon extravaganza that IS the Tim Moore show (ahem) breaks twice an hour to play the commercial messages of 94.9 WHOM’s sponsors.

While commercials sometimes get a bad rap (sometimes deserved), it is a part of American culture that broadcasting has been funded by business. In many ways, it is democracy (and capitalism) at its best!

At the dawn of broadcasting, when the AM radio spectrum—then the only thing that existed—was a virtual “wild west”, commercial interests began to see the value in communicating with a vast audience. It was at this juncture that something interesting happened. Companies like Westinghouse, General Electric and others flocked to the new medium of radio.

Instead of the government “taking over” the airwaves (a la Britain’s BBC), the newly minted FCC decided that a better model could exist. Namely, private companies would put up the capital for the studios, transmitters and equipment and pay for the costs of producing the entertainment. A variety of voices would be a better than a central, government-controlled model. All these companies needed to demonstrate were service to their communities and responsiveness to their audiences.

Commercials are the price of admission. Unlike satellite radio or cable TV, commercial radio is totally free to the user. Our advertisers pay the freight. Part of our job as broadcasters is to not only provide entertainment that attracts an audience, but also create marketing campaigns for our advertisers that make their cash registers ring!

There was a time when the “commercial” was virtually inseparable from the “entertainment”—watch the following video clip of an early (1948) TV show where the Swift Meat commercial was part of the show:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_MYy_XqyKM

While claims by these old-time advertisers didn’t always square with the truth, the sponsor was often integrated into the actual name of the program (“Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom”). Then, the business gravitated away from hosts like Johnny Carson doing live ads within his show—there were merely “spots” within a show.

Now, the pendulum is starting to swing back-radio hosts are endorsing more and more products-and TV hosts are starting to do the same. If both laughs and “warm and fuzzy feelings” for the product can be achieved simultaneously, then everybody wins.

So—you may hear me endorsing a product or two in the future. I’ve done a few so far. When that is the case, it will be because I TRULY use and recommend the product or service. No DJ in this building is compelled to endorse an advertiser if they are uncomfortable with them.

While advertising has permeated every aspect of American life, we are getting better at “filtering” out those messages which do not interest us. Marketers are also getting better at creating award-winning spots that are :30 or :60 slices of entertainment. Often, it is the TV commercials that garner more chatter and excitement than the game itself during the Super Bowl!

I’d love to hear your thoughts on ads in our media—if you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox (commercial free!) just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

And now, back to our program!

Motorcycle Dog

2011-10-04T14:14:00.000-04:00

Sometimes this blog is about world affairs, social injustice, politics or some other important issue.

Other times, it’s just about a dog who rides a motorcycle.
This is one of those times.

Enjoy:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdj67XknFrM

Thanks to faithful blog reader and contributor Rick Cooper, who forwarded this video. Yes, it must have been a slow news day at that little TV station, but I’ll bet the most memorable story was the one above, about a hound wearing goggles and hitting the road.

If you’re a dog lover like me, there’s no way you don’t laugh out loud. Even if you don’t have an affinity for critters, my guess is that this little clip made you smile!

My work is done here!

If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Mathemagic: Go Ahead, Try This At Home

2011-10-03T15:52:00.000-04:00

My wife Peggy is a math professor at the University of Southern Maine, so guess who my kids go to when struggling with math homework?

I can add up a golf score with the best of them (and sometimes that can be a pretty big number!) and can calculate 20% of a restaurant tab with no issue. However, get to the bigger stuff and I slow up considerably.

I did OK in calculus and statistics—and I always liked geometry (maybe because it had such concrete manifestations), but algebra always kicked my butt. Quadratic equations were my personal Waterloo, as I always screwed up the order of operations. I would do the same problem five times, come up with the same answer---and it would be WRONG.

Maybe that’s why the video you’re about to see blew me away.

Arthur Benjamin is a “mathemagician”. He makes at least part of his living demonstrating his unbelievable powers of calculation in front of live audiences.

Check this out:

http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_does_mathemagic.html

Amazing doesn’t begin to describe what is going on inside that guy’s head! I was looking forward to the last part where Arthur decided to verbalize his thinking process as he squares that 5-digit number. I was excited because I thought I would get some insight into his amazing process.

I didn’t.

What he verbalized confused me even more. There’s no way I can get inside that brain!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Terry Francona: Thanks For The Titles, Tito!

2011-09-30T17:27:00.002-04:00

How soon we forget.

A man who can arguably lay claim to the title “best Red Sox manager ever” will likely not be back next year.

As I write this, reports are swirling that Terry Francona will be exiting stage left. Although John Henry and company met with Tito today, they are not making an announcement on whether they’ll pick up his option next year. As for Francona himself? Reports are stating that he’s already told team members that he’s going…going…gone!

Eight years at the helm—and two World Series Championships to his credit.

I think he’s getting a raw deal.

He didn’t swing a bat or throw a pitch in Boston’s horrible September. He wasn’t responsible for the injuries, the errors or the slumps. But…he’s the guy at the top—and even he admitted that his control over the players in the clubhouse was not what it should have been.

Perhaps a fresh face would inspire the players to dig deep. I would think that sheer pride would be sufficient. After all, put another guy in that situation—and ask yourself---what would anyone else have done?

Does it come down to a pep talk during a slump? I don’t think it’s that simple.
If Francona gets the blame for September and also the dreadful 2-10 season start, then he must also get the credit for the part in-between, when the Red Sox had the best record in baseball.

Here’s a TV segment from earlier today on the swirling reports of Francona’s exit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBxZGB1kW4

The name most mentioned as Francona’s replacement is one Joe Torre. As Tito-haters salivate over the prospect, it should be noted that Torre is not particularly good at managing conflict (his own admission), a talent that may have been the missing managerial ingredient this year.

I should come clean and admit that I am not a huge Francona fan. It’s been said that a manager will cost his team a few games each year. God knows that Terry filled his quota. Many times, I think he left pitchers in too long---presumably because he didn’t want to “embarrass them” by yanking them mid-inning. While I don’t agree with the logic, there is a human side to it that made his excesses forgivable----because his players loved him and the team was a winner.

He’s forgotten more about baseball than I know, so I won’t second-guess the many decisions he made that I railed against from the comfort of my easy chair.
Keep in mind, however, that only your players can make you look good—or competent—and that baseball is a game of inches.

The manager touted for breaking “the curse” and delivering the Red Sox their first title since 1918 might not have made it past that inaugural season if a certain throw to second in the fourth game of the ALCS had nailed Dave Roberts. The Yankees would have swept the Red Sox in four straight and the “Idiots” would have cemented that nickname in the most deplorable way.

Likewise, had the Red Sox won 2 more games than they did—at ANYTIME in that 162 game season, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. There had to be hundreds, if not thousands of game situations in 2011 where one fewer out or one more foot of distance would have meant another one in the win column.

Had the Sox won another 2 games—maybe opening 4-8 instead of 2-10, we would be headed to the post-season. It’s likely that with the riddled pitching staff, the Sox would have been unable to hit their way past the first round anyway.

Many have called for Theo Epstein’s head as well. While I likewise disagree here too, at least there is a plausible argument to lay alot of blame on the GM. To quote Bill Parcell’s famous statement about his desire to be coach AND General Manager, “If I’m gonna be making dinner, I want to buy the groceries!”

Yet for every bonehead acquisition Theo paid big bucks for (John Lackey, J.D. Drew, et al), there were some terrific pickups, too.

As in all things, a man should be judged for his body of work, not the snapshot that is one season----or in this case, one MONTH.

I hope the Red Sox have the sense to retain Tito, but I fear that things have already unraveled to the point of no return.

If that’s the case, then we can at least thank Terry Francona for bringing to Boston not one but two World Championships. I think most of the fans are grateful for that—and are also distressed to think he won’t be in the dugout next season.

Thanks, Tito.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Google And Facebook As Big Brother?

2011-09-29T16:57:00.000-04:00

It’s a bit pompous to say that this blog is IMPORTANT, but I think I will anyway.

The credit is not mine to take, as this one is all about the video. Thanks to Q97.9 Night-time star Rob Steele for sending me the link yesterday.

Did you think “search” was created equal? I did.
Did you think that the internet was the great leveler of the playing field? I did too.

You may be in for a rude awakening after watching the following video. Watch it before YouTube (owned by Google) takes it down:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLXa1kEMooU

The founders of Google had as their core mantra, “Don’t Be Evil”. What may have started as an earnest attempt to “personalize” the feeds for users has turned into a filter that not only can you not control---you are not even AWARE that content is being kept from you.

Scary. And, in a way....evil.

Your thoughts welcome-either as a comment or an e-mail, which you can also use to subscribe for free (and UNFILTERED!) daily: tim.moore@cumulus.com

TV’s Worst Show—Almost

2011-09-27T13:19:00.001-04:00

It was on this date in 1967 that an American TV flop started airing in France—in the hope that maybe it would fare better in Europe.

It didn’t.

“My Mother, The Car”, starring Jerry Van Dyke (Dick’s brother) was a sitcom that had as its premise, a talking automobile that was the reincarnation of the main character’s mother.

Alrighty then.

How this idea made it past the first round of network brainstorming is beyond me. Small-town lawyer David Crabtree discovers that a 1928 Porter sitting in a used car lot is his Mom. The car starts talking to him—and the rest is TV history, infamous as it may be.

Below are the first few minutes of the debut episode—you may not be able to watch more than a minute or so!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cix204cWnWA

Jerry Van Dyke lived in the shadow of his famous brother—and had the hard luck to prove it. The enormously successful “Dick Van Dyke Show” was still airing when “My Mother, The Car” made its debut. Further, Jerry turned down the lead role for another sitcom, this one about a small group of people stranded on a desert island----“Gilligan’s Island”.

When “My Mother, The Car” landed on American television in 1965, one critic predicted it would be an “Edsel with the critics, but a hot rod with the public”.

It lasted just one season, proving that it was a lemon with just about everyone.

In 2002, TV Guide named “My Mother, The Car” the SECOND worst show in TV history.

The absolute worst? “The Jerry Springer Show”

Who can argue with that?

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Debates Are Overrated, But Still Important

2011-09-26T14:48:00.004-04:00

It is only in retrospect that we know how important this day in history was.

The very first Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate took place on this date in 1960. The incredible influence of the visual medium of television was first demonstrated—and dramatically at that.

Regardless of the content of their responses, the national audience was exposed to the far more impactful NON-VERBAL communication from the candidates. What was the turning point in presidential politics may not have even been in the thought process of then Vice President Richard Nixon and his team.

Namely, that pictures-images DO matter. Consider the mistakes made:

1) Nixon refused to wear makeup. Uninitiated in the effects of the TV lights on human complexion, he was unwilling to be made up. The effect? John F. Kennedy looked tanned and healthy. Nixon looked pale, pasty and ill. Further, the hot lights caused him to sweat.

2) No apparent effort was made to address the posture of the Republican candidate. While Kennedy largely looked relaxed and comfortable, Nixon appeared nervous and ill-at-ease.

Did these things matter?

Absolutely.

What was for many the very first national exposure to the challenger Kennedy, his team was well aware that Kennedy’s mission was to appear “Presidential”, essentially refuting the charges from the Nixon campaign that the Democratic nominee was young and inexperienced.

Here is the original Kennedy-Nixon debate. Watch it and decide for yourself!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbrcRKqLSRw

Fast-forward to 2011 and the recent Republican debates. Despite the huge excitement from the conservative base over the entrance of Texas Governor Rick Perry into the race, it is abundantly clear that Mr. Perry’s very candidacy is starting to crumble---due to his debate performance---or lack thereof.

Republican consultant Mike Murphy said of Perry: “Listening to Perry try to put a complicated policy sentence together…is like watching a chimp play with a locked suitcase”

Funny, but true.

Brit Hume said that Perry “threw up all over himself” in the last debate. As a result of this and other assessments, Perry’s fundraising has been hit and Herman Cain (in my view the very best performer so far in the debates)—actually won the Florida Straw Poll with 37% of the vote—compared to 15% for Perry and 14% for Romney.

While pundits call this a vote for “none of the above”, perhaps Cain shouldn’t be so roundly dismissed. So far, Cain is the only one who has spoken plainly, directly and with a genuine sense of humor. You get the feeling that (unlike the other candidates), he doesn’t have an arsenal of verbal “gotcha!” comebacks or one-liners ready for delivery. Maybe he does—I wouldn’t blame him. It just seems as if he is generating it all on the spot.

The TV age has made everyone more adept at on-camera situations, but Rick Perry had better get a lot better—and soon.

Meanwhile, Perry’s team says he is not running for “Debater-In-Chief”, but “Commander-In-Chief”. While this may be true, the ability to communicate has never been more important. That deer-in-the-headlights look we routinely got from George W. Bush cannot possibly cut it any longer. President Obama’s detractors will cite his ability to speak as his ONLY attribute.

While I dispute that notion, it is true that his ability to communicate, motivate and explain may have been the deciding factor in his win over the verbal bumbling of John McCain.

The debates do matter. The ability to think on your feet, to articulate ideas and simplify complex issues will be central to the skill set of any President. If the Republicans aren’t on their game, it may dictate the outcome in 2012, just as it did in 2008----and 1960.

Richard Nixon, were he here, would agree.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Songwriter Turned Performer

2011-09-23T18:12:00.001-04:00

Ok, so it was kind of a conceited and chauvinistic tune, but it made it to #1 and propelled an obscure songwriter into stardom.

The song was “Baby, Don’t Get Hooked On Me” and the singer was Mac Davis. It was on this date in 1972 that the song topped the charts, sending this country boy from Lubbock, Texas into the winners circle as a performer in his own right.

Not that success was foreign to Mr. Davis. It’s just that the songs he wrote became hits for someone else. If you recall Elvis Presley’s hits “A Little Less Conversation”, “In The Ghetto” , “Memories” and “Don’t Cry Daddy”, you have Mac Davis to thank. How about the sappy “Watching Scotty Grow”? That Mac Davis tune was a huge hit for Bobby Goldsboro.

After starting out with Nancy Sinatra’s band, where he performed on stage with her many times, a career in songwriting—and eventually performing took over.

In a year where the Equal Rights Amendment was in the headlines—and Helen Reddy’s “I Am Woman” typified the emerging independence of women, here was a song about a guy who doesn’t want a relationship to lead into any kind of commitment! If you don’t remember the song…well….here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UauHDIlhvTk

Mac Davis became one of the most successful performers in the 70’s and 80’s, following this #1 hit with songs like: “One Hell Of A Woman”, “Stop And Smell The Roses” and the amusing “It’s Hard To Be Humble”.

Davis was also an actor, starring in several movies, including opposite Nick Nolte in “North Dallas Forty”. He also had his own musical variety show from 1974-1976 on NBC.

Hell, he even appeared as himself on “The Muppet Show”. You know you’ve arrived when on-camera with Miss Piggy.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Chubby Checker: The Twist

2011-09-19T15:05:00.001-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

My very first radio interview with a “big star” occurred in 1983 with the legendary Chubby Checker, who, believe it or not-was scheduled to play a very small club called The Roundup in Ellsworth, Maine.

I admit that I was a bit nervous—after all, this was the man who made “The Twist” a huge hit and started a dance craze across the nation. It was on this date in 1960 that “The Twist” hit Number One. It stayed there for…..an entire week.

Chubby couldn’t have been any nicer or gracious to a young and inexperienced broadcaster like me, but for awhile, I thought he was pulling my leg. He stated that “The Twist” was a turning point in American history!

Of course I chuckled at this---thinking the man was joking.

He was not.

Indeed, he elevated the song and the dance that inspired it to levels that approached the importance of the moon landing and the polio vaccine.

Really.

It was only after a few minutes of hearing him compare this pop song with cultural, historical and scientific advancements of far greater impact that I realized that Chubby had perhaps smoked a few too many chubbies himself.

At any rate, the show at this little club in Ellsworth was a tour de force of nonstop music and dancing, with zero breaks in between songs. The man was still a bit “chubby”, but could he ever move!

Here’s clip of the Chubster himself---grinding away on “American Bandstand”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xbK0C9AYMd8

Chubby’s appearance on Ed Sullivan two years later boosted sales of the single so much that it reached #1 AGAIN –still the only song to top the chart TWICE. It is considered one of the most successful singles of all time-having stayed in the Top 100 charts for 39 weeks!

Did the Salk polio vaccine ever do THAT? I don’t think so!

If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just drop me an e-mail (FREE!) tim.moore@cumulus.com

Where’s All the Money?

2011-09-14T14:40:00.002-04:00

By the time you’re finished reading this, the country of Greece may default. Some analysts are predicting the likelihood of that occurring is 98%. Who will follow?

Italy seems likely. Many say the Euro is doomed as a currency---and Germany is livid as much of the debt of these and other floundering nations are held by its banks.

The ripple effect of these collapses on OUR already-weak economy is certain, although the magnitude can only be guessed at.

Debt, debt, debt.

Low interest rates for mortgages, but nobody is buying houses. Institutions like the Bank Of America in trouble.

If there is a way out, it would appear that most countries would be on board for a complete “re-set” of the global economy. The problems we are facing cannot be blamed on the current Administration—or the last ten. Instead, I suppose they are ALL to blame.

But then again, I have no idea what I’m talking about.

Maybe it’s ignorance or maybe it’s just confusion. The adage that if you ask ten economists the same question, you’ll get ten different answers has truth to it.

Unlike chemistry, physics and math, there seem to be no absolutes in economics.

For conservatives, removing government spending and turning the American capitalist free enterprise system loose is the only way to prosperity. For liberals, government oversight and regulation is necessary—and a safety net for society’s most vulnerable is equally necessary. Unchecked capalism, with all of its derivatives and sub-prime loans was partof the problem. The needed oversight and benefit programs like Medicaid and Social Secuirty all costs dough--YOUR dough.

Perhaps most frightening is the thought that one person—in this case, the embattled Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke---may be sending us down the path of destruction. A Bush appointee, he was retained by President Obama and has manipulated the money supply to keep inflation down and try to spur growth. Some say it’s exactly the right path—and others say he is dead wrong.

So.....who is right?

Check out this vintage program featuring noted economist Milton Friedman on the Great Depression. Looks like it was produced in the late 70’s,when, if I’m not mistaken, runaway inflation was the chief economic woe. It is three parts in length, but well worth the time. Understanding the SEEMINGLY minor actions of a few individuals and banks that led to a cascading effect in the 30’s is downright scary. Have we learned anything since?

