A Split-Second Mistake Defines A Life

With the Red Sox out of the running for the World Series this year, I’m left groping for meaningful baseball blogs (can’t focus on the YANKEES can I?)

This is the anniversary of a DARK DAY in Chicago Cubs history. This was the day in 2003 that a die-hard Chicago fan made a split-second decision that adversely affected his team—and probably ruined his life.

His name is Steve Bartman—and he will likely be hated in Chicago for all time—or at least until the Cubs win the World Series-which may of course be one and the same. In the same way that Boston held a grudge against Bill Buckner for allowing a grounder to scoot between his legs at the WORST possible moment, Steve Bartman will be forever detested for possibly ruining the Cubs run at a title.

In case you don’t remember, allow me to re-enact the scene:

It was the 8th inning of the 6th game of the NLCS against the Florida Marlins—and the Cubs were just 5 outs away from their first World Series since 1945. Pitcher Mark Prior had a 3-0 lead. Switch hitter Luis Castillo stepped to the plate, worked a full count and then slammed a hard drive towards the left field fence. Moises Alou raced back, jumped up and reached for the ball. Looks like he would have had it too----IF Steve Bartman had not reached out and grabbed it before it would have landed in Alou’s glove! Alou was visibly upset-as the umpire called it a foul ball.

The rest is history. Castillo returned to the plate, where a rattled Prior walked him. The Marlins started hitting and eventually won the game—and then the next one to take the series.

Here is a video clip of Bartman being escorted out of Wrigley Field after the incident:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JoumAUfwnI8

Following the game, the Sun-Times printed his name and picture under the headline “Cursed”. Death threats, the loss of his job, friends and more awaited Mr. Bartman. A Chicago alderman suggested he move away from Chicago—far away. Florida governor Jeb Bush gleefully suggested he move to the Sunshine state where he would be welcomed with open arms.

Since Bartman clearly was caught up in the moment-after a few beers-you HAVE to feel a little bit sorry for him! One instant he was an anonymous fan—the next, he was vilified and ridiculed nationwide---and his life was completely turned upside down. It is interesting to note that SEVERAL people had their arms out to catch that ball. Can you IMAGINE their post-game relief that they weren’t the “lucky” fan to snag that fly?

Unless Steve Bartman discovers a cure for cancer, it is likely that his ENTIRE LIFE will be defined by that SPLIT SECOND, ill-fated decision.

Not fair.

I hope for the sake of Bartman and his family that Chicago Cubs fans have at least BEGUN to forgive him—and realize that it was still the CUBS who lost the pennant that year—not an obscure fan with a tad too much Miller Lite in him to know any better!

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

White House Cornerstone Laid

I’m out of the building a lot this week as I help our sister station Q97.9 (WJBQ) with their annual breast cancer fundraiser, “Cans For A Cure” in the Maine Mall parking lot. This annual can and bottle drive raises thousands each year for the Maine Cancer Foundation and the Cancer Community Center. If you can stop by and donate either bottles/cans or CASH, it would be greatly appreciated!

As such, the blogs will take a bit of a backseat the rest of this week-I will try to post interesting stuff-----in brief!

It was on this date in 1792 that the cornerstone of the White House was laid. Although George Washington hired the architects and oversaw the project, he never lived in the White House, as it was completed in 1800. President John Adams and his wife Abigail were the first residents.

In August of 1814, it almost burned to the ground after being set ablaze by the British during the War of 1812. The mansion was also substantially reconstructed during the Eisenhower Administration.

When John F. Kennedy moved into the Executive mansion in 1961, his wife Jacqueline took it upon herself to restore much of the inside-here is a video clip of that story:




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

At one time or another the White House—which officially got its name after Theodore Roosevelt ordered it embossed on his stationery—has sported a variety of amenities, from horse stables, a bowling alley, a jogging track, movie theatre and solar panels.

If you venture to D.C., it is well worth the wait to take the tour of the White House, even though much of the residence is now off-limits to tourists.

If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
It’s free!

We're Off To Film The Wizard!

I know that Columbus landed in the New World on this date, but:

a) he didn’t “discover” anything since there were people already here…and
b) he wasn’t even first to land here (see Leif Erickson)

Movie buffs see this day as significant because “The Wizard Of Oz” began production on this date in 1938!

MGM had wanted Shirley Temple to play the role of Dorothy when Samuel Goldwyn bought the rights in 1934. However, by the late 30’s Temple’s star was fading fast—and a 17 year old by the name of Judy Garland landed the role. The lowest paid member of the cast, Garland earned a measly $500 a week. She did, however, earn a special Oscar that year for Best Juvenile Performer.