Understanding the Great Depression (if you accept the explanation of Friedman) can give us insight on what is happening now. His view of the gold standard—and its role in the worsening of conditions in the early 1930’s—makes you take pause as well.

There are those stridently advocating a return to the gold standard---the act of tying our paper money to a precious metal. Some assert that the U.S. Government’s unbridled and continual printing of money will only last for as long as the dollar remains the world’s dominant reserve currency—and those days are numbered. Then, inflation will be extraordinary, the literal bushel-baskets of dollars needed to buy a loaf of bread.

This video may be over 30 years old, but are there lessons here? Watch this segment—and then click on Parts 2 & 3:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_svuPVKiwjs&feature=related

I’d love to know your thoughts. The idea that Keynesian economics is dead may be true, but Friedman’s last thoughts on that video are centered on how disciples of his may have taken things a bit too far.

Can there be another global Bretton Woods conference? Can we avoid the domino effect of crashing currencies (and economies) WITHOUT taking decisive action?

All of the band-aids being applied to stem the bleeding don’t appear to be healing the wound.

If you’d like this blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Gilligan’s Island: Farewell Little Buddy

2011-09-13T15:27:00.002-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

Of all the TV shows ever produced-and the thousands of “intros” or theme songs that launched an episode, isn’t it likely that “Gilligan’s Island” takes the prize as #1 most memorable, most quoted, most parodied-and most beloved?

I think so.

The “Mister Ed” opener is up there, but “Gilligan’s Island” has to be first.

The final episode of “Gilligan’s Island” aired this week in 1967- some 44 years ago—and yet it remains part of our collective culture, especially to those of us “north of 40”.

The show itself only ran for three seasons—it was probably difficult to come up with new and different story ideas with that original (and limiting) premise. After so many failed schemes to get off the island, where do you go? Despite its relatively short “first-run” life, it was, however, a HUGE hit in syndication, still airing today as a classic rerun.

If you’re like me, you have fond memories of laughter at the hapless Gilligan, played by Bob Denver, who, like it or not was defined by the role for the rest of his life. A star in the “Dobie Gillis” TV show earlier, he used the Gilligan role as a way to escape from THAT previous stereotype. Little did he know that he—and in fact all of the cast members—would have trouble landing other, more serious roles “post-Gilligan”.

Perhaps the show’s success lay in the character development of each of the players. We each saw a little of ourselves in all of the castaways.

Guys would be defined by their answer to the question: “Ginger or Mary Anne?” The excesses of wealth were personified by Thurston Howell and his wife—and we all wondered why, if the Professor was smart enough to build a radio out of a coconut, why couldn’t he build a boat to get off that damn island?

Here, for your viewing and listening pleasure, is the opener to the show-this, I believe is from the 3rd and final season--the link (embedding diabled) is the ORIGINAL show open. As you’ll notice, later versions included in song “the Professor and Mary Anne”, replacing “and all the rest” in the theme. Guess those two felt a bit left out at first!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfR7qxtgCgY

The SS Minnow is gone (although still a popular name for registered boats the world over). Alan Hale, the Skipper, Bob Denver, Jim Backus (Thurston Howell) and Natalie Shafer (Mrs. Howell) are also gone—but through the magic of reruns, we still get to enjoy their comic genius! In addition to the never-ending reruns, the characters were resurrected in THREE made-for-TV movies.

Not bad for a sitcom that came and went on and OFF the air so relatively fast.

If you’d like my blog in your inbox daily, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

9-11: A Decade Later

2011-09-09T14:30:00.001-04:00

The question has become almost a cliché:

“Where were you on 9-11?”

Sadly, there is no need to qualify with the follow-up question: “Which year?” Although 9-11 happens every year, the force of a decade has not diminished the 9-11 of 2001, where not only the United States—but the entire world—was changed forever.

Here is a short tribute video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDh_pvv1tUM

Everyone knows where they were—and exactly the specific things they did on that fateful day. Watching the 10th anniversary coverage has alarmingly brought to the surface the same emotions we experienced a decade ago. It is still difficult to view the footage of the twin towers coming down—and the uncertainty evident in the voices of all those news people whom we entrust daily to reassure us. No one was reassured on that day.

Perhaps it is true to say that we haven’t felt totally safe since.

So, what has happened in the ten years since the attack?

Although we used Al Qaeda as the reason for attacking two countries, intelligence experts have estimated the total “membership” of that terrorist organization to have been no more than one thousand—and likely much less at the time of the attack.

The entire force and might of the United States of America was deployed to find and destroy “weapons of mass destruction” (which apparently didn’t exist) and to destroy both the Taliban and Al Qaeda. Much of the former was wiped out within a month of entering Afghanistan—and much of the Al Qaeda destruction has been credited to targeted strikes by U.S. Special Forces, drone attacks and covert intelligence—as opposed to ground troops stationed within the borders of suspected countries harboring the bad guys.

Two wars still rage on. Thousands of lives—American men and women, civilians and non-combatants are the cost---so far. Billions upon billions of dollars. And there are those who state we are no safer now than we were in 2001.

It’s not unpatriotic to question the strategy—and response to 9-11. It certainly isn’t today, with ten years in the rear view mirror. I do believe that some of those who opposed this strategy a decade ago were accused of being unpatriotic. Unfortunate.

I sometimes wonder what the world would be like if we had decided NOT to strike back in the manner we did. If, instead of deploying tens of thousands of troops and engaging in the “shock and awe” campaign (remember that?), we had taken a more measured response, namely:

1) The aforementioned targeted Special Forces attacks-like the ones we employed to find and kill Osama Bin Laden, and
2) A focus more on the internal threats—not just airports, but bridges, rail and mass transportation, our water supply and electric grid (all of which except airports are said to still be extremely vulnerable)

Had this course of action been taken, the following landscape would be likely:

A) Saddam Hussein would still be in power—and would still be a threat to the world
B) Thousands of American families would not have an empty seat at the dinner table.
C) Our economy would likely not be in such fragile shape.
D) Our National Debt would be much smaller
E) Our internal security would be better—as resources employed for warfare would instead have been diverted to domestic security

Would we have been better off?

Hard to say, as we could never predict the behavior of Saddam Hussein. I can’t help but think that we would have been better off—and stronger as a country—to not respond in the way we did.

My oldest son was 12 years old at the time. Had there been a draft-as was the case in Viet Nam, it is amazing to think that the wars that came out of that one day could have resulted in his deployment to combat six years later. Here we are a decade later—and now, my youngest son—who was one year old on 9-11----could be a soldier should this pair of wars extend another seven years. Unbelievable as it is, that thought occurs to me often.

We cannot take back the events that have unfolded in the ten years since 9-11. We can, however, honor the lives of the victims of that terrible day—and all those who have given their lives since----by resolving to approach future attacks with a response that is measured and appropriate.

As the saying goes: “War never determines who is right, just who is left”.

God bless the victims of 9-11 and their families—and God Bless the U.S.A.

If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Republican Roundup

2011-09-08T17:41:00.000-04:00

It’s always fun to hear the pundits make their pronouncements following a political debate.

Such was the case last night, as a baker’s half-dozen plus one crowded the stage at the Reagan Library in an attempt to stand out from the pack.
If you missed the debate, here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uM174emEhak

Time will tell if these political talking heads have nailed it, but after the debate, I listened to the largely left-leaning MSNBC to hear how folks like Rachel Maddow and Ed Shultz and Chris Matthews scored the sparring.

With some deviations, the thumbnails are as follows:

RICK PERRY- The newest entrant and instant frontrunner did not perform all that well, particularly when characterizing Social Security as a “Ponzi scheme”. He may be dead-on, but that statement won’t play well with the typically older electorate that shows up to Republican primaries. Some pundits declared him dead in the water, others said it was just a rather large speed bump. Everyone agreed that his Texas style and shoot-from-the-hip rhetoric will play well to the base, but may be a real stumbling block in the general election (should he be nominated). His denial of the science behind climate change and evolution exposes Perry as a narrow-minded leader whose millions of like-minded minions will gravitate to. Failing to take a more expansive (and rational) viewpoint is nothing short of a critical missed opportunity.

MITT ROMNEY- To me, he looked to be the most at ease and comfortable under the glare of the national spotlight. He pounced on Perry’s Social Security gaffes and in doing so, perhaps created the space needed to draw the clear distinction he needs. As the former front-runner, he didn’t look intimidated at all by Perry, who seemed a bit jumpy to me. The content was good-and the tone was more statesmanlike than Perry.

MICHELLE BACHMAN- Clearly in need of political resuscitation following Rick Perry’s entry into the race, I thought she needed to really hit it out of the park. She didn’t.
She did OK in my view, but the Tea Party’s debutante has been left at the dance without a date. Many pundits declared Bachman’s candidacy DOA. They may be right.

RICK SANTORUM- I don’t know whose money he is wasting by continuing in the race, but were I a donor, I’d be asking for my money back. Basically Newt Gingrich-Light, he adds very little to the discussion.

JOHN HUNTSMAN- I was surprised at the talking heads collective dismissal of Huntsman, who I thought did very well. He was well spoken, critical without being mean-spirited and seems to have the resume that makes him qualified. He even seemed, dare I say…”presidential”? That said, there was something about him that seemed just a tad too “slick”. In fact, he reminded me a bit of failed Democratic candidate John Edwards. No one wants to be compared to that loser.

NEWT GINGRICH- This man is an enigma to me. He is at once highly intelligent and articulate—and a complete buffoon. Past inflammatory statements follow him around so much that his cogent thoughts often get lost in the baggage. His attack on the media last night (sometimes a justified strategy) seemed planned to evoke a rise out of the conservative audience—and in this case was unwarranted. The clashing of Republicans on that stage was clearly destined to happen—and was unprovoked by the moderators.
When Newt’s entire campaign leadership walked out on him some months ago, it should have been a hint to get out of the race. That he hasn’t taken it means this ongoing campaign is merely an ego trip. Newt, go away.

RON PAUL- Perhaps the most outspoken candidate in 2008, Paul last night seemed to me to be a cranky old man. With views that were so out in left field, he too has little reason to stay in, except for one aspect. The entertainment value he provides as he needles everyone else is priceless. I may even contribute to his campaign.

HERMAN CAIN- I’ve saved my favorite for last. As a former CEO of Godfather’s Pizza and a Baptist preacher, he has ZERO chance of getting the nomination. Too bad, as he was the most straightforward, direct and articulate of the bunch. Aside from the “Ponzi” comments, his proposal for “9-9-9” seemed to stand out from the pack—and make more sense than most anything I’ve heard from anyone from any party. Nine percent corporate tax, nine percent income tax and nine percent sales tax---without any loopholes, exemptions or exceptions was refreshingly sensible. The revelation that General Electric made BILLIONS of dollars in profits and paid NO corporate income tax underscores a system that is functionally broken. Cain’s assertion that the federal government must get out of the business of “picking winners and losers” makes intuitive sense.

The U.S. President is becoming more of a CEO. Managing revenues—and leading Congress in the allocation of assets is Job 1. Rhetoric without funding equals empty words.

Whomever is nominated, one thing is clear: Ronald Reagan, whom each of the candidates virtually worshipped last night---couldn’t possibly be nominated by the Republican Party today. His embrace of Social Security and a host of other social programs would make him a flaming liberal when stacked against this year’s slate of candidates.

If it weren’t so pathetic, it would be amusing.

If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Buddy Holly: An Original

2011-09-07T17:02:00.001-04:00

It was on this date in 1936 that Charles Harden Holley was born in Lubbock, Texas.

Although the birthplace of rock and roll was along the Mississippi River, it would appear that this Texas town had its contribution to make, as Charles, better known as Buddy Holly—would become one of music’s true pioneers.

Schooled in piano, violin, banjo and guitar, Buddy Holly started his journey of live performances while still in junior high school, forming his first band.

So what was it about Buddy Holly (and his later band The Crickets) that made them so influential? Unlike Elvis Presley, Buddy Holly wasn’t the sex symbol that The King achieved so effortlessly. John Lennon so admired Buddy Holly that he named The Beatles (originally “Beetles”) after the Crickets.

Essentially, Buddy Holly blazed the trail of the performer who composed their own songs. By 1956, Elvis Presley was a star, but he was singing tunes written by others. Buddy Holly wrote—and produced his own material.

While Holly’s recording career spanned only about a year and a half, his impact on the rock and roll scene was profound. The Rolling Stones and Bob Dylan cite Holly as significantly influential in their respective careers.

Here’s a clip of Buddy Holly doing his thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NWCIqCSyFhc

Killed in the most famous airplane crash in music history—the “day the music died”, Buddy Holly lost his life along with Ritchie Valens and The Big Bopper in 1958.

So short a career, but with hits like “Peggy Sue”, “That’ll Be The Day”, “It’s So Easy”, “Maybe Baby” and of course, “Oh Boy”, his legacy was huge.

If you’d like to receive my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Golf Trick Shot Artist

2011-09-06T13:39:00.001-04:00

As Labor Day passes and September really starts to look like a month other than August, I begin to have my yearly golf withdrawal symptoms.

Still plenty of good days to whack that sucker, but those days are getting shorter. Where before it was easy to play until 8:30pm, nowadays you need night vision goggles anytime past 7:30.

It’s not easy to be a golfer in Northern New England. Maybe that’s why we’re all so passionate about the limited time we get to swing those sticks.

For duffers like myself, moments of greatness are few and far between, but sometimes they do occur. And for me, maybe my greatest happened this past Saturday in Rangeley.
While playing Mingo Springs, I EAGLED the second hardest hole on the course, a 419 yard Par 4. A dogleg right with an elevated tee to a valley fairway and then back uphill to an elevated green, I hammered a drive 271 yards to the middle of the fairway (which was, in itself, cause for celebration)—then, I took deadly aim with my 7-iron from 148 yards out. I knew the instant I stuck that sucker that the shot was good, but from my vantage point, only the top of the flagstick was visible.

Imagine my disappointment when arriving at the green to initially not see my ball. It wasn’t behind the green in the fringe and, my goodness; it COULDN’T have skipped into the woods, could it have?

I nonchalantly declared, “Just for the hell of it, I’m going to look in the hole!”

Presto.

My little Pinnacle was resting comfortably, nestled up against the flagstick, yielding a 2 on a Par 4.

For those with better hand-eye coordination (maybe 95 percent of the public), this might not be a big deal. Stories of holes-in-one abound and the sheer number of aces, eagles and even double-eagles are common.

But not for me! Moments like these can lead to delusions of greatness—and I always entertain these fantasies after a particularly good round. Luckily, my playing partner, former boss and witness to it all, Bob Fuller kept me grounded by reminding me not to quit my day job.

Enjoy this short video clip, sent by Lorenzo Rozzi, proprietor of the One City Center News, honorary Mayor of Portland and fellow golf nut.

Now here’s a guy who can make the shots!

http://www.youtube.com/user/sportsrisq?blend=2&ob=5

Most amazing is the last guy, putting his face in the line of fire. Even an excellent golfer could chunk a shot—and the distance between knocking the Coke can off and putting an eye out was about 6 inches! Simply amazing!

You won’t see me trying that—and if I do, you won’t see any volunteers step forward to be my stooge!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Your Doctor May Dump You

2011-08-29T16:09:00.001-04:00

Beware of any non-invoice-type mailings from your physician. That fancy envelope may contain a thinly veiled blackmail attempt to extort more cash from your already strapped budget!

It just happened to me---and I should point out the title of this blog may be misleading, because, in a way, I dumped my doctor.

Why?

It’s a new breed of medical greed, disguised as the VIP treatment. In fact, it’s even called MDVIP (although there may be other for-profit outfits like it out there with different names).

Here’s how it works:

1) The initial letter from your doctor attempts to break the news slowly. Your overworked (and apparently underpaid) physician is “excited” to announce a new level of healthcare for you! This mailing is followed by invitations to little wine and cheese get-togethers at local country clubs to answer your questions (and put the hard sell on you). Fancy brochures, FAQ’s that downplay your financial obligation and other materials are employed to convince you that this new level of medical care is indispensable.

2) Acknowledging the lousy service we consumers of healthcare already get, the blame is attributed to having too many patients and too little time for individual attention. But, fear not! Your doctor has the solution!

3) By signing up for MDVIP, you retain the same doctor, yet now you can get same day or next day appointments! You will receive an extensive series of tests in an annual “wellness” program! You’ll receive a mini-CD with all your medical information for your wallet or purse—and---get this, your OWN personal health website!

4) And…..oh yeah, the yearly cost to you is a mere $1,500---on TOP of whatever you are already forking over for healthcare. This fee is NOT covered by health insurance.

Such a deal.

I can understand why the doctors are all for it. They slash their patient list to 600 total. At $1,500 per patient, that’s a cool $900,000 per YEAR in new revenue! Imagine being able to cut your workload and still pull in that kind of dough!

My guess is that the physicians cough up (pardon the pun) maybe half of this amount in order to be affiliated with MDVIP. Still, $450,000 is not a bad start to their kid’s college fund—every year, no?

The other chunk-whatever it is---goes to another medical corporation whose real interest is recruiting doctors who in turn recruit patients. It’s a pretty good racket.

Call me a cynic, but most insidious is the marketing campaign that touts all of these “advancements” as being in MY best interest!

Please.

Instead of treating disease—it’s about being proactive about my health—making “wellness” the goal. So……..why wasn’t that the goal before? Can they not accomplish this without my extra fifteen hundred bucks?

Check out the “news” segment where the doctor interviewed spouts the party line—and then ask yourself: “Wasn’t he supposed to be doing all of these things all along?”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca4xjttBghc

So, what happens when you decline such a tempting offer?
You get dumped.

I like my doctor, but I am not yet-thankfully, a huge consumer of healthcare. I go for an annual physical, which goes something like this:

a) I arrive on time or ahead of time, but I still wait to be seen. I could be the first appointment of the day, yet still I wait….and wait.

b) A nurse takes my vitals, weight and blood pressure and then I am ushered into another room…to wait again, this time in my underwear. It is often a long wait.

c) My doctor arrives, runs the checkup for about 15 minutes or so and that’s it.

In the end, I have spent more time waiting than being waited on, as the medical profession as an industry has no respect for the fact that their patient’s time is just as valuable as theirs.

I tried hard to envision how my experience would be enhanced for the extra fee. Maybe I would get a cup of espresso while sitting around in my skivvies.

I like my doctor. He’s a good guy and I believe that he is knowledgeable and truly cares about his patients. In short, despite my limited contact with him yearly, I feel that he has provided a decent service in keeping me healthy.

But I can’t afford him anymore. And frankly, even if I could, I’m not sure I should. You see, there is something inherently wrong in an association that recruits physicians to strong-arm their patients into a program they may not want. If it were an option, I could choose to enjoy the increased level of service. Or…I could stay where I am, happily seeing my doctor one or two times a year.

“Sorry, Mr. Moore…that’s not an option”
Too bad the Hippocratic oath didn’t address the refusal to serve those who are not prepared to write a big bonus check to the doctor.

So, I’m outa here—as I offer a new twist to the saying , “Doctor, heal thyself”

How about, “Doctor, steal for thyself?”

Anyone know a good physician to recommend to a fifty-some DJ? I’m all ears.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Your Pain Is Funny...But Not Mine

2011-08-24T14:43:00.002-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG, BACK BY POPULAR DEMAND!

What is it about human beings that we find humor in other people’s pain?

Admit it.

You laugh when people fall down, get bonked in the head or take one in the crotch.Sometimes when it happens to US, we too, will crack up—only after we’ve checked to see there is no blood--or no body parts sticking out at funny (and by funny I mean unusual) angles.

Usually though, we are somewhat angry and offended when, after getting up from a spill, we gaze into the faces of our “friends”, who are too busy peeing in their pants to ask if we’re OK. Sometimes it’s a stilted, “Wow, are you alright” spoken through the gritted teeth of someone who is visibly suppressing laughter. Other times, your “buddies” are now themselves on the floor, rolling around and laughing like hyenas.

“Thanks for your CONCERN!”

The internet and the proliferation of video recording on cell phones, etc. has provided enough footage of people slamming themselves into walls, slipping on ice and generally making painful fools of themselves to keep us “entertained” for hours.It’s probably a good thing that we don’t get to see the trips to emergency rooms, hospitals and the morgue that come from these clips.

So, just how good are YOU?

Can you watch the following video and not even crack a SMILE?Betcha you can’t:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdAYwMPFDcs

How did you do?

Perhaps we’ll get our just desserts in the next life (“Table for one in HELL, please!”)I operate with the ASSUMPTION that all injuries for which I have laughed at above were minor—and that the victim was a good sport.

And the next time I wipe out, my first reaction will be to look around and make DAMN sure no one is filming!

If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com

Equality: Why The Debate?

2011-08-18T15:30:00.000-04:00

My friend and colleague Lori Voornas made front-page news today in the Portland Press Herald.

She didn’t cure cancer, discover the fountain of youth or even hold up a local convenience store.

She “came out”, admitting that she is gay.

Huh?

Why is this “news”?

Lori is one third of the #1 rated morning radio program in Portland, “The Q Morning Show” on 94.9 WHOM’s sister station WJBQ (Q97.9) and she made the revelation on the air this past Tuesday.

Of course, those close to her were always aware of her orientation—and many listeners and advertisers had suspected she was gay. All of us were a bit taken aback with the attention the announcement has garnered.

After over 20 years on the air at Portland, Maine radio stations, Lori chose to “come out” due to significant changes in her life—ones that she felt needed to be shared with listeners who have come to know her over the years. While the Q audience has been well aware of her other radio partner’s personal lives and families (Meredith and Jeff regularly share this info), Lori was sometimes the mystery woman. Single, living on Munjoy Hill and sometimes referencing a “roommate” in the past, we knew about her cats, but that’s about it.

Fast forward to the trifecta of changes, all taking place in days: moving to Falmouth, getting married to her significant other (complete with children) and, oh yeah…...the gay thing. Too many momentous elements to keep from a weekly audience who consider her a friend in so many ways.

The response to the “news” (ahem) has been overwhelmingly positive—from listeners and advertisers alike. An outpouring of congratulations, love and support have graced the Q Morning Show Facebook page, e-mails and over the phone.

Have there been “haters”? Yes, on the Press Herald website in the comment section and at least one phone call from someone who:

a) was a huge fan of the show but
b) now will stop listening following the “revelation”

That’s OK—never was there an intent to “promote” a lifestyle, be controversial or shock the audience. The need was simply to be real---re-enacting a discussion that happens in families every single day.

All I know is that Lori Voornas is a kind, funny and wonderful person—and her life partner Jen is as well. I wish them all the happiness in the world and know that her true friends feel the same way.

The larger issue would be the notion that anyone’s personal life choices should be fodder for judgment. The politics that have blocked legislation aimed at ensuring rights for those denied them always mystifies me.

I don’t need to “agree” with a gay lifestyle—or even understand it. It’s like “agreeing” with oxygen. It just is. It’s a fact of life—and the estimate that about ten percent of the population is gay means that we’re talking about A LOT of people. Those seeking to “protect marriage” somehow believe that gay unions somehow dilute heterosexual marriage.

I would disagree—and state that a nearly 50% divorce rate is more of a threat to heterosexual marriage than same-sex unions.

Let’s remove any issue of equality from our politics. Can the conservative right make a decision to focus on fiscal policy and abandon social positions that are a throwback to the 50’s, when there were obviously no gay people in existence? Sarcasm aside, social equality shouldn’t be the subject of debate, but rather of universal consensus.

Who shouldn’t be treated equally?

It was on this date in 1920---less than 100 years ago---that the 19th Amendment to the Constitution was ratified, giving women the right to vote.

At that time, there was actually organized OPPOSITION to allowing women entry to the ballot box.

The same thing is happening today—and a hundred years from now, people in 2111 will wonder why the fight over gay marriage was such a big deal.

For those who use the Bible as a battering ram to block any efforts at enforcing equality, may I quote another verse:

“Judge not, lest ye be judged”

Congratulations, Lori and Jen—we love ya!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

The King And His Castle

2011-08-16T12:09:00.000-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

It was 34 years ago today that Elvis Presley died, the King of Rock & Roll who was a mere shell of his former self, having surrendered to the prison of drug addiction.

His estate endures—and his literal estate-Graceland—is busier than ever.

Someday, I’ll make it to Graceland, the mansion-home-now-turned-shrine to Elvis. Located in Memphis, it is one of the most visited tourist attractions in the U.S., ahead of many national monuments and historical sites. As far as private residences are concerned, only The White House has more visitors each year

The fascination I have with Elvis is more about how someone so successful and wealthy could descend into the pit of drugs and depression that eventually cost him his life.

Of course, there are those who believe that Elvis is still alive. I am not one of them, but were he to walk into my office right now munching on a peanut butter and ‘nana sandwich, I would most likely dissolve into a speechless blob of goo---just like millions of fans.

In fact, my wife and I had the privilege of meeting Elvis’ daughter Lisa Marie Presley a few years ago when she played Merrill Auditorium in Portland. I’d be lying if I didn’t think about how this was the daughter, the flesh and blood of ELVIS PRESLEY while I was shaking her hand and posing for photos. Hell, I even thought about her ex-husband Michael Jackson at the time. Rock & Roll Royalty—and she couldn’t have been sweeter.

But I digress.

Elvis paid the down payment for Graceland on this date in 1957. $1,000 bucks—for a house on nearly 14 acres of wooded land—and a mansion that was priced at $102,500.
Twenty three rooms, including 8 bedrooms and bathrooms. Elvis added on, remodeled (including the infamous “Jungle Room”) and generally made the site the castle fit for a King.

Here’s a short video tour of Graceland:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpGPMGJzR40

Graceland was where Elvis died—and where he is buried. It was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 1991. Now essentially a museum, it houses his gold records, memorabilia, his Cadillacs and even his Lockheed jet is nearby. From the signature music-theme gates to the burial site to everything inside, it is a must-see for anyone going to Memphis….and someday I will join the millions who have made the pilgrimage.

When that happens, I’m sure that I’ll be …..well, “All Shook Up”

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Jobs: What’s The Answer?

2011-08-15T14:37:00.000-04:00

In the afterglow of the Iowa straw poll this past weekend, it seems that Michelle Bachman’s bar-b-que was tastier than that of her competitors, her tent teeming with celebrities like Randy Travis----and it was these critical factors of leadership and organization which allowed her to “win”.

Had 75 of so of her supporters swung to Ron Paul, it would have been Paul who would have taken the day. Ron Paul may be the only common sense Republican candidate, but his drastic views regarding economics (he would have the U.S. default) and foreign affairs (he would make America the ultimate isolationist state) all combine to make him not only unelectable, but also “un-nominate-able”. Republican strategist Mike Murphy warned everyone not to read too much into the Iowa results, stating that he could have garnered “a thousand votes against algebra” in this straw poll.

The economy is driving the election—and the conservative right is actually relishing the sluggish recovery as their only means to grab the reins of power in 2012. Think about it.
Many on the right are actually rooting for American turmoil in order to make Mr. Obama as Ms. Bachman would screech, “a one-term President”.

Great. Then what?

Ask anyone who laments the economic situation—and the topic always turns to unemployment. It’s all about jobs.

So, let’s get a handle on just what we’re talking here.

In 2009, the total U.S. workforce was estimated to be about 155 million people. Since there is always an unemployment baseline of about 5-6%, a 9% unemployment level works out to be a marginal rate of about 4% (rounding up) of what the average low threshold would normally be.

Never is unemployment 0% or even 1 or 2 %. About five or six percent unemployment takes into account those in transition between jobs at any given point in time and also the portion of the population that may be considered “chronically unemployable”—for many reasons, none of which have to do with the state of the economy.

So, 4% of the workforce is that portion of the unemployment picture on which the focus needs to be. This (using 2009 figures) represents about 6 million people—or 120,000 per state.

OK, now that we have the magnitude of the problem defined, the question remains:

What to do?

While the current administration will never get any credit for AVERTING a major economic catastrophe (picture President Bush playing the violin while the U.S. economy burned), he can no longer pin the blame on the former Chief Executive, either.

Imagine “President McCain” allowing General Motors to die-as he would have. Vice President Palin (it hurts just to see this in type) would have been right there supporting McCain in his “let the market decide” philosophy. What would unemployment have been like if GM had NOT been rescued?

But I digress.

To state that our problems would not be solved overnight is one theme that was repeated, but an impatient populace can’t take solace in an extended time frame when the rent is due this month.

So again, back to the White House. What can ANY President do?

Dismiss the vacuous charges of “lack of leadership” coming from conservatives. Ask the prospective Republican candidates exactly WHAT they would do?

It’s likely that the three major things would emerge:

1) Cut government spending
2) Cut the corporate income tax
3) Repeal “Obamacare”

The underlying theme is hard to miss. Give business what it wants and the collective business community will reward America with expansion and jobs. This would make sense if the evidence to the contrary were not so glaring.

While American business has been doing relatively well (last week’s volatility notwithstanding due to the debt ceiling crisis)---Americans themselves have not. Many companies are reporting record profits. Many of the companies who preyed on consumers and helped to cause the housing and mortgage crisis are doing just fine now—while their former customers have foreclosed and are either in personal bankruptcy or crawling out.

These companies that ship jobs overseas, who send their cash to accounts in the Cayman Islands to avoid U.S. income taxes, who enjoy the full benefits of the many tax breaks, subsidies and other federal goodies—still manage to complain about the tax rate. They conveniently blame “Obamacare” as the sole reason they are not hiring, when the reality is that they have learned to produce more with an overworked and underpaid workforce afraid of losing their jobs.

It’s a perfect storm of perceived hardship that can be leveraged for further federal concessions.

It’s no wonder that big business almost invariably favors the Republican candidate in any political race. While the Democrats have been seen as the party of the indigent and dependent (which is true), they are also the voice of a middle class that is seen as increasingly invisible—because they don’t work the levers of government by orchestrating who gets elected via massive campaign cash.

So, if massive cuts that hurt the poor and elderly get blocked by Democrats in the Senate, if the repeal of Obamacare (seen as virtually impossible by strategists on both sides of the aisle) fails—and efforts to cut corporate taxes likewise get bogged down in Congress, what’s left in the Republican toolbox?

Enlighten us. Mr. or Ms. Republican President…what EXACTLY would you do?

They can’t, because they haven’t a clue. Democrats don’t either. The system is broken because rational thought rarely accompanies public policy.

Vested, special interests—and their cash to buy political office—are the major force in influencing the direction of the country.

A President who seeks compromise is ridiculed by an opposition that refuses to budge—and pilloried by his own party for being “weak” and giving away the store.

Maybe there is one man or woman who can truly bring everyone together—but the poisonous atmosphere in Washington makes that likelihood remote. Winning trumps governing—and America is paying the price.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Bonnie & Clyde Liked Fords-Good Advertising?

2011-08-11T13:50:00.001-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG

During the crime spree that Bonnie & Clyde were eventually gunned down for, they stole a series of automobiles, switching often in order to keep the police off their trail. It appears, however, that Clyde Barrow’s love for Fords may have been his (and Bonnie’s) undoing.

The lore of Bonnie & Clyde was very real back in the 30’s. Due to the Depression and the hardship it imposed on average Americans, Bonnie & Clyde represented the survival instincts that many people identified with. Due to the extensive newspaper and radio coverage, they became folk heroes of sorts, equal in many ways to movie stars and popular singers. The unusual combination of a man and woman crime duo-with it’s romantic implications-made the two cult figures long before their death. Nevermind the fact that they murdered many in cold blood, often police officers trying to capture them alive.

It appears that Clyde’s love of Fords may have caused him to hang onto one particular car a bit too long. Clyde even wrote something of a fan letter to Henry Ford regarding his product:

“Dear Sir,
While I still have breath in my lungs, I will tell you what a dandy car you make. I have drove (sic) Fords exclusively when I could get away with one. For sustained speed and freedom from trouble the Ford has got every other car skinned and even if my business hasn’t been strictly legal it don’t hurt to tell you what a fine car you got in the V8”

We’ll never know if Ford ever considered using that letter for promotional reasons, but he certainly did not incorporate it into the company’s advertising.

After their ambush killing by police, the car-originally stolen of course, was returned to the original owner following a court battle with police, who were making money off its notoriety. It was on this date that the bullet-riddled 1934 sedan sold for $175,000 to Peter Simon of Jean, Nevada. It has been bought and sold several times.

Below is rare footage of the so-called “Bonnie & Clyde death car”-filmed shortly after the police ambush that took their lives:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNfhef240-g&feature=related

Watch the interesting story of the Bonnie & Clyde Ford V-8 below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=CEoG65Y-vbM

If you’d like my blog in your e-mail daily, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com

Birth Of The Electric Guitar

2011-08-10T17:02:00.001-04:00

You could say that today is the “birthday” of the electric guitar—as the first patent for such an instrument was awarded on this date in 1937.

The Electro String Corporation received patent # 2,089—the device was known as the Rickenbacker Frying Pan.

Of course, no one at the time knew how this invention would eventually transform music.

The development of the electric guitar came out of a need to make the acoustic guitar heard in an ensemble. On its own, it did just fine, thank you. Add brass, percussion and woodwinds—and the acoustic guitar was lost. Something needed to be done to make the guitar stand out.

Taking the vibration of a guitar string and transforming it into an electrical signal that could be amplified was the goal—and G.D. Beauchamp got it done.

The electric guitar revolutionized jazz, blues and country music—and made rock & roll possible.

A couple of videos today—one a quick musical history of the electric guitar—and the other, the first of a five-part series on the historic evolution of this now indispensable instrument! (if you like Part 1, feel free to click on the You Tube segments for Parts 2-5!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPRDPWQ7etY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1wDEmPWM2g

Hard to imagine music without the electric guitar-thanks, G.D. Beauchamp, no doubt strumming the electric harp a bit north of where we are now!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Government Spending: Really The Issue?

2011-08-08T14:00:00.005-04:00

As I write this blog, the stock market is in free fall, reeling from last week’s S&P downgrade of America’s credit rating from AAA to AA+. Today, another punch to the gut as Standard & Poor’s has added Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to the downgrade list.

What does it all mean?

The S&P claimed their decision was based more on the political bickering that preceded the raising of the debt limit than on the deficit itself. The rationale was that this current political climate-extreme polarization—leads to the feeling that our system is dysfunctional (anyone disagree?) and that depressing reality simply overshadowed the numbers themselves.

The crux of the argument is based on two assumptions:

1) President Obama and the Democrats believe in more government and, conversely,
2) Republicans believe in less government.

It could be that this oversimplification is unjustified.

Since everyone hates taxes and feels (perhaps justifiably so) that politicians of any party tend to squander our tax dollars, the fewer taxes we send to Uncle Sam, the better. Plus, an ailing economy requires less taxation in order to stimulate the consumer spending that we equate with a robust economy.

All of this makes sense, which is why ( I think) the Tea Party has gained so much traction in our political discourse. Rep. Ron Paul has openly said that maybe a complete default is the medicine we need to provide the necessary “correction”. He may indeed be right, but no one wants to experience the pain, havoc and social upheaval that a default would promise.

When I ask conservatives exactly WHAT was it that pulled America out of the Great Depression, I get one definitive answer:

“World War II.”

When I probe deeper and ask what EXACTLY about World War II caused the United States to rebound from the Depression, again I get a similar response:

“The war put America back to work, building planes and tanks and implements of war”

I then set the trap. Exactly WHO paid for all of this?

Oops.

The U.S. Government.

So, “World War II was essentially a very costly government stimulus program, no?”—I ask them.

Crickets.

There is no “less government is better” response that doesn’t paint them into a hypocritical corner.

Although you’ll never hear this from a Republican leader heading into an election year, experts from both parties and throughout the economic sector have agreed in the past that there is very little the President (any President) can do to turn an economy around.

Until the recent debt crisis, the stock market was flourishing---does Obama deserve some credit for that? Probably not. But then, he cannot bear the blame when, in an economy that's producing record profits, those companies seeing the windfall have decided not to hire additional workers and expand.

Why is that?

Credit/short term paper for businesses has never been cheaper. Expand, grow and reap ever greater revenues. Why not? But that’s not happening. What’s a Chief Executive to do?

While Ben Bernanke has many critics, it should be duly noted that, despite his policies’ attachment to the Obama Administration,

1) He was Bush’s man, not Obama’s and
2) His management of the Fed is not based on politics.

The best politics for any party is economic health and vitality. Whatever it takes to get there will be the course taken, regardless of who is in office. Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner is not a raging liberal. He’s a Wall Street guy. The same for the departed Larry Summers. Their heads are wrapped around performance and stability, not who is projected to be re-elected.