Here is the original trailer for the film:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-ZULpr8m5o

When released in 1939, some 15,000 people waited in line at Loew’s Capitol in New York for tickets. Garland actually performed on stage in the theatre with Mickey Rooney for several weeks.

Although panned by many critics, the public loved it. When it made its TV debut in 1956, an estimated 45 million people tuned in. “The Wizard Of Oz” is still one of the top selling movies on VHS and DVD-and in 1998, it ranked 6th in the American Film Institute’s poll of America’s 100 Greatest Movies.

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

Shoot The Moon!

If late night talk show hosts and their teams of comedy writers have an ounce of fairness in them, they should be whipping out their checkbooks and writing a fat one to NASA.

BOMBING THE MOON?

This stuff writes itself.

OK. Maybe I’m not enough of a scientist or explorer to see the value of this boondoggle, but at least a collective national laugh must be worth something-----right?

As I understand it, we are curious (and by “we” I mean the eggheads with pocket protectors at NASA) to see if the Moon has water-or more accurately, ICE, lurking beneath the surface.

Here is a simulated look at the mission-it is silent for the first two minutes:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaykH-RCBNY

I guess the idea is that if ice exists, then the Moon can support human life. This would have made sense for those looking to escape watching Tom Delay bust a move on “Dancing With The Stars”, but then again, he’s now off the show.
No one would question your decision to leave this planet to avoid seeing anything more about Michael Jackson either. But that’s not the main issue.

How about cost?

Imagine how many MILLIONS (or is it BILLIONS) of dollars were vaporized on impact! At a time when millions are out of work, the economy is still weak and our government’s decisions on spending for stimulus projects is under fire, how could we possibly justify burning up resources for a science fiction fantasy of sending colonists up to the moon for habitation?

If we were looking for OIL, that would be different. Just kidding.

Besides, what did the moon ever do to us?

A landmark for lovers, controller of our tides and giver of light on certain nights, the moon has been a friendly, benign neighbor and silent witness to all the calamity down here on Earth for millions of years. If a planet (or moon) has a soul, it must have been thanking its lucky stars (pardon the pun) to be completely free of human meddling-at least until recently.

The year 1969 and the Apollo 11 mission changed all that. Aside from the flag and litter we left behind, the moon must have said to itself, “Whew! That was a close one! I thought those guys would NEVER leave!” There goes the neighborhood.
And now this.

A missile shot into our closest galactic neighbor. Nice.

Ironic to me that the President wins the Nobel Prize for Peace on a day when he is prosecuting two wars simultaneously and blowing up the moon for good measure as well. Did I miss something here?

If we really wanted ice that badly, we could have gone to the 7-11. In fact, learning how to travel WITH water on this make-believe future mission might have been a lot cheaper too. Poland Spring would gladly help NASA find a way to send the H2O to the lunar surface.

The other point that has somehow escaped scrutiny is this: what if the rocket had gone haywire? What if, instead of going to the moon, the missile headed for, say….CHINA?
Imagine THAT phone call from Washington warning the Chinese to batten down the hatches.

And we KNEW there was water in China.

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

Obama--And Mrs.O'Leary's Cow

Chicago has been in the news alot in the last week-the aftermath of a failed attempt by President Obama to have the Olympics held there in 2016.

It was interesting (and somewhat pathetic) to note how Rush Limbaugh and others took delight in Chicago’s defeat—and in how they castigated the President for making the effort.

Personally, I think he should have stayed home too, but I applaud his passion for his hometown and his lobbying efforts to land what could have been an economic plum for the Windy City. My criticism is that his team was not clued-in enough to know that Chicago’s chances against a Latin American country were slim, and shielding the President from the embarrassment of backing such a likely losing effort should have made the decision NOT to go an easy one.

Regardless of your views on the involvement of Obama, one thing is for certain: if the President had NOT actively participated in the campaign, the following two scenarios are clear:

1) Chicago would still have been denied and..
2) Rush and his media-wannabes would have blamed the President for NOT trying to bring the Olympics to Chicago.

Am I right?

Absolutely-even Rush supporters can agree that no matter what course of action Obama took, it was certain that ol’ Rushbo would have found fault. He, of course, would never admit this were the case—but knows in his heart that he had a “lock”---a “can’t lose” proposition whereby he has ammunition for either choice of action. Only if Chicago were selected would his cynicism be neutralized—and maybe not even then.