Bernanke is well regarded as a student of and an expert on the Great Depression. There is considerable evidence to suggest that massive government spending in the SHORT TERM (and this is key-short term) can help avoid the severe downturns. In fact, Bernanke will state that the Great Depression was easing because of FDR’s programs until political opposition created an environment where further stimulus became politically impossible (sound familiar?)

As a result, the country, instead of recovering, plunged into a deeper hole-a true Depression—until the unavoidable government stimulus (WWII) gave us the sustained boost that created a generation of unprecedented growth and affluence.

The emergence of the middle class was key to this success. Today, the middle class is evaporating—as more people fall either below the poverty line—or, conversely, they rise to the ultra-rich stratosphere, where the Bush tax cuts can protect them further.

We, as a nation, are INSANE.

We need to scrap the U.S. tax code and start from scratch. Since the political landscape cannot allow Congress to be in charge of overseeing this gargantuan task, I think that we should sequester the very best economic brains in an effort to come up with a plan for the future.

Economic Marshall Law, if you will. Bretton Woods, 2011. Give the lawmakers political cover by agreeing to the legislative equivalent of mediation. A “disinterested” third party (this blue-ribbon commission of the best and brightest economic minds) would return to Congress a comprehensive blueprint.

Congress would then be compelled to vote on it—up or down, no amendments, no revisions and zero arm-twisting by special interests.

A fair tax system—personal income tax, corporate income tax and all other forms of revenue—need to be administered fairly and across all spectrums of income.

We need the revenue to run the government. We need government investment, especially in the area of energy—to be able to lead the world in this century as we have in the last. The interstate highway system---in the Republican Eisenhower Administration—was a HUGE government program—but it created massive employment and spurred the transportation of goods that we still benefit from today.

I don’t trust the politicians to solve our problems. A narrow ideological agenda (like that of the Tea Party) leads to a belief that growth comes only from lowering taxes. The Bush tax cuts were designed to boost the economy by leading to investment and spending.

OK, we tried it.

Let’s move on and develop a new system that gives the government the revenue it needs-but let’s make a system where fairness and equitable shared burden is the hallmark.

That’s not the case now.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

The Billboard Hot 100

2011-08-04T13:51:00.001-04:00

We Americans are obsessed with numbers—and we do love our trivia too.

So here’s a question that you can stump your friends with:

“What was the very first #1 song on the very first Billboard Hot 100 Singles Chart?”

We’ll have the answer—and the video---right after a word from our sponsor…me!

It was on this date in 1958 (when I was a mere 11 days old) that Billboard Magazine introduced the “Hot 100 Singles Chart”. Of course, there were charts before, but they measured different stuff.

There was the “Best Sellers In Stores” tracking actual sales, the “Most Played By Jockeys”, those songs that radio DJ’s were spinning the most (presumably from requests) and “Most Played On Jukeboxes”. This last one was discontinued in 1957 as the popularity of jukeboxes faded.

Originally a blend of sales and airplay, the chart nowadays is based on monitored (certified) radio exposure of songs. Billboard instantly became the standard back in the late 50’s—and the name is synonymous with “the chart”.

OK, now for the answer to our trivia question:

“Poor Little Fool” by Ricky Nelson, the very first #1 song on the Billboard Hot 100 Singles Chart. Here it is:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R12H8QWnwvE

Since that very first chart-topper, there have been 1,005 #1 songs on the Billboard Chart, the most current being “Party Rock Anthem” by LMFAO (as of the August 13th issue). Trust me, that tune sounds NOTHING like Ricky Nelson!

The method for deciding how each song is evaluated has changed many times over the years, but as musicologist Joel Whitburn quoted DJ Don Imus as saying, “It’s not #1 until it’s #1 in Billboard!”

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know!
Tim.moore@citcomm.com

Economic Facts: Lost In The Debate

2011-07-25T15:46:00.003-04:00

The wrangling between Capitol Hill and the White House over raising the nation’s debt ceiling can be distilled down to a classic difference in philosophy: namely, the choice between “big government” and the taxes that are required to support it---and the notion that less government is better, complete with the argument that raising taxes on ANY segment of the population is the worst thing to do in a recession.

No one advocates big government for its own sake. Rather, it’s the services and benefits that are provided by the Federal government that politicians (mostly Democrats) support.
No one wants Granny to have her Medicare slashed.

Each camp cites statistics to back up their arguments. Both claim their data to be factual—and yet both cannot be true—they contradict each other, no?

It’s easy to side with President Obama’s contention that loopholes protecting a tax break for the owners of private jets should be closed (and that Republicans look hopelessly beholden to the wealthy by trying to protect them), but this political maneuver is just clever showboating by the Administration—and completely inconsequential to the real dollars needed to make a difference.

Both sides, if their statistics were to be believed—would have a compelling argument to support their positions.

But how can both sides be correct?

I’ll present both to you—and then you can decide for yourself.

First, consider a couple of possible missing “facts” that are getting little attention—yet the implications of their reality may be profoundly telling:

FACT ONE: Business is doing quite well, thank you. This is evidenced by record profits,
solid earnings reports and massive gains in the stock market.

FACT TWO: Despite the growth, unemployment remains at over 9 percent, with many
companies citing “uncertainty” as their reason for not hiring.

How can this be?

Well, it’s widely believed that both markets and economies go through “corrections”. When the stock market rises TOO much (stocks are valued too high for the P/E ratio or assets and earnings), then a “crash” of some sort occurs.

Is it possible that American business was “overemployed” before the recession? Workers hired during boom times and then retained despite relatively low contribution to their company’s success?
A number of CEO’s are saying yes—off the record, of course. On the record are “fears” connected with “Obamacare” or looming tax threats that suppress the urge to hire and grow.

It’s a fact that computer firepower and other advancements in technology have increased productivity so much that fewer workers are needed. Anyone who survived the layoffs of 2008 by absorbing the workload of at least one other person can attest to their company’s unwillingness to add expense (new hires) to a scenario where firms are heaping unreasonable workloads onto stressed out surviving workers—and seeing no adverse effects using the only metric they care about—profits.

Why do these workers put up with it?

The knowledge that there are dozens if not hundreds of people waiting to take their place, coupled with a lingering unemployment/bleak job picture keeps them on the job.

General Electric recently released a “good news, bad news” announcement to Charles Schumer (D-NY). The good news was that GE planned to re-open plants in upstate New York. The bad news was that these plants would be staffed by hundreds of workers, not the thousands previously employed there.

The difference? Robotic automation requiring fewer human resources. This scenario is no doubt being played out in many other corporate environments. It’s really not good or bad.

It just IS.

So…back to taxes.

Google the term “Who pays taxes?” and you will get a list of sites, with the following one near or at the top:

http://ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

I invite you to go there, but the most prominent table of this “non partisan” site is below:

Percentiles Ranked by AGI
AGI Threshold on Percentiles
Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%
$380,354 AGI
38.02% of all taxes

Top 5%
$159,619 AGI
58.72% of all taxes

Top 10%
$113,799 AGI
69.94 of all taxes

Top 25%
$67,280 AGI
86.34 of all taxes

Top 50%
$33,048 AGI
97.30% of all taxes

Bottom 50%
<$33,048 AGI
2.7 % of all taxes

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross IncomeSource: Internal Revenue Service

Using this as a reference point, it’s easy to see why Republicans are touting the “fact” that it’s the poor and middle class who are not paying their fair share. Scroll down the list of Google output, however---and you’ll get a different perspective, including this well researched article: “The 9 Things The Rich Don’t Want You To Know About Taxes”

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-17350-9_things_the_rich_dont_want_you_to_know_about_taxes.html

Seems that maybe BOTH sides can be factually correct and yet the picture is more complex than the political sound bites we use to determine our opinion.

No, instead of taking the time to read and educate ourselves on the many factors that comprise taxes, revenue and how they relate to our economic health, we gravitate to those politicians who spout the simplistic opinions that we already hold---essentially aligning ourselves with those whom already agree with.

We are all guilty of this.

If there is one thing we can all agree on, it may be this. Unlike chemistry or physics, there are no real “laws” of economics, maybe because human behavior is factored into the outcome—and we humans are unpredictable.

The Bush tax cuts were supposed to spur unprecedented investment and growth.
They did nothing of the sort. They helped lead to the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression.

Conversely, the ‘60’s—one of the greatest eras of growth and investment—occurred with income tax rates sometimes more than double what they are today.

I urge you to link to both of the sites above----read both and then decide for yourself where you think public policy should reside.

Our own ignorance of facts---not opinions, but FACTS--- leads to our willingness to allow the knuckleheads in Washington to decide things for us.

It seems clear that many of them are no better informed—and that’s scary.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Bobby Sherman: The Definition of Cheesy

2011-07-22T12:49:00.001-04:00

Warning! Those with a weak stomach may not be able to watch the following video without losing their lunch.
Uncontrollable laughter is another likely outcome.

Every generation has at least one:

THE TEEN IDOL.

This contrived product of mass media is designed to delight young girls—and ring the cash registers of those who prop up these young handsome men. The “tweens” who are currently enthralled with the likes of Justin Bieber probably believe that he is an original, not just the next embodiment of a money-making machine that preys on the emotions of pre-teen, teenage and even 20-something young women.

In the late 60’s and early 70’s, that guy was one Bobby Sherman-who is 68 years old today.

My sister had posters of Bobby Sherman in her room. Tiger Beat and every other teen magazine had Bobby on the cover—and the pages of each mag were riddled with copious photos of Mr. Sherman.

Perfect hair.
Tight pants.
No zits.

What girl wouldn’t squeal at the mere mention of his name?

Check out this video of Bobby Sherman, shaking his groove thing and singing his smash hit, “Easy Come, Easy Go”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJOuTr0BXb4

Laugh if you will (I did), but the performer you just witnessed compiled 6 gold singles, 1 platinum single and 5 gold albums. He was a guest star on MANY sitcoms and drama shows, virtually guaranteeing huge ratings. The screaming of the girls at his many sold-out shows is primarily responsible for the hearing loss he suffers today.

TV Guide ranked him #8 in their list of the “25 Greatest Teen Idols”

What’s he up to now? He left show biz to become and Emergency Medical Technician and is a grandfather of five. I haven’t seen a recent photo, but I’ll bet his hair is still perfect-----that is, if he has any left.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

The Moon, The Shuttle…..Now What?

2011-07-20T17:02:00.001-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG

If you asked ANYONE in 1969 after they witnessed Neil Armstrong cavorting on the lunar surface exactly what we’d be up to in the year 2011, it is likely the answers would have been a variation of one of the following:

a) Americans will be making regular trips to the moon as a vacation destination
b) We would have landed a man (or woman!) on Mars by now
c) We would have a space station/city in orbit
d) All of the above

So…..what happened?

The Space Shuttle has made it’s last voyage and we are in a sort of “space limbo”—a combination of not really knowing what to do next coupled with the inability to pay for whatever we decide.

National priorities change. In the early 60’s, the Cold War fueled the race into space. We had security incentives to conquer the upper atmosphere and beyond. The wartime potential of supremacy in space was obvious. This sense or urgency, articulated by President Kennedy in his “deadline” to get us to the moon “before this decade is out” helped to crystallize the mission ahead of us.

After we arrived, there was euphoria, a sense of relief, of pride----and a heavy dose of “NOW WHAT?”

The Space Shuttle program-to design, build and fly a reusable spaceship made sense, but once we did it, what were we going out there for anyway?

I was a HUGE fan of the space program-and I distinctly remember gathering with my family around the TV 42 years ago today. It was SO surreal-that a part of me can understand those people who STILL believe it was all staged by NASA-that we never actually landed on the moon. It was all an elaborate deception.

The question of “what’s next”? still haunts us. At a time that when dollars are scarce-and no clearly defined reason for being in space exist, it is hard to justify the fact that more is spent yearly on the U.S. Space program than on the search for alternative energy sources, clearly a higher priority.

Maybe there is an energy source out there that we can harness. It will take something of that magnitude to galvanize American sentiment that we should re-direct the Space Program to new “heights” (sorry)

A new mission is in order. What is the nature of that mission? What is the end game? The space program of the 60’s created an explosion in advances in technology from computers to consumer electronics. This time, it will take more than commercial leaps in technology to justify the expenditure of our national treasure.

I hope we can define a new focus—one that captures the imagination of the entire world, not just the United States.

If you want to get the goosebumps all over again, watch the video clip below-historic 40th anniversay footage of the mission 42 years ago today that defined our supremacy as a superpower:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pCp2jTtay0w

If you’d like my blog in your inbox daily, just let me know-it’s really easy- a small step for man (or woman), but a giant leap for mankind!tim.moore@citcomm.com

Elvis: The Song That Started It All

2011-07-19T14:13:00.001-04:00

It was a rather uneventful recording session at the now –famous Sun Records in Memphis. The date was July 5th, 1954.

A young singer by the name of Elvis Presley was taking a break between sessions when he started fooling around with an old R&B song called “That’s All Right, Mama” by Arthur Crudup. Studio musicians Scotty Moore and Bill Black joined in and before long, it appeared that some sort of musical magic was happening. Producer Sam Phillips was impressed enough that he asked the trio to start over—this time taping the whole thing.

There were no drums on the recording—just the upright bass of Black and Moore’s guitar. According to some reports, Black remarked after hearing it played back: “Damn. Get that on the radio and they’ll run us out of town!”

Well, Sam Phillips DID get it on the air. He handed copies to Dewey Phillips (no relation) of WHBQ and couple of other prominent Memphis DJ’s. Elvis, upon hearing that his song would be played on the radio—had to go to a local movie theatre to calm his nerves!

Dewey played the song on his radio show on July 7th—and reaction was so intense that he played it another 13 times and asked Elvis to come to the studio for an on-air interview that first night. Among other things, Dewey asked Elvis which high school he attended in what was thought to be a roundabout way of informing his audience that his guest was white—after hearing a song which listeners might have assumed was being performed by a black singer.

That song was released on this date in 1954, with “Blue Moon of Kentucky” on the B side.

Here is that original recording in a collage of early Elvis pics:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIWlWA1YTBw

Although the song never charted nationally, it sold about 20,000 copies locally, pushing it to #4 on the local Memphis sales charts. The title dropped off the original “mama” to read simply “That’s All Right”, but Arthur Crudup was given songwriting credit. Despite this, it’s widely believed that the composer never received royalties for his work.

Rolling Stone magazine argued in an 2004 article that “That’s All Right” was really the first rock and roll record. It lands at #112 on their “500 Greatest Rock and Roll Songs Of All Time”

For Elvis, it’s the song that started it all.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know and I’ll add you to the list! Tim.moore@citcomm.com

The First Mickey Mouse Operation

2011-07-18T12:01:00.001-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

Yesterday was the 56th anniversary of the opening of the original theme park—Disneyland! Located on 160 acres of what used to be orange groves in Anaheim, California, it cost $17 million dollars to build the entire park, but back in 1955, that was an enormous amount of money!

Parlaying the success of Mickey Mouse and the other Disney cartoon characters into an experience for families, the original Disneyland was less than an absolute success on Day One.

First of all, thousands of counterfeit passes were printed-and Disneyland admitted hordes of uninvited people. The food and drink ran out and the Mark Twain steamboat nearly capsized from too many passengers. A woman’s high heel shoe got stuck in the still-wet asphalt of Main Street USA—and a gas leak forced a partial evacuation.

Needless to say, the bugs were worked out-and Disneyland became enormously popular-and successful! So much so that Walt Disney began a project even more ambitious-the construction of Disney World in Orlando, Florida, which began in 1965. Disneyworld opened in 1971, five years after the death of its namesake. The addition of Epcot,Disney-MGM have helped make Disneyworld Florida’s number one tourist attraction. Disneyland Tokyo opened in 1983 and EuroDisney opened in 1992. The newest Disneyland-in Hong Kong-opened in 2005.

Below is a clip of the opening day in 1955 of the original! Notice one of the young MC’s to come on camera with Art Linkletter-a guy by the name of Ronald Reagan!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rHjoimz5XI

An entirely new category of business was pioneered—the “theme park”—and once again, Walt Disney was at the epicenter of innovation and vision. As is the case with most creative geniuses, Disney’s motivation was never money. It was all about creating the experience, all about taking his audiences on excursions of imagination. Having achieved the on-screen goals of taking both young and old on incredible escapes of fantasy, Disney was now ready to bring those experiences to life-literally!

He did it—and paved the way for other operators to follow suit!

If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com

Have a great weekend!

Camping: Just For Laughs

2011-07-13T16:18:00.001-04:00

Lazy man’s blog today, but thought you’d get a chuckle out of comedian Jim Gaffigan’s outlook on camping! He is one of the funniest comics out there—a bit irreverent and sarcastic, but still darn funny…enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZdqIpYhM6PE

Jim played the Hampton Beach Casino last summer—did you go? Would love to hear your feedback on Mr. Gaffigan’s live act.

If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Dueling: The Old Fashioned Way To Settle Things

2011-07-11T12:38:00.001-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

With the showdown between Democrats and Republicans over raising the debt ceiling coming to a head, it sometimes seems as though our government is fundamentally flawed. Ideologically “locked in”, Republican lawmakers have made too many promises to the Tea Party to retreat into a compromise position.

What does it all mean?

Well, today's drama has yet to be played out, but some would argue that our forefathers had it right when they simply dropped the rhetoric and pulled out the pistols! That’s what happened on this date in 1804, when the famous Burr-Hamilton duel took place.

Alexander Hamilton had it coming to him, they say.

In a time where dueling was legal—and a somewhat accepted means of defending your honor, Hamilton should perhaps have known that his libelous and slanderous comments regarding Aaron Burr would not go unpunished. Unlike today’s cable news networks, where insults abound, back at the dawn of our nation, one’s honor needed to be defended against those who spewed verbal indignities.

The story of Aaron Burr’s life and political career is fascinating. This is truly a man who was VERY close to becoming one of our Presidents. Back then, there was no “running mate” per se. Yes, they were chosen, but the top vote-getter was elected President—and the runner up was Vice President.

A House of Representatives tie-breaking vote gave Thomas Jefferson the victory in 1800, paving the way to Jefferson becoming our third President. Burr became Vice President, but Alexander Hamilton , who despised Burr— did all he could to derail a presidential bid in the future.

This led to statements against Burr that were, shall we say…inflammatory.

So, Burr called Hamilton out.

Interestingly, most duals—or “Affairs Of Honor” as they were referred to—didn’t result in death. Sort of like rap stars, who must be the worst shots in the world, behind the Founding Fathers. Rap stars get “hit”, but usually only enough to sport the scar that says you have ARRIVED.

So too, apparently, with politicians back in the day. Most “duels” were actually resolved peaceably. A complex set of rules were followed and both sides usually walked away with their “honor” intact. There were, however, real shots fired at some duels—and Alexander Hamilton knew intimately of the danger.

The Hamilton-Burr duel occurred 207 years ago. On July 11, 1804 at 7am, the two met at dueling grounds in Weehawken, New Jersey. It was the same spot where Hamilton’s son had died defending his father’s honor two years prior.

There are conflicting reports of what happened next.

According to Hamilton’s “second” (his assistant and witness), Hamilton decided the duel was “morally wrong” and deliberately fired into the air. Burr’s second claimed that Hamilton did indeed fire at Burr—but missed. What is clear is that Burr shot Hamilton in the stomach, with the bullet lodging next to his spine.

Hamilton was taken to New York, where he died the next day.

Since few duels became deadly—and because of the prominence of the combatants, the nation was outraged at the killing of Hamilton. Charged with murder in New York and New Jersey, Burr returned to Washington to serve out his term-immune from prosecution.

Here is a short video clip of historian Gore Vidal, discussing these two complex men:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPlw5RK0e5Q

By 1805, Burr was completely discredited—and actually concocted a plot with the Commander-In-Chief of the U.S. Army James Wilkinson, to seize the Louisiana Territory and establish an independent empire—which Burr presumably would lead. He contacted the British government to enlist their support in the scheme—which was rejected. When Burr led a group of well-armed colonists toward New Orleans, the U.S. Government investigated. In an effort to save himself, General Wilkinson turned against Burr, accusing him of treason.

Although arrested in 1807 and tried for treason, he was acquitted on a technicality. Still considered a traitor however, he fled to Europe. Later, he returned to private life in New York, the murder charges for Hamilton’s death forgotten-and died in 1836.

From Founding Father to almost President to Vice President to Traitor. That was Aaron Burr’s resume.

Almost makes today’s politicians seem harmless.

Almost.

If you’d like my blog in your daily box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

3-D Copiers: No Longer Fantasy, They’re Here Now!

2011-07-08T11:11:00.000-04:00

Watch an old Star Trek episode and you’ll see technologies that existed only in the mind of creator Gene Roddenberry at the time—now commonplace.

People running around with hand-hand gizmos that did everything?

Today’s cellphones.

And while we haven’t perfected the transporter yet—you know, that platform that reduces people and things to the molecular level and then reassembles them in another location, I am beginning to think that we’ll lick that one too.

Why?

Because of the following video.

The photocopier is amazing enough---a one-dimensional picture of whatever is scanned. The newest technology is 3-D copying---or the quite literal FABRICATION of complete objects in a machine following scanning. Thanks to good friend and faithful blog reader and contributor Rick Cooper for sending this to me.

Make sure you are sitting down while watching this!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZboxMsSz5Aw&feature=youtube_gdata_player

Unbelievable!
The minds that create these contraptions are beyond my feeble comprehension. The combination of scanning technology, computer –assisted design and material science that allows the formation of objects out of resin/powder/whatever is completely off the charts.

Videos like this one shake the foundations of what is possible—and while it may be hard to imagine (for instance) a world that can exist without reliance on oil for energy, incredible advances in technology will surely move us into a new era of discovery.

And how exciting is that?If you’d like my blog in your box daily (through the miracle that is e-mail), just let me know! tim.moore@citcomm.com

Casey Anthony Verdict: A Miscarriage of Justice?

2011-07-07T13:05:00.002-04:00

Not since the O.J. Simpson trial has a court proceeding captured the attention of Americans like the Casey Anthony trial.

I think that many of us assumed that the mother of slain toddler Caylee Anthony would be found guilty and perhaps sentenced to death. The shock and anger following the “not guilty” verdicts have only strengthened the argument that Anthony was already presumed guilty in the court of public opinion.

Reasonable doubt.

Those two words are the cornerstone of our American justice system. They have undoubtedly protected many falsely accused defendants from serving prison time or from facing death row.

They may also be the powerful tools of shrewd defense attorneys to gain acquittals for their guilty clients. The ones that really “did it” whatever “it” happens to be.

Who knows which is the case with Casey Anthony?

Clearly, she is a liar and walking head-case on many levels. The public has equated the evidence of her wild partying in the time period her daughter was “missing” as a clear indication of her guilt. What mother would be drinking, dancing and getting tattoos while her little girl was missing? Her false statements leading law enforcement authorities in the wrong direction on multiple occasions is also credible evidence of guilt.

But, a smart defense team with an alternate theory can craft a possible scenario that both confirms the jury’s predisposition to negatively judge the defendant’s guilty behavior with enough reasonable doubt as to its reason—to elicit the verdict of acquittal.

Here is the video of the verdict being read:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_PyXYscAqs

Imagine the daunting task of the attorneys representing Casey Anthony. Portraying her as a saint is out of the question. Framing her as an “innocent” is beyond believability too. So, constructing a picture of Casey as the victim in a dysfunctional family, where she was abused, lied throughout her life and concocted a false story after Caylee’s “accidental” death was the perfect solution.

Reasonable doubt.

Seems that is this day and age, any behavior short of that caught on video can be explained away. Sometimes, graphic video won’t even work (see “Rodney King beating”)

Lost in all of this is the life of a little girl who didn’t deserve to die—and whose demise will not result in justice for whomever was responsible.

As I write this, the judge has just passed sentence on the four misdemeanor charges of lying—a one-year sentence for each charge. So, four years in prison, minus nearly three years already served minus time off for good behavior and we are looking at probably less than a year more in the slammer.

What’s next?

Well, after a near certain move away from Orlando (Hollywood, perhaps?), Casey will be free to sell the rights to her story, clearly a gold mine for books and movies. She has already received offers to pose naked, make porn movies and there’s no doubt that other employment opportunities will come her way.

Millions of dollars will flow to Casey Anthony, the mother of a murdered little girl.
Plenty of dough ---for buying tattoos and partying until the wee hours.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Remembering The Wolfman

2011-07-06T12:53:00.001-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG, UPDATED WITH NEW VIDEO:

Maybe this one is just for radio geeks like me.

Whether you are now or ever have been “on the air”, you cherish disc jockey Wolfman Jack’s reverence for his craft, for his listeners-and for the music that surrounded him. His crazy howl, high-pitched laugh and “ya understand” tag on virtually everything were his trademark, one that endeared him to generations of fans. Radio people may not have imitated him—there was simply no way to accomplish that. They did-and still do try to establish that intimate bond and playful vibe that made him an icon. If you are or were an avid listener to this incredible medium called radio, you know all about Wolfman Jack. This legend in the business passed away on July 1,1995.

Born Robert Smith, the Wolfman became famous in the 60’s broadcasting from Mexico. The stations there-not subject to the power limitations of U.S. stations-broadcast over much of the States. Wolfman Jack combined his antics-with an “illicit, we’re breakin’ the law” attitude that was just right for America’s youth in the rock and roll sixties.

It was his appearance (as himself) in the 1973 movie “American Graffiti” that propelled him to “household name” status. Here is that classic scene:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B1vBKOi3xqk

He also inspired a hit record “Clap For The Wolfman” and hosted the TV show “Midnight Special”

Here below is a video of stills w/ audio from his very first show on WNBC in New York in 1973. Highly entertaining!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KtNa9v9d5v4

I love this business, love being on the air-and although I am no “Wolfman”, I too revere the medium, it’s power to connect-and to spread positive vibes!

If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Incredible Smoking Magician

2011-06-30T16:16:00.000-04:00

Today’s blog is all about the video! Thanks to Lorenzo Rozzi, downstairs at the One City Center Newstand-a man whom I call the “Mayor of Portland”.

Lorenzo fired this off to me and I had to share.

Magic tricks are interesting to watch—and attempting to figure out “how it’s done” can drive you crazy!

Don’t even try with this next one---just sit, back, enjoy—and marvel at what you see—and cannot believe you are seeing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCm4r0F0tts&feature=player_embedded

Figure out how THAT happened?
Me neither.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

The Corvette: Macho Machine

2011-06-28T13:11:00.001-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

What exactly is it about guys and cars?

We men seem to take delight in DEFINING ourselves by the car we drive, whereas women (to the best of my knowledge) have none of this in their DNA.

The very first Corvette was assembled on this date in 1953 in Flint, Michigan. Two days later, the first production ‘Vette rolled off the assembly line, one of only 300 produced that year.

Price tag? That first one would have set you back $3,490.

Check out this video, probably the VERY first TV commercial for the brand new 1953 Corvette!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC8bwEQFx6M

The Corvette was really America’s first sports car, allowing young men to drive fast and attract women-and allowing old guys to address their mid-life crisis by attempting to APPEAR young and ATTEMPTING to attract women (usually in vain). Convertibles sold to middle-age guys should have come equipped with toupee glue, just in case that hairpiece wanted to liberate itself from the head behind the wheel!

Do women have a problem driving, say, a pickup truck? I don’t think so. Their orientation is simply point A to point B (especially if Point B is a shoe store). Guys, on the other hand, feel downright UNMANLY behind the wheel of, say, a VW Bug.
“Please, God, don’t let any of my friends SEE me driving this car!”

Of course, sheer economics will drive what you drive.
As a younger man, I had not the means to purchase the macho cars of choice: Corvette, Camaro or…Firebird Trans-Am!! I drove whatever I could afford-and took the verbal abuse from my friends, whose cars may have been SLIGHTLY more testosterone-friendly.

My personal low point was the Pinto Wagon, which became my “ride” in the late 70’s. Talk about a chick magnet. As if the standard Pinto wasn’t bad enough, I had the WAGON, which ratcheted up the laugh index to new heights. At least I wasn’t so delusional to think that “tricking out” (or “pimping”, to use a more contemporary term) would make any difference to my prospects for getting girls. My friend put decals of flames and mag wheels on his VEGA! I can assure you from his many dateless nights that no one was fooled.

That said, it does appear that although women may not define THEMSELVES by their cars the way men do, it does appear that they defined their MEN by that standard. Not to say that George Clooney in a Yugo would lose out to Marty Feldman in a Maserati, but you get the idea. I have seen some homely guys with chicks WAY out of their league cruising down the boulevard in a Jaguar. That same dude in a Suburban station wagon (with genuine imitation woodgrain on the side) wouldn’t have had a chance.

Could it be that BOTH sexes are that shallow?

Yes….but at least the ladies can leave it at the curb. Men have to make monthly payments on their image enhancers, all of which eventually end up in the junkyard!

If you’d like my blog in your inbox, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com

Gone With The Wind: The Missing Alternate Ending

2011-06-27T13:31:00.003-04:00

I looked for it, but couldn’t dig it up.

“It” is a clip of the “alternate ending” to David O. Selznick’s classic movie “Gone With The Wind”, a film that many people still consider the greatest movie ever made.

The alternate end was merely the last line uttered by Clark Gable. Fearing that the original “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”, issued to Scarlett O’Hara would not make it past the censors, Selznick filmed Rhett Butler saying, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t really care”.

No teeth in that last line, so it turns out to be quite fortunate for movie history that the censors let it go—albeit not without punishment. Selznick was fined $5,000 for including that curse.

Here is a link to the version that everyone knows and loves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Pbc8SQwV8&feature=related

It was on this date in 1939 that this final scene was filmed. That pivotal line was voted as the #1 movie line of all time in 2005. Still one would think that the alternate line footage would exist somewhere. Maybe it’s in a dusty steel reel box in some Hollywood film vault. Either way, it would be amusing to see Gable deliver this hapless dialogue line to a tearful Vivian Leigh.

The movie itself was a soap opera behind the scenes, taking nearly two and a half years from the agreement to pay an unprecedented $50,000 for the rights from writer Margaret Mitchell—to the debut of the film in Atlanta. Although Selznick hired a director immediately, had writers working on a script and launched a nationwide search for a fresh talent to play the part of Scarlett O’Hara, a year passed and he still didn’t have a lead actress. In fact the famous “Atlanta burning “ scene was filmed without a decision on who would be Scarlett. Finally, MGM studios lent Clark Gable to Selznick and Vivian Leigh won the role for which she would be famous.

Here’s the original cinema movie trailer for “Gone With The Wind”:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9ftIzRAgAk

Breaking all box office records and winning a ton of Academy Awards, including the first ever to an African American (Best Supporting actress Hattie McDaniel)

While it’s tough to crown any single movie as “Best Ever”, “Gone With The Wind” would almost surely be in everyone’s Top 10.
It’s in my Top 5.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Farrah Fawcett---A Real Angel

2011-06-24T14:18:00.001-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IN AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

Tomorrow will mark the second anniversary of the death of an American cultural icon.

Actress Farrah Fawcett, died of cancer in 2009 at the age of 62. From her starring role in the 70’s TV show “Charlie’s Angels”-to her redemption as a serious actress in “The Burning Bed”—to her very public look at coping with cancer-a show that was broadcast nationwide.

She was America’s darling, our sweetheart, the object of fantasy—and probably none of that from her own perspective. Living in the bubble of show business and the manufactured images that are portrayed, reality must be a different animal than the public persona.

It doesn’t matter in the end.

At the end, she carried herself with dignity and bore her burden for all to see, in the hopes that it would give courage to others. For that-and the joy she brought to millions—she will be missed.

Below is a clip of Farrah 40 YEARS AGO, as a contestant on The Dating Game!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ncNIVHJLo0

No one will ever rank Farrah Fawcett as one of our great actresses, but there is a lesson to be learned when we cubbyhole someone—and then the truth reveals a different reality. Because she was beautiful, it was assumed that she was either an imbecile or at the very least, not an actress to be reckoned with.

Most people were therefore—wrong.

Farrah Fawcett showed her deeper talent in her later years, after the young-girl looks receded to the point where age alone would deny her the roles for which she had previously been a shoo-in.

In many ways, she led a charmed life—beauty, fame and fortune. So what if all of it failed to dispel the image of a dumb blond—at least until her later years.

From someone who had “that poster” on his wall, even I came around to respect her for her talent—and especially the courage she displayed at the end.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

The G.I. Bill: A Government Program That Worked

2011-06-22T17:27:00.001-04:00

President Roosevelt signed the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944 on this date 67 years ago.

Better known as the G.I. Bill, it was a revolutionary way to re-integrate the millions of servicemen back into society following their return from World War II. FDR was well aware of the misery that greeted many veterans of the first World War upon their return. Many were unable to secure the jobs they left behind. Others were without the resources to attend college or start a business. Roosevelt particularly wanted to avoid a repeat of the so-called “Bonus March” of 1932, when 20,000 unemployed veterans and their families descended on Washington to protest.

The G.I. Bill did many things—unemployment compensation, the ability to acquire loans and the right to return to their previous employer, but perhaps the most profound aspect were the incentives to receive a college education.

Before the war, less than 15 percent of Americans were able to go to college—and a university education was seen as unattainable for all but the most privileged in American society. After WWII, nearly half of college enrollment consisted of veterans—and in 1950, a half million college graduates entered the work force(compared to 160,000 in 1939)

The incredible economic expansion following the war was in large part due to this legislation. Of the money set aside strictly for unemployment compensation, only 20 percent was actually used. Most servicemen found work or entered college.

The low-interest loans are credited with an explosion in home construction and the growth of American suburbs.

Here’s an informative film clip from the era, outlining the purpose of the G.I. Bill and how veterans could take advantage of it—fun to watch this glimpse of life back then:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4PP2kS-fg

In a world where government programs are generally vilified, the G.I. Bill is a prime example of a government incentive program that worked. Not a handout, but rather a well thought-out system that both rewarded the service of our returning soldiers, but also jump-started our economy by placing a huge emphasis on education.

We could learn a thing or two by paying attention to the things that work. Investing in our future is never a bad gamble.

Even in a recession.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Bruins: The Cup Comes Home

2011-06-20T13:14:00.000-04:00

As much as the Red Sox are beloved, I had always heard that Boston was a hockey town. The Celtics brought home multiple titles, but there was always something about the game of hockey and the city of Boston.

Blue collar, tough and unforgiving, it just seemed that hockey epitomized the character of Beantown better than any other sport.

Perhaps that was borne out this past Saturday, as the triumphant Bruins were welcomed in a “Rolling Rally” that eclipsed that given to the World Champion Red Sox after their improbable comeback to win the 2004 Series—which got that darn curse buried for good.

Maybe the crowds were bigger because the weather was good—maybe because it was a weekend, allowing families to travel to Boston to witness firsthand the duck boat spectacle, with the Stanley Cup being passed from boat to boat.

Whatever the reality of sports preference, it was terrific to witness the outpouring of love towards this 2010-11 edition of the Boston Bruins, who erased last year’s embarrassing exit from the playoff after relinquishing a 3-0 lead in games. Estimates reported up to a million and a half people were along the parade route.

Wow.

Yes, it was all smiles and champagne this time around, fortified by numerous jokes that poked fun at the Vancouver Canucks and their unfortunate goalie, Roberto Luongo. A sampling:

“What time is it in Boston? A: “(Two)(Three)(Four) past Luongo!” simply insert the last game’s goal total.

Or..

This future “Jeopardy” question---or should I say, answer:

“Roberto Luongo and The Titanic.”
“Name two things that are just fine until they hit the ice”

OK.

The commemorative Bruins Champion caps and shirts are flying off the shelves—and it seems that now, everyone is a Bruins fan, which must irk the die hard partisans who know that many of these newly acquired bandwagon aficionados wouldn’t know icing from high-sticking.

A couple of videos—first, one from the OLD Bruins, winning the Stanley Cup in 1970 and 1972-embedding was disabled, so you'll have to click on the link itself:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVOGbfgcnoo

Now, here’s a collage of images from this year’s championship campaign:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHUDCup9dJQ&feature=related

Perhaps hardest to believe is that the New England Patriots, multi-Super Bowl Champions---are the the Boston sports team with the longest DROUGHT without a world title! The Red sox, Celtics and now the Bruins have claimed their sports highest perch—and all eyes are now upon Tom Brady and company to respond!

Go Bruins!!!!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Hee Haw: Stupid TV’s Role Model

2011-06-15T13:27:00.001-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

Hee Haw made its debut on this date in 1969. It was country’s answer to Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In, but with an extra helping of stupidity.

Although the program only ran for two years, it was a huge hit in syndication and continued on the air until 1992. Actually, it was something of a hit in its original run—in the Top 20, but CBS decided the show’s “hick” country focus was not doing the network’s image any good.

Hosted by Roy Clark and Buck Owens, the show featured stupid humor, stupid pranks and low-brow EVERYTHING, but the musical guests on the program were surprisingly good-and the talent of even the show’s regular clowns (like Grandpa) was evident when showcased. I have yet to know what Junior Sample’s talent was-other than being a bit SLOW mentally-and having that become the essential theme of bits involving him. Junior always seemed bewildered as to why people were laughing.

There is much to be said for “escapism” with our entertainment-and TV has plenty that falls into that category. Seldom is the escape this ridiculous. Let’s take a trip down memory lane to witness both the silliness—and some of the talent—as Grandpa plays the banjo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljZQyJQwHn8

Here’s a quick clips of outtakes from Hee Haw featuring Grandpa and Junior Samples:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiMFWeI3qCA&feature=related

If you have a problem with this blog, a complaint line has been set up at: BR 549 (You Hee Haw fans will “get” this one)

Seriously, if you’d like my blog in your box, send me an e-mail to : tim.moore@citcomm.com

See y’all later, ya heah?

The Beatles: Down Under

2011-06-14T14:17:00.001-04:00

The 1960’s hysteria surrounding the Beatles explosion on the music scene has yet to be topped. It will likely never be equaled, in fact.

More interesting is that their emergence is often thought of as a UK to USA-confined phenomenon. The truth is that their popularity was world-wide —as was demonstrated on this date in 1964, when the Fab Four landed in Melbourne, Australia. Actually, it was the Fab Three, as Ringo Starr missed the first part of the tour due to a tonsillectomy. Jimmie Nichol filled in on the drums.

Two film clips for your enjoyment—one a newsreel feature on their tour of the country, complete with wild airport scenes and parades—and the second of their landing in Melbourne on this date 47 years ago today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgPvw3FqOyI&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGHj7mTQpvM

The Beatles World Tour in 1964 included similar scenes in Sweden, New Zealand and Hong Kong,

Despite the introduction of new stars, new bands and the evolution of pop music over the years, no one can touch the Beatles for the sheer enormity of passion that was “Beatlemania”. What happened to the lads from Liverpool eclipsed the rise of Elvis Presley—and since, only Michael Jackson has come close to the stratosphere where John, Paul George and Ringo resided.

It was indeed rare air.

If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Joe Nuxhall: 15 Year Old Major Leaguer

2011-06-10T11:03:00.000-04:00

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG

It happened to Joe Nuxhall on this date in 1944-the youngest player to appear in a Major League Baseball game. Joe was a pitcher-and still in high school when he joined the Cincinnati Reds.

His debut was a bit shaky, giving up five runs on five walks and two hits in an 18-0 loss to St. Louis. The game was played during World War II, where it became common for young people to fill in for the stars, many of whom enlisted in the war effort. There were several players who would never have had a chance, like Pete Gray, a one-armed outfielder who hit .218 and drove in 13 runs.

As for Nuxhall, he didn’t play again for the Reds until 1952 when he was 23 years old. He pitched 15 seasons in the majors and then joined the radio world broadcasting Reds games with Marty Brenneman. Called the “most beloved Reds fan”, Nuxhall became synonymous with the club that afforded his long career.

Below is a short video produced after his death-embedding was disabled by request, but you can click the link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1doC09rj_8

Joe Nuxhall was a legend in Cincinnati-and beyond. With most baseball records falling away as the years tick by, this is one that will never be topped. It’s highly unlikely that someone younger than 15 will ever walk onto a major league baseball team.

If you’d like my blog in your e-mail in-box daily, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Donald Duck:Propaganda Tool

2011-06-09T13:23:00.000-04:00

If a cartoon character can have a birthday, today is it for Donald Duck, who made his debut on this date in 1934 in the Disney short film, “The Wise Little Hen”. Donald’s popularity led to the growth of the “Duck” family, from Daisy to Uncle Scrooge and nephews Huey, Dewey and Louey!

Perhaps more fascinating is the use of the lovable by cranky Donald to affect behavior during World War II. After grossing $8 million dollars with the release of their first feature length animated film, “Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs” in 1937 (quite an accomplishment during the Depression), Walt Disney devoted most of his company’s resources to the production of propaganda and training films during the war.

Donald was not spared in the effort. Below is an incredible Disney cartoon, called the “Spirit of ‘43” where Donald joins in the effort to convince Americans that taxation for the war effort is worth every penny.

It’s hard to conceive that cartoon characters of today would be employed in this manner. The image-conscious holders of trademarks for these cash cows would be hard pressed to make a cartoon that could endanger the carefully cultivated personalities or images of their creations.

But WWII occurred in an America that no longer exists. It is truly astounding to watch this short:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xphiYdfd-Tg

Imagine Scooby Doo or someone even remotely more contemporary going in THAT direction! Wow!

If you’d like my blog in your in-box daily, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com

Buckeyes: Tressel Turmoil

2011-06-08T16:36:00.000-04:00

This week’s Sports Illustrated cover story was on the Ohio State Buckeyes and the scandal that led to head coach Jim Tressel’s resignation a couple of weeks ago. The cover headline: “How Deep It Went” and the ensuing article paint a picture of Tressel as a devious schemer, a dishonest man who simply got caught.

I have a different perspective. Did he lie? Apparently, he did—and he is being justly punished with his removal. Of course, the university will also bear a considerable amount of pain, as it’s all but a foregone conclusion that heavy sanctions will be coming OSU’s way soon.

Although I have been critical of Jim Tressel the coach in the past, I have never been a detractor of Jim Tressel the man. This incident does little to change that. Below is a tribute video to Tressel and the program he built in Columbus—followed by the letter I sent to Sports Illustrated:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIlhP_GbBBU

To The Editor:

If the NCAA wishes to start a witch hunt for all college football players who have received something of value for free (or a great deal!), they’ll be vacating wins and national championships all the way back to Knute Rockne and the Four Horsemen.

Not to excuse Jim Tressel’s behavior, but the very fact that colleges need to hire an entire staff of full-time employees whose only job is “NCAA compliance” indicates the problem resides with the scope and complexity of the rules themselves.

The stark truth is that major college football programs generate millions by trading on the talents of young and often poor young men. The rationale is this: “Well, we’re giving them a free college education! Besides, they’ll make millions in the NFL after they exit our school!”

The reality is that most of these players won’t make the NFL. Most because of lack of talent and some because of injury. The degree? A B.S. in Physical Education may be just that-B.S. No one has any illusions about the ultimate goal of these athletes. If they choose to sell memorabilia (that supposedly is theirs, no?), why should the college, the NCAA or anyone else have anything to say about it?

Some are trading for tattoos, others for rent money. Meanwhile, over in the college bookstore, they’re selling jerseys with that kid’s name and number for north of $100, with zilch going to the player.

It’s tempting to pile on when the allegations start to roll in, but let’s try to restrain ourselves from turning poor judgment into character assassination. Jim Tressel is a good and decent man. He is an outstanding football coach and leader—and has been a father figure to many of his players. These are facts, borne out by years of demonstrated performance.

These truths shouldn’t be erased by a series of admittedly poor decisions, but ones made by a man whose scope of responsibilities and relentless duties may have rendered such attention to detail to be thought of as trivial at the time.

OK, so it wasn’t trivial, but contrast his entire body of work to the allegations levied against Tressel, ones that imply he should perhaps be following each of his players around like a watch dog in their free time, making sure that nothing they do is “breaking the rules”.

If by now you’ve concluded I’m a Buckeye fan, you’re right. However, my disdain is truly for the NCAA, which seems to have no oversight on itself. Their “investigation” of the Cam Newton situation was a joke—and their sanctions against USC were excessive. As judge and jury, the NCAA has no one to answer to but itself.

A fresh look at the Gestapo of college athletics-the NCAA-may reveal that this organization is guilty itself of breaking the same rules it imposes on others. Namely, preserving their “image” by sweeping things under the rug.

That’s the letter above—since I doubt they’ll publish it, at least YOU get a look!
I know that college sports is big business, but it’s a business built on young men and women who see none of the revenues—and often come from financial situations where there is true need. The landscape is littered with athletes who never made it to the next level—and never really shared in the prosperity that their talent afforded their schools to cash in on.

The system needs an overhaul—and perhaps it should start with the NCAA itself, a body that can vacate one school’s national championship—without awarding it to the other team in the title game. Where’s the fairness in that? Infractions may be liable for HUGE fines (thus making them undesirable), but rarely would the transgressions (in OSU’s case, some exchanged memorabilia and tattoos) have made a difference on the field. Keep the results of games and seasons intact. They are history-and should not be subject to revision based on unrelated “infractions”.

Make the punishment fit the crime. And maybe, just maybe----take a good hard look at what really qualifies as a “crime”.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Weiner Is A Weenie

2011-06-07T14:50:00.000-04:00

The urge to “pile on” is almost irresistible in the aftermath of the so-called “Weinergate” scandal.

In case you missed it all, here’s a report from ABC News:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOF8IieL-QQ

In a scenario that couldn’t have been scripted better by comedy writers for Letterman, Leno or Jon Stewart (right down to the last name of the offending politician), the cable news networks, tabloids and late-night talk show hosts have hit the mother lode. As such, everything worthy of being said or written has already been uttered or printed.

I can’t add to it, but would rather leave the yucks to the comedians and focus instead on the sheer stupidity of someone New Yorkers have elected to LEAD them.

Is there not enough evidence to suggest that “tweeting” one’s privates is NOT a good idea? First of all, the very urge to do so mystifies me, but that’s beside the point. I can’t imagine the good congressman not making a remark about how stupid it was for Brett Favre to transmit his little “sexting” masterpieces. No, it was dumb for an NFL QB to forever tarnish his rock-solid reputation, but hey, that could never happen to ME!

There was also Tiger Woods, who sliced his good-guy reputation into the heavy rough with his now well-known text messages to women who were collectively NOT HIS WIFE.

It matters little to me that what Weiner did was not illegal.

It was stupid.

Were I a New Yorker, the last person I would want representing my interests is an idiot who takes pictures of his equipment and then shares them with people he has never met before.

To do it in the first place is idiotic. When caught, to deny it all is the height of hubris. For a man who had his sights set on being mayor of New York, this little lapse in judgment is something of a setback, no?

I’m beginning to believe that the more you portray yourself as pure and virtuous, the more likely you are actually the opposite. Step aside, John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, all of you posers!

The new model for a politician will be more along the lines of Jesse Ventura. Blatant and unapologetic.

Face it. If Weiner, upon being discovered had immediately said “Yeah, that’s my weiner! So what? Mind your own business!”, New Yorkers (themselves a class of brazen individualists) might have rallied around him. He might have sent a fresh photo of his package to all the media outlets along with the message, “put THIS in your 24 hour news cycle!”

For the steady stream of indiscretions that seem to never end, it would appear that:

1) Political office seems to attract a personality type that is simply not capable of restraint when it comes to their personal appetites.

2) This combination of ego, arrogance and selfishness will manifest itself in many ways, most of them either self-destructive or contrary to the interests of their constituents (i.e. crooks “on the take”)

3) The electorate is becoming so jaded with the gulf between the image façade and the real person behind it when exposed through such misconduct, that I believe there is a solid place for an openly flawed character to emerge.

The imperfect man or woman as a viable candidate merits consideration. Instead of expending enormous amounts of energy in fabricating a false image to appeal to voters, the new model candidate lets it all hang out. Unabashed flaws and indiscretions. No excuses and no apologies.

It could work.

I believe that part of the appeal of Ronald Reagan was that he seemed like a real guy. As the first divorced President to be elected, he represented a life and career trajectory that encompassed many ups and downs----in short, he mirrored us, the electorate. Yes, I know he was a movie star (not your typical average Joe), but he was a B-level star, a guy who appeared with chimps and donkeys and sold Borax soap flakes on TV wearing a cowboy hat. In short, he at least APPEARED to be genuine.

Part of the appeal of Donald Trump (I think) is his “go to hell if you don’t like me or my opinion” stance.

Maybe we need more of that in our leaders---REALITY.
The political consultants and king-makers don’t think the American people can handle it.

I think they can. I for one, just don’t want to see them in their underwear.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Amazing World War II Footage

2011-06-02T12:58:00.001-04:00

I received an e-mail request from a faithful blog reader to re-run the rare color WWII footage that I posted in an earlier blog. Off to the archives!

In searching for it, I discovered that it ran exactly one year ago-inspired by Memorial Day. As is the case often with my posts, sometimes it’s all about the video—and that is definitely true today.

What you are about to see is the most compelling glimpse of what it must have been like to be in the Pacific during World War II.

Film of the actual fighting is relatively rare—but to see it in COLOR is almost unheard of…until now. Where this came from, I don’t know.

What I do know is that it is an amazing look at the war through the eyes of those who were THERE. Maybe your father—or mine, not much older than a boy, but thrust into the most devastating conflict the world had ever known.

I won’t say “enjoy” the following. There is little to entertain in the usual sense. As an historical record, I have never seen anything like it—and hope that you will be equally impressed.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9dR3h2HdnBQ

So, Memorial Day is over—and our tendency to not think about the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way each day has returned.

As much as this film catapults you back into history—with a view that defies imagination, a variation on this scene plays out daily. The scene is different, the implements of destruction even more powerful and precise—and the situations they are deployed in have also changed.

What hasn’t changed is the bravery of those who serve.

And it doesn’t have to be Memorial Day to honor them.

If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know; tim.moore@citcomm.com

Pride: A Milestone Reached

2011-05-31T13:54:00.002-04:00

On Saturday, our first born son, John, graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY (“RPI”)

Of course, we were in attendance, beaming with pride at the accomplishments of our son, who has grown from boy to confident young man before our eyes—a span of time that has seemed like a flash! Note to parents of young kids: everything “they” say about kids growing up fast is true.

As I stood there in the stadium, sweltering in the heat of a l-o-n-g ceremony, I couldn’t help but be transported back in time. Earliest memories of John as an infant coming home from the hospital to new parents who didn’t really know what we were doing, then progressing to all of the milestones associated with childhood. That first birthday. Raking leaves in the backyard with a rake twice his height. Countless Halloweens, Christmases, Easters’ and birthday parties. Little League, Boy Scouts, family vacations and precious moments on Branch Lake, swimming and fishing.

Yes, I remember the times of wrestling that little kid (when I could still “take” him—an ability that vanished after middle school)
There was even the memory when we first dropped John off at college four years ago, saying goodbye through the tears and setting John loose to fend for himself for the first time.

Through it all, we have seen him mature and grow, both physically and emotionally. Always an excellent student and hard-working athlete, we were nonetheless highly impressed at John’s ability to navigate courses at RPI that I could hardly pronounce, let alone slog through! When the tests came fast and furious, it was tempting to comfort him with a statement like: “John, it’s not rocket science!”

Unfortunately, as an aeronautical engineer, it was indeed rocket science.
Nice try, Dad.

Combining that curriculum with mechanical engineering for a dual degree and competing as an NCAA athlete on the track team, his mother and I marveled at how John somehow kept all the plates spinning.

For those not familiar with the oldest technological school in the country, here’s a short video:

http://www.youtube.com/user/rpirensselaer?blend=8&ob=5

I feel stupid.
Make that stupider.

Since Saturday’s Commencement, our friends have congratulated US—and we too have joked about not having to write yearly checks to RPI that could buy a fleet of Mercedes SUV's, but it is still hard to believe that these four college years have flown by so fast.

The college years are an opportunity for huge growth—and much of it happens outside the classroom. Unlike my tour of duty at The Ohio State University, I suspect that John studied just a TAD harder than his old man did. To ask if John “enjoyed” RPI might be the wrong question. Hard to say you’ve “enjoyed” endless studying, exams and brain-bursting classroom sessions. Perhaps better to ask if it was all worthwhile.

John will have to answer that one himself, but from a parent’s perspective, we couldn’t be more thrilled and proud that John absolutely made the most of his college years—and all jokes about the cost aside, Peggy and I are convinced that it’s the best money we could spend—to give our kids the education that will impact their lives and give them a range of choices that would be severely limited without it.

Now comes the victory lap! Some well earned time off, a trip to Vegas with his buddies-and then a terrific position at Sikorsky Helicopter in Connecticut await.

John, you’re earned every bit of it—and your Mom and I cannot convey in words how proud of you we are—and how much we love you!

Congratulations, John!

Of you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

People Are Awesome: Coordination Meets Insanity

2011-05-24T13:08:00.001-04:00

It seems the more I share great videos on these blogs, the more I get via e-mail links with OTHER terrific clips from friends and family.

Such is the case today, where great feats of derring-do and some INSANE shots of courage/stupidity combine for a mini-movie that will at times leave you breathless!

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo0Cazxj_yc

Would you do ANY of the things depicted above? If yes, would you be around to tell the story afterwards?

Unlikely!

Have a SAFE and SANE day!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Hey Redskins! Get This Guy!

2011-05-19T14:18:00.001-04:00

I’m a Washington Redskins fan.

There, I said it.

It hasn’t been easy the last two decades or so, with owner Daniel Snyder changing head coaches more often than he changes his underwear. For all the venom that is spewed in the D.C. area about the Redskins owner (much of it deserved, perhaps), you have to admit one thing:

He isn’t afraid to spend money to bring another championship to town. Yes, there is the stupid money he spent on Albert Haynesworth and the ridiculous “contract extension” signed by Donovan McNabb, but at least they can get out of that one. Yes, ol’ Danny Boy is always ready to whip out the checkbook.

For a sport that looks like it may not even have a SEASON this year, I am nonetheless wondering what the ‘Skins plan to do at Quarterback. Rex Grossman?

Not the future. He really hasn’t been anybody’s past, come to think of it.

No, the Redskins need a fresh face, a young and ACCURATE passer.
So, how about this guy: Johnny McEntee, a QB for the UConn Huskies?

Maybe not a football powerhouse, but there’s no doubt this kid can hurl a football—ACCURATELY.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0WMd0Y6hIw

Wow.

Living in New England, I have become a New England Patriots fan—and I’ll root for them in every game (except when they play Washington). No one argues that Tom Brady is a major reason for all those Super Bowl rings. Leadership, hard work and virtually no off-the-field sideshows to distract from the mission.

The Washington Redskins need a player like that: a franchise QB who can lead this team to victory. Just as Tom Brady was largely overlooked-even in college at Michigan, the next NFL superstar quarterback may not come from the Big Ten, the Pac Ten or the SEC.

Maybe the next luminary will be from the Big East.

Hey, Snyder, Shanahan, Allen! Get this guy as soon as he gets out!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Card Tricks: This One Tops Them All

2011-05-18T13:58:00.001-04:00

Sometimes this blog is just a vehicle for showcasing the amazing videos that populate YouTube but you may miss.

This is one of them.

Card tricks are fun—and simple ones can still amaze your audience, even if they can figure out how you did it. Some of my fondest memories as a parent are when my kids attempted to dazzle me with a card trick they learned at school or from a crazy uncle. It never mattered if they pulled it off---it was the idea of my little ones “taking the stage” and directing the action that was most amusing. If they did execute the trick successfully, it was all the more endearing.

Of course, there are real magicians, really wild card tricks and some incredible displays of sleight of hand.

Nothing in my experience can top this, however---take a look:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHjaRbTfHmQ

Thanks to faithful blog reader Rick Cooper for sending this link along. Where do all those cards come from? The lightning speed of their appearance and the arrangement by color that occurs is nothing short of astounding.

How does he do it?

Watch it a hundred times, pause it whenever you like—and it will still blow you away!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Stop Giving Money Away, Uncle Sam!

2011-05-16T15:35:00.001-04:00

This blog is all about the video.

Rep. Ted Poe of Texas took the House floor to argue against sending billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to foreign countries, many of which hardly need it and, in the opinion of Poe, many of which don’t especially like the United States to begin with.

Just how much do we send yearly?

Estimates vary, but a couple of websites citing government figures—put the tally at $25 to $30 Billion. Could be more, could be less. Granted, it may also be a “drop in the bucket” to change our fiscal quagmire, but the question remains:

Why do we do it?

Enjoy this short video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ocVj6UWiDI

We’ve all made jokes about the government spending money to study the mating habits of porcupines, etc…and the $1,000 toilet seats for the military are the stuff of legend. Perhaps we can never completely erase all of the stupid expenditures that are willfully hidden from public scrutiny, but this foreign aid one seems to be a no-brainer.

Why do we do this?

Moreover, what politician (who ever expects to be re-elected) would vote AGAINST a bill that prohibits the lumping of federal foreign aid into one big messy pile? Folks, this seems to be an EASY one, right?

Is anything ever easy in Washington? We know that the opposite of pro is con and the opposite of progress is Congress, but really!

Can’t we get this one right?

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

A National ID Card: It’s Time

2011-05-13T13:30:00.002-04:00

Immigration reform is in the news as President Obama addressed the subject earlier this week.

As is the case with most topics, I tend to make a simplistic argument—and then challenge my readers to poke holes in it. It seems that Democrats and Republicans will never agree on a solution. The ongoing debate is fine, except that it postpones any action at all—and no one wants that (with the notable exception of all illegal immigrants)

There are a couple of truths that, whether you like it or not, seem evident:

1) This country will never mass deport all illegal immigrants. Just won’t happen.
2) This country cannot and will not build a wall or create conditions that will ever completely erase illegals coming into the country. Not possible.

So, it’s time to get sensible and really deal with the problem, one that will most definitely cause hardship and may at times seem too harsh.

It would appear that the most glaring negative effects of illegal aliens are the fact that these squatters take jobs from legal citizens and many live on social services that are funded by law-abiding taxpayers.

This has to stop.

I propose a National ID card that would provide a tool to not only thwart illegal immigrants from living on the public dole, but one that would also lessen identity theft, voter fraud and countless other abuses.

Please don’t take the position that requiring this type of ID is a violation of your “rights”. Whether it is a driver’s license ID, a social security card or major credit card, modern American society (and in fact every society) requires the verification of identity to access any one of thousands of services.

Why do we make all of this so hard?

A National ID, with photo, perhaps a DNA signature or other positive ID technology could be employed to identify who you are. Children under, say, 12 years of age would merely be required to have a birth certificate with guardians listed.

With this tool in hand, the following could be implemented:

1) Heavily fine any business that hires illegal aliens. I’m talking six figures fines, whatever it takes to eliminate the incentive to bring in illegal workers.

2) Definitive proof of citizenship via this ID card in order to be employed.

3) Social services like welfare and food stamps would require this documentation

4) Illegal aliens with criminal records would, upon discovery, be deported immediately.

5) Illegal aliens with children would be given a “path to citizenship” that would require compulsory work for municipal, state and local governments in projects of value to society at either minimum wage or a going rate wage with a requirement to pay taxes at a percentage exceeding U.S. Citizens earning a similar amount. In addition, the requirement to learn English, the U.S. Constitution, etc., would be imposed. After 5-7 years, these illegals would be eligible to become U.S. citizens. Refusal to do this would result in deportation. While these families would live below the poverty level (as defined for the U.S.) for a number of years, this standard of living would likely be higher than in the country they fled—and would be a limited period “price of admission” to citizenship. Hey, freedom isn’t free.

6) Children of illegals would be given a similar “path”, without the requirement to work.

There has to be some short-term government safety net to help care for the indigent illegals and/or their children as they work out their “path”, but it needs to be distinctly different and separate from the benefits accorded to law-abiding citizens. The same for education, which should be separate-and geared towards assimilation into the U.S. culture, which is the ultimate objective, no? This segregation is not intended to be racially motivated—again, it is a temporary situation that allows foreign-born aspirants to American citizenship to have their unique education needs addressed while at the same time not disrupting public education with an influx of students who cannot speak English. Enrollment in school would be treated similarly to employment—proof of citizenship required to enter the general population.

Illegal aliens arrive because America promises economic opportunity. More than that, however, is the prime opportunity to “game” the system as it is structured right now and live far better than they did in their “home” country—all without having to work for it.

Legal immigration is the lifeblood of this country. With the exception of Native Americans, we are all the beneficiaries of a country that welcomes those from other lands. We are not, however, the welfare state for the world—and we need to set aside charges of racism, profiling or discrimination. They do not apply here. The fact that a great majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic is not a race issue. It is merely a geographic proximity issue.

If you reside in this country—you are here either legally or illegally. The latter need to be identified and dealt with. A “path” to legal citizenship may not be easy, but it is not unreasonable or inhumane. Allowing illegals to remain unchecked to siphon off the welfare system and rob legal Americans of employment is the truly unreasonable choice.

Why can’t all sides of the political spectrum sit down and hammer out a workable plan? What’s outlined above may have many flaws, but the objectives must be met—how it is accomplished could be the fruit of substantive discussions, not political grandstanding.

Will our elected officials ever make the right call here?

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Radio: It's "Community", Not "Local"

2011-05-10T11:47:00.000-04:00

Today’s blog is a bit radio industry-centric, so regular readers expecting everything from politics to stupid videos may be disappointed, but I can also presume that fans of the blog also listen to 94.9 WHOM, so radio is at least marginally a part of your life (for which I am eternally grateful, as are the colleges where my kids attend…ahem)

First of all, I greatly respect the one-man industry think tank that is Mark Ramsey. He is a radio advocate, a fan and a promoter of radio. He is also objective about radio’s challenges as an industry—and pulls no punches when he thinks we are collectively playing the fiddle while Rome burns. It’s a fact that well over 95 percent of Americans listen to radio weekly. This level of usage beats television and the internet and trounces newspapers and magazines.

This radio usage statistic has been used by the: “radio is just fine, thank you” camp to assert that new competitors are really not making inroads. On the other side is the “doom and gloom” camp, those who are already engraving radio’s tombstone.

Neither side is correct.

Radio faces huge challenges, but so does every industry in a world where the internet has completely changed the existing business model. Imagine yourself in the boardroom at Borders Books & Music, grappling with the notion of competing with Amazon—and you’ll get an idea of the scope.

Time spent listening to radio is on the decline—and the demo using radio is aging. One of these truths is largely unavoidable. The other is completely addressable.

For any media that requires devotion of time, the introduction of a competitor will obviously impact usage of existing media. Until someone invents a 25 hour day or postulates that the population at large will collectively agree to one less hour of sleep a day, it’s a zero-sum game. When the internet appeared and people began spending time on the web, it came directly out of the hide of TV and radio. This doesn’t worry me in the least, mostly because there are no “product solutions” for radio that will compel consumers to abandon or greatly lessen their usage of another media that provides different attributes.

The demo issue could be the subject of another entire blog, but is something that radio and the advertising industry have chosen to let happen. We call it “25 to 54–itis”, the myopic devotion to one age demographic to allocate the lion’s share of radio advertising dollars to. This suicidal trend forces radio programming to become homogenous and most definitely alienates the younger demos, who HAVE to gravitate to other media to satisfy their entertainment desires.

If large radio companies with an underperforming FM in their cluster (is there not at least ONE in every market?) immediately flipped that loser to appeal to 12-24 listeners (and I don’t mean Radio Disney), they could have a real winner, provided the sales staff could convey the value of this audience to local advertisers.

But I digress….

Mark Ramsey’s latest blog asserts that the ongoing debate about whether or not Pandora is “radio” seems to me to miss the mark. Assigning a label to it makes no difference at all. If people wish to perceive Pandora as “radio”,fine. The word “radio” has consumer power---both XM and Sirius (when they were separate and competitors) chose to label their new, cutting edge product with the word “radio”. It was instantly identifiable by the target market. Their marketing challenge was therefore a “better mousetrap” approach that sought to suggest that satellite was “radio worth paying for”.

With millions of subscribers and the corner turned on finally becoming profitable, the future of XM/Sirius seems to me to be far more challenged by the notion of Pandora or Slacker than terrestrial radio is. Traditional radio is still free to the user.

Lost in all of this debate is an important distinction that I think has been overlooked or misinterpreted in making radio’s “case”:

It’s the difference between “local” and “community”. Nuance—or critical? I assert it is the latter.

Howard Stern proved years ago that “good” beats “local” as he systematically destroyed local rock morning shows around the country. But what about “good AND local”? And what about the notion of “community”?

“Community” as I use it here is the notion of “shared experience”, which I believe has value—and could be a core strength for radio going forward.

Pandora is the latest evolution of “media as isolationist”. It is so personal that it is…well, selfish. What occurred with iPods has extended to a truer radio experience (element of surprise, introduction to new music, etc)—Pandora. It is so individual that virtually no one else likes it except its sole consumer. In short, it’s a rather lonely experience.

There is something missing: Shared experience.

Satellite radio fans still listen to terrestrial radio—and the reason many of them give is along these lines: “When I listen solely to satellite (or Pandora, iPod, Slacker), I feel DISCONNECTED from where I live”.

This need to feel “connected” is what drives human interaction, all social organizations—and yes, even Facebook and Twitter.

Not hearing the local weather, not hearing about the concerts coming to town, the antics of the local politicians, the road closing that will screw up my commute, even the going-out-of-business sale at the local furniture store---all these things and more are part of a shared experience that defines a community. At its best, it is the radio station that dumps music to take listener calls after a local tragedy or emergency. It is the dominant local morning show whose stunt this morning is literally the talk of the town.

The loss of “shared experience” in media is a function of the proliferation of choices. Today, we have 300-400 channels of TV, yet complain that there is “nothing good on”. Those of us old enough to remember when TV meant 3 or maybe 4 channels had a shared experience.

The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show was a national phenomenon because EVERYONE saw it. And somehow, we never complained that there was nothing on. Our shared pop culture is defined by Top 40 hits on the radio and TV shows that defined an era. We might not especially “like” those songs—either then or now---and the TV show that “everyone watched” back then—we might not choose today, but there was a power of shared experience that gave added value to our lives and was a social touchstone for interacting with our peers.

This is largely gone now, with the exception of shows like “American Idol”, which, at its height, provided the same “shared experience” benefits:

1) “Everyone”watched it.
2) The next day, “everyone” talked about it
3) The shared experience provided a common bond between people

These programs provided a “social entry to conversation”---and the notion that others were sharing your delight as you watched (or listened) provided another element of “community”, however trivial.

There are still local morning shows on radio that command this type of attention. Just as no one can remember what TV program was on opposite “Seinfeld” (because “everyone” watched Jerry & friends), there are local radio programs that have hit a critical mass that elevates them to “must listen” status. Often, these morning shows are much bigger than the daypart in which they reside, helping to define the radio station’s brand overall.

One can argue that traditional radio was (and is) the first social media.

Perhaps still behind the curve, radio is making progress in integrating web-based social media, mobile and interactive components in keeping the medium relevant. Terrific innovations like Jelli and LDR (Listener Driven Radio) are redefining how our huge audiences are interacting with us and expanding our platforms of usage.

The biggest mistake that radio companies can make is to de-emphasize the local component that drives listener engagement. And while radio has sometimes been guilty of laziness in truly integrating themselves with their communities, most of our troubles in doing so lately have been because of depleted staffs through downsizing.

Radio is poised to capture a huge amount of former newspaper dollars and our fair share of digital revenue. This makes us a growing industry---if we choose to see ourselves as such.

A growing industry is not one that lays off people, however. Google is making investments in people and technologies to expand their empire.

Radio? We’ve been doing the exact opposite, yet expecting the smaller staffs to absorb the duties of those who exited---AND, by the way, expand into web and digital initiatives—all without people or resources. That’s just dumb.

Radio needs to take the larger view that growth requires bold investment in people and innovations, not cost-cutting through shrinkage. Satellite shows replacing local, compelling people is not the strategy of an industry that truly believes in growing.

Think “community” when you or anyone else says “local”. There is a massive difference.

It’s not WHERE you are, it’s WHAT you are. Ryan Seacrest is talented, but he is not Portland, Maine. He is Hollywood. I want my radio station to be about MY community, not someplace that’s largely unrelatable to my audience.

This is the distinction that could spell disaster—or unmitigated success for radio.

Yogi Berra said “ I came upon a fork in the road, so I took it”. He was confused, but that may be our dilemma right now as well. Radio’s at a “fork in the road”, but we’ve been there many times before. Television was supposed to do us in, but turned out to spark a new and profitable direction.

Are we confused, too?

Today’s radio industry captains have to respect the power of COMMUNITY when making decisions that will affect our future.

Let’s hope they have the wisdom to do so.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Thrillseekers: Hell Bent With Death Wish

2011-05-09T13:46:00.002-04:00

In prehistoric times, danger was all around. Whether a lurking sabre tooth tiger, a snake in the grass or another caveman with a club, the risk of losing one’s life was a daily possibility.

Modern man has to create this danger. While a rational mind would believe this drive to put oneself into the path of bodily harm ON PURPOSE would be low or non-existent, that is sadly not the case.

We jump out of planes just for the hell of it. On the streets of Pamplona, we turn a herd of angry bulls loose yearly and try to outrun them. Even the more mundane pursuits of riding a rollercoaster that corkscrews around upside down at speeds that challenge our ability to keep our lunch down has a demand big enough to account for the long lines waiting for the opportunity.

With creature comforts all around and “safety” as often the first element of design, we stupid humans nevertheless feel the need to short-circuit this enlightened approach in order to put ourselves in harms way.

Case in point: the following video. If you suffer from vertigo, you may not wish to view, as the camera is mounted on the head of the thrillseeker—in this case, a man on a bike who thinks that riding a bicycle downhill, over ramps, staircases and around narrow corners seems like an intelligent thing to do.

Check this out:

VCA 2010 RACE RUN from changoman on Vimeo.

http://www.gadling.com/2011/03/03/downhill-bike-race-in-chile-is-insanity-at-its-finest/?ncid=&a_dgi=aolshare_email

Thanks to friend and faithful blog reader Rick Cooper for sharing this ultimate ride of insanity. Seems evident that the rider was wearing a helmet, if only as a mounting device for the camera. Using it to protect his BRAIN is making an assumption that he has one, which, if he does, is certainly not functioning properly.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

The Chunnel: 7th Wonder of The Modern World!

2011-05-06T12:28:00.001-04:00

Building a simple bridge or road involves complex calculations and consideration of many variables to make a reality.

Still, that’s nothing compared to the tunnel that connected Great Britain and France under the English Channel, which opened on this date just 17 years ago in 1994. The so-called “Chunnel” was—and is an engineering marvel, a construction miracle and a game changer for Europe.

First thought of by Napoleon’s engineer in 1802, there was an actual attempt in 1880 by Colonel Beaumont, who made it about a mile down before abandoning the project.

At a cost of $16 Billion dollars, it was twice the amount of the original budget and took seven years to build. It opened on this date in 1994.

Millions of tons of earth was moved, 15 thousand people were employed during the construction-and 10 people lost their lives in the making of this modern marvel.

Here’s the first segment of a great Discovery Channel program called “Super Structures”—you will be prompted (and tempted) at the end to watch the other four segments of this excellent chronicle of the project:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8-3IFEitW4&feature=related

Each day, about 30, 000 people move through the Chunnel on 6,000 cars & 3,500 trucks on trains! It is the worlds’ longest underwater tunnel (obviously), with more than 22 miles of it under the English Channel. Now, the trip takes 35 minutes!

If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Fishing Made Easy

2011-05-05T13:31:00.002-04:00

I like fishing but I don’t LOVE it, you know?

The fishing video below will simply AMAZE you, so it doesn’t really matter if you are an “angler” or not---no one will find it boring. Some might even find it downright scary.

The best part about fishing is spending time with my children—the kids, of course, are all about catching the fish. When young, it was Dad who would bait the hook—and definitely the one de-hooking the unlucky fish after being yanked from the water.

Catch and release.

Put a hole in their mouths, lose a few worms and then toss the little suckers back—all to the accompaniment of squeals from fear/delight via the kids.

Naturally, there are days when the “fish are not biting”. The notion of so-and-so being a “great fisherman” is a conceptual mystery to me. What exactly is the skill set that makes one a good fisherman? Is it an intuition for where the fish are? Is it a knack for baiting the hook in a special way—or knowing what type of bait presentation is attractive to fish?
Or is it all of the above and more?

Watch this video and realize that there are some days when you can’t go wrong. Fish just seem to be jumping up and catching themselves:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3Bf0WhvsNk

Incredible, no?

Were I in that dinghy, I think I’d be wearing a helmet.
Can’t truly determine if any of those guys in the boat are “good fishermen” or not, but they sure know where to go to get their catch!

If you’d like my blog in your box, drop your line in the water by e-mailing me and I’ll put you on the daily send list-free! Tim.moore@citcomm.com

Kent State: 41 Years Later

2011-05-04T13:27:00.001-04:00

Tom Brokaw’s book, “Boom!” about the 60’s paints an accurate picture of a period in our history that was like no other. Much like his bestseller, “The Greatest Generation” and the children of the Depression and World War 2, this book attempts the same with the turbulent 1960’s, a decade that Brokaw says really began in 1963 with the assassination of President Kennedy and culminated with the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974.

One of the era’s darkest chapters occurred on this date in 1970-the shootings at Kent State. Although four people were killed and 9 injured, there never was justice-as all charges against the 8 National Guardsmen were eventually dropped.

“Boom!” was a terrific book-and the multitude of events of the 1960’s could never be adequately covered in a HUNDRED blogs, let alone one. I’ll no doubt return to this topic again.

As a grade school student growing up on the edge on American University during the war, I was routinely on the scene at multiple antiwar protests. Why? Well, we had no political sense or moral outrage at the time-we were too young. However, the culture to which we were exposed caused most young people to rail against the war—and the protests were simply something to do. If the police showed up, all the better. I was even tear-gassed at one of the demonstrations-unbelievably uncomfortable! (to say the least)

I sometimes think-“What would have happened if I were at American U. and the police opened fire on US?” Like those Kent State students, simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time cost them their lives.

Below is a video of CNN’s coverage of the story on it’s 30th anniversary-still chilling:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo9yI-p5jqU

If we are to refrain from the mistakes of the past, we need to remember the past.
If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com

I Feel Good

2011-05-03T13:17:00.001-04:00

Elevating imbeciles to pop culture super-stardom is nothing new, even though America’s recent saturation with all things Charlie Sheen may have clouded our perspective.

Long before there was Sheen, Paris Hilton and Snooki, there was James Brown.

The “Godfather of Soul”, “Mr. Dynamite”, “Sex Machine” and “The Minister of the New New Heavy Funk”---James Brown was born on this date in 1933.

Instead of a normal upbringing dissolving into a haze of substance abuse, spousal abuse and general bad behavior, James Brown was a story of rags-to-riches-to-rags all over again, with the actual height of his popularity never straying from that life on the edge which made him so……uh…interesting.

Here is a TV interview with what appears to be a significantly intoxicated James Brown:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tfNhL_R_rI

Nice.

The product of a broken home, the self-proclaimed “Hardest Working Man in Show Business” literally scraped and clawed his way out of poverty. Abandoned by his mother at the age of four, Brown grew up with his aunt, who ran a brothel and sold moonshine for a living.

Between jobs of picking cotton and shining shoes, little James Brown would sing and dance to attract attention—and a few coins here and there. He was sentenced to 8 to 15 years for breaking into cars at the age of 15—and it was in prison that Brown honed his musical talents. He so impressed the warden that Brown was released after only 3 years behind bars.

He went on to become one of the most influential R&B musicians in history, selling millions of records. Throughout it all, constant brushes with the law were always part of the mix—and his personal life of three marriages, five sons and the tabloid headlines of domestic troubles, gun charges and the like constantly competed with his legitimate knack for making hit records and fronting some great live shows.

The landscape is littered with artists whose bad-boy image is fake, the product of a publicist or agent. Not James Brown.

He was the real thing.

The Godfather of Soul passed away on Christmas Day of 2006.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Obama Nails Osama

2011-05-02T13:47:00.001-04:00

After nearly ten years of futile searching, the U.S. military finally got its man—or should I say—MONSTER.

Osama bin Laden, mass murderer and terrorist was surprised by U.S. Special Forces, acting on intelligence that all but certainly placed him inside a compound in an affluent neighborhood not far from Pakistan’s capital.

Here’s the video of President Obama’s address last night:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0ISgosTlQ

Chants of “U.S.A.!” were heard in spontaneous celebrations across the country, from just outside the White House, to the Ohio State University campus in Columbus, Ohio to ground zero in Manhattan. Stadiums erupted into celebrations as the news was relayed during sporting events. Almost overnight, the mood of the country was lifted. A break from the woes of higher gasoline prices was replaced with a euphoria that was nothing short of phenomenal!

Politically, President Obama accomplished in three years that which his predecessor could not in eight: bring to justice the true mastermind of 9-11. It was never Saddam Hussein. Distractions with Iraq had us “taking our eye off the ball”—finding the hiding place of Bin Laden.

With this victory (and it is indeed a military victory by any definition), perhaps now the President will have the political leverage he needs to draw down troops from Afghanistan and fully withdraw from Iraq. The appetite for war even amongst the most hawkish of politicians has been tempered by year after year of questionable progress, yet very measurable cost, in both human life and treasure.

The difference between the outcomes (I think) is a direct result of the mission as laid out. President Bush somehow morphed capturing Bin Laden with taking out Saddam. He failed to act on intelligence that could have gotten the job done. Only after the fact did we learn just how CLOSE we were to Osama, yet we didn’t respond.

Measure by results, not rhetoric. Obama had the rhetoric down, too, declaring during the campaign that he would not fail to act when the intel showed a reason to strike. He outwardly criticized the Iraqi war, stating that the forces really belonged in Afghanistan.
The difference is that once in office, he immediately directed CIA Leon Panetta to deliver to him a plan to find and eliminate Bin Laden.

From stepped up drone strikes to simply not trusting (and therefore not including Pakistani government representatives in sharing intelligence), the Obama-led search was focused and efficient.

The fact that Osama Bin Laden was found in a country where we are not militarily stationed (to a large degree)proves one thing very clearly:

Our ability to gather intelligence and act upon it does not require U.S. Forces occupying the country. This alone is a persuasive argument for getting the hell out.

The war against terrorism continues, but it has never been a conventional war. It will move along—and can progress—without American forces on the ground.

The question of how Pakistan could possibly have NOT known that Bin Laden was not in their country rises to the top. His heavily fortified digs just a few miles outside the capital city of Islamabad were close to a military base. I don’t, for a second believe that Pakistani officials were not aware and assisting in harboring him in their country.

This is a country that received $18 Billion dollars in federal aid from…us.

Unlike the banner that former President Bush flew aboard that aircraft carrier so many years ago that prematurely read “Mission Accomplished”---this time, President Obama has the wherewithal to make that statement with integrity---and then set forth to leave Middle East turmoil to the Middle East.

Let them kill each other. We have a country of our own that needs every resource at its disposal to re-establish our unique position as the world’s only true superpower.

Go U.S.A!!!!!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

The Royal Wedding: Only The British Can Pull This Off

2011-04-29T11:00:00.002-04:00

If you weren’t one of the estimated 2 BILLION people around the world to watch the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton this morning, I have included the full video below.

Quite the spectacle, no?

Only the British can do it so well—centuries of tradition, experience and pomp. Yes, the entire affair was dripping with pomp. The bride was nothing short of stunning—and although the groom looked like a Nutcracker, they did make a beautiful couple.

Many were worried that someone would shout out at the lone opportunity to do so—you know, the whole “if any man knows why this union should not take place, speak now or forever hold your peace” part. Luckily, no one did, but really, is that necessary?

Another line I’d remove from the royal vows would be the “for richer or POORER” Are you SERIOUS? Here’s a newlywed couple that won’t be putting that new washing machine on layaway. When the wedding reception occurs at Buckingham Palace (as opposed to the local VFW Hall), there’s a good chance that these two won’t be clipping coupons anytime soon.

Anyway, I am most relieved that this royal wedding day was not marred by some sort of terrorist attack, as I feared it might be. Even the usual dreary London weather cooperated, providing a day fit for a queen—or a Prince and Princess.

Here’s the Royal Nuptials:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53UaRWI1Vh4

Unlike Diana so many years before, this bride Kate Middleton seems totally up to the task of her new station and duties in life.

We wish them well! Jolly good!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

My Name Is Barbra

2011-04-28T14:02:00.000-04:00

It was on this date in 1965 that Barbra Streisand made her TV debut on CBS with a special called, “My Name Is Barbra”.

Two years after the release of her first two albums—and a Grammy Award to boot, Barbra was working some of the best nightclubs in the country. In another year, she would be nothing short of a phenomenon.

Not only could she sing, she could act! As the lead character Fanny Brice in “Funny Girl” on Broadway, Streisand was winning rave reviews, with additional Grammy AND Tony nominations as well.

Time magazine did a cover story on her, but proposed that many Americans still asked “Who?” when her name was mentioned.

All of that changed as the special “My Name is Barbra” aired to a national audience. The deal was a 10 year, $5 million dollar arrangement---huge money to be sure. What really set this transaction apart was the creative control that Barbra demanded (which would become her trademark).

With her newfound power, Streisand eschewed many of the variety show conventions and put together a TV special without other major stars—or even minor ones. It was, as Barbra put it, “just me, and a bunch of great songs and musicians”

Here’s a clip of the finale of that show I yanked from YouTube—much of the rest of the show is also up there in pieces if you care to watch:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YE9X8cYglfA

While the network may have been nervous about her departure from the norm, her shooting on location instead of in a studio and the lack of a supporting cast of stars, it was thrilled with the results. “My Name Is Barbra” was both a critical and ratings success for CBS, propelling Barbra Streisand to the lofty status of “household name”—a perch she has maintained ever since.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Trump In New Hampshire: Will He Or Won't He Run?

2011-04-27T14:42:00.003-04:00

Donald Trump continues to play his cat and mouse game with the media, appearing today in New Hampshire, but stopping short of “announcing” his candidacy for President. While insulting a reporter who asked him about declaring his candidacy (“Are you intelligent?”) Trump pointed out that with a hit TV show on the air right now, he cannot announce his intentions for a couple of weeks.

Excuse us.

Ok, fair enough. But wait, there’s more. He promises that we’ll all be surprised by the NATURE of his decision. Really? The way I see it, there are only a limited number of options:

1) He will choose not to run (unlikely)
2) He will run as a Republican (the scenario everyone expects, so…not a surprise)
3) He will run as an Independent (possible, but even he has said this will split the Republican vote and give Obama another term…so..again, not likely—UNLESS he is denied the Republican nomination: in that case he will run out of sheer ego—not to win, but to beat whomever the GOP nominates)
4) He will run against Obama in DEMOCRATIC primaries—simply to soften up Obama and weaken him enough to convince the Republican party to nominate him for the general election (this truly WOULD be a surprise)

Donald Trump doesn’t need any advice from me, but I’ll give it anyway:

STAY WITH TOPICS OF SUBSTANCE.

His stupid foray into the “birther” debate was costly to both his stature-as well as that of the Republican Party, seeing as he is leading the polls among prospective GOP candidates at the moment. Even Karl Rove considers him a joke.

Obama’s release of his birth certificate today was, in my view, a mistake. The President, alluding to Trump indirectly as a “carnival barker”, nonetheless caved in to The Donald’s incessant requests for the Chief Executive to root out and produce the elusive document that certifies that he was, indeed, Born in the U.S.A. (with apologies to Bruce Springsteen)

With Obama tackling the economy, wars abroad and a host of other important issues like the budget, it would have been understandable (and in my view desirable) to completely ignore the Trump sideshow. The longer Trump kept it up, the further he alienated himself from Independent voters and moderate Republicans. Obama and the Democrats should have milked it for all it was worth. Now, Trump is transitioning to Obama’s scholastic record, accusing him of landing in Ivy League schools under false pretenses.

Please.

Too bad for Trump, who actually has some important things to say.

While he’s a “shoot-from-the-hip” kind of guy who is unlikely to ever possess the statesmanship qualities necessary in a President, it is refreshing to hear how he would deal with China, who he accuses of “screwing us” by manipulating their currency. His proposal for a 25% levy on Chinese goods has resonated with many Americans—and his stated desire to wrest away the oil from countries we are at war with has millions of voters (paying upwards of $4.00 a gallon) listening.

While the practical implementation of many of his ideas may fall short, we like the tough talk from a guy who is sick of putting up with the exodus of manufacturing and jobs from this country.

If Obama learns anything at all, it’s that he better take a tougher stance against the Chinese, whose economy is predicted (as of yesterday) to surpass ours in the year 2016-just five years from now.

No, Trump will not be the candidate to take Obama down. He is, however, providing the Republicans with a virtual playbook of rhetoric that their eventual nominee will undoubtedly use in 2012.

Here’s a funny video monologue of Jimmy Kimmel-on Donald Trump:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCXCEht1_6A

We’ll patiently wait out the next couple of weeks---wondering what The Donald will decide to do. With his personal fortune ready to be deployed, Donald Trump cannot be ignored by Democrats OR Republicans.

Whatever the decision is, it sure as hell WON’T be boring.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

B.J. Thomas: The Voice

2011-04-26T14:44:00.001-04:00

Think of the leading artists from the 60’s and 70’s—and you’ll no doubt think of the Beatles, Elvis, The Rolling Stones—and perhaps dozens of other performers whose music defined the era—and left a lasting impression.

One guy who gets overlooked (in my view) is B.J. Thomas. His distinctive voice and mega-hits are still standing the test of time, but, like Rodney Dangerfield, he doesn’t get any respect.

It was on this date in 1975 that his song “(Hey Won’t You Play)Another Somebody Done Somebody Wrong Song” hit #1 on the chart, the 4th single to do so. I think his voice and the strength of many of the melodies hold up today.

Born in Oklahoma and raised in Texas, B.J. Thomas first got noticed when his cover of the Hank Williams song “I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry” sold a million copies. A solo contract followed and the hits just kept on comin’

Perhaps the biggest #1 song was from the movie “Butch Cassidy And The Sundance Kid” starring Robert Redford—the Burt Bacharach song “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ On My Head” in 1970—here’s a video of B.J. performing that song:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIqxnYZZNB8&feature=list_related&playnext=1&list=MLGxdCwVVULXeEdcebYS4hNlptm3SKDRwg

Of course, there was “Hooked On A Feeling” two years earlier, another smash:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JNnnWfUpYGg

There was , “I Just Can’t Help Believin’”, “Rock And Roll Lullaby” and “The Eyes Of A New York Woman”, just to name a few.

He’s still around, but I’m not sure if he is still performing. His last single release was eleven years ago. It’s true that he didn’t pen many of his huge hits, but he deserves his due as one of the best pop singers of the 60’s and 70’s!

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Tony Orlando: Tied One On

2011-04-21T17:40:00.001-04:00

It was a hit song that became a cultural phenomenon.

Tony Orlando and Dawn hit #1 on the Pop charts on this day in 1973 with “Tie A Yellow Ribbon ‘Round The Old Oak Tree”

The story of a prison inmate released and curious to know if his lover is still interested in him (evidenced by that yellow ribbon) became the symbol of families whose loved ones were away at war---or, in the case of the Iranian hostage crisis, were being held against their will.

Those stuck in a room listening to this song against their will could also be considered hostages, but I digress.

Yes, I admit the song is catchy, but it is also a wee bit CORNY, no? AOL Radio ranked this massive hit as #78 on its list of the “Top 100 Worst Songs Ever”

Here’s a video of Tony Orlando and the ladies belting out their huge hit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBL2kzKg4nY

The song stayed on top of the U.S. and British charts for 4 weeks—and spawned millions of single sales. It was even a hit in Australia!

Cashing in on the “agreed-upon-signals” formula, Tony Orlando and Dawn later scored another hokey hit with “Knock Three Times”, whereby the prospective lover would slam something on the ceiling three times if she wanted the young and frisky Tony—and banging twice on a pipe would signal rejection.

How about a restraining order?

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Old Marital Roles: Dangerous Today

2011-04-20T16:27:00.002-04:00

Enjoy the old Folgers Coffee TV commercial below—but try to watch it WITHOUT cringing—or throwing something at your screen!

It is extremely entertaining-but only because we shake our collective heads in DISBELIEF that anyone could actually conceive of a scenario where a wife would allow that cretin of a husband to judge her based on the quality of her coffee—and then she sits idly by while he insults her efforts to PLEASE him. To top it off, his insults actually prompt her to seek out help!

Of course, it’s Folgers Instant Coffee to the rescue! And, as expected, the situation resolves itself to everyone’s satisfaction-as the coffee is now tasty, the husband now satisfied-and the wife is happy because her husband is. Maybe there are men out there that dream of a return to those days, but I am not one of them.

Let’s watch the video, then contemplate how things might play out in 2009:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMvQ-WWbWfc

Here’s how that scene would likely roll out today:

a) Husband insults wife’s coffee
b) Rolling pin to the head, delivered by wife
c) Husband, recovering enough to remember his next line, unfavorably compares the coffee at home to that which “the girls” make at work
d) Frying pan to the head, this time delivered with more force
e) Wife still investigates Folgers Coffee after ambulance arrives to take husband to the hospital
f) Wife notices the improvement in taste-and her satisfaction comes from not only having tastier coffee, but also in knowing that her husband is unlikely to insult her in the future.
g) Husband agrees that Folgers Instant Coffee is delicious and decides not to press charges

Another happy household—and another satisfied Folgers customer!

If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It’s free—and even tastier than Folgers Instant Coffee!!

The Captain & Tennille: Hits Kept them Together

2011-04-19T12:46:00.001-04:00

I look back on the “music videos” of the 1970’s and it’s hard not to laugh. Some of it is the rear-view mirror shame of watching again stuff we all thought was cool at the time—and now know to be hopelessly lame. We actually LIKED that?

Not so with the Captain & Tennille.

We knew they were pathetic even back then.

That said, we still endured them on the radio—and there is no doubt that this dynamic duo had a huge fan base. We’d never admit that we were part of that crowd, but more than a few of us may still have a Captain & Tennille LP in our collections. (Just look next to your Barry Manilow and John Denver albums)

It was on this date in 1975 that “Love Will Keep Us Together” began its climb up the charts to become the first big hit for the Captain & Tennille.

Here’s a video of them performing…or should I say lip-synching this song on American Bandstand:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOjQrh_J4jY

Back in the 70’s, the divorce rates were starting to grow exponentially and the so-called “sexual revolution” was prevalent, so a tune about actually staying together was a bit of a musical speed bump. It was, however, a catchy tune and the lyrics struck a chord within America that enabled the song to go all the way to #1, the first of 2 top hits. They became the most successful husband and wife duo since Sonny & Cher (love DIDN’T keep them together as you know)

Toni Tennille and Daryl Dragon were not actually married when this song came out, but they eventually took their own advice and made their vows later that year. Over three decades later, the marriage (if not their career) is still going strong.

I just hope that The Captain has lost that damn hat.

If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com