This, in my view, diminishes his credibility. George Will is a conservative columnist who has written scathing criticisms of Obama, some of which have merit. He has also written pieces that support the President on certain issues. As such, Will’s perspective is relatively untainted by ideology. It rises and falls with actions taken or opinions expressed. Unlike Rush and other narrow-minded political animals (of either party), Will refuses to paint the President with one brush. Every political leader is a mosaic of views and positions—crafted from their own personal life story and world-view. To completely dismiss Obama for EVERYTHING he does—and to support former President Bush for EVERYTHING he did---makes Rush Limbaugh nothing more than a political hack. His is a zero-sum game with an immature and ignorant win-lose orientation.

This leads to the fabrication of viewpoints that may not exist or outright lies put forth as the truth. Whoever said that one was entitled to one’s own opinion, but not to their own “facts” had it right.

Mrs. O’Leary’s cow had a similar problem.

It was on this date that the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 began. A two-day blaze that killed between 200-300 people, destroyed over 17,000 buildings, left 100,000 people homeless and caused the equivalent of $3 billion dollars in damage.

Here is Hollywood’s depiction of Chicago at the time of the blaze—perhaps a tad inaccurate, but since movie footage of the actual blaze is harder to come by, this may be your best bet:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uo0WjfI74Bs


The fire was blamed on Catherine O’Leary’s cow, which allegedly kicked over a lantern in the barn.

This was a lie, put forth by newspaper reporter Michael Ahern of the “Chicago Republican”, who in 1893 admitted that he made up the story to sell newspapers. Ahern was the Rush Limbaugh of this tale. A man who never let the facts get in the way of a good story. He had the audience--and the trust of that audience, which he betrayed, He, in effect, "controlled" the truth for the millions reading his account of the fire, even if it was all a lie. Of course, this was little consolation to Mrs. O’Leary, who became a recluse after the story broke and who died in 1895. In 1997, the Chicago City Council exonerated both Mrs. O’Leary and her bovine.

The point is that the TRUTH became buried by the LIE, one told so often that even 138 years after the event—and 116 years since the lie was exposed as such, most people still BELIEVE that a cow started the Great Chicago Fire.

So….beware of lies told repeatedly…..even if the cow telling them doesn’t live in Chicago.

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

The Movie Ratings System-Helpful?

Parents nationwide rejoiced on this day in 1968, as the movie industry adopted a film ratings system for the very first time. The belief was that a simple code would allow parents to shield the kiddies from foul language and nudity.

So, how are we doing?

Well, for one thing, I think we have relaxed our threshold a bit over the years, Maybe kids are exposed to far worse today (see: Internet), but we’re still at the mercy of someone whose values WE DON’T KNOW to judge and rate movies for OUR kids.

The original ratings were:

G-General Audiences
M-Mature Audiences
R-Restricted (no one under 16 admitted without an adult)
X- No one under 16 admitted.

This meant that a 16 year old could have walked into “Last Tango In Paris”—with huge amounts of nudity. It was rated X when released, but would probably pass as an R flick nowadays.

The addition of PG (Parental Guidance)-replacing M-- and PG-13 have largely been helpful, but kids today are savvy to ratings, equating G & PG with “wimpy” movies. The movie industry itself knows that a G rating is the kiss of death unless the film is animated. Likewise, an X rating (or NC-17) is bad for sales, so editors shmooze the system to squeak in at a R.

Of course, it is all so laughable now. Unlike the sale of tobacco and alcohol, which are strictly prohibited and store owners risk their license if caught selling to a minor, where are the penalties for movie theatres?

Have you EVER seen a kid turned away? Hell, most of the pimple-faced employees of cinemas nationwide are ineligible to view the movies they are selling tickets to. With films getting more graphic, more emotionally intense and gore-laden, we need to revisit the whole ratings system—and maybe institute a little enforcement.

Check out the trailer for “The Uninvited” below. This film is not a classic horror flick, nor is it pornographic sex-romp. It is, however, disturbing—and it is rated PG-13. I wouldn’t let a 13 year old watch the TRAILER:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ-ptYjksxU



OK you say, but it is the PARENTS responsibility to monitor movie choices. This is true, but your pre-teen skipping off happily to a the local 30-screen theatre to see “Hannah Montana” (or so she says) may actually be viewing something far worse. And don’t tell me that a post-theatre quiz on the plot will solve a thing. She’s already thought of that-having seen the trailer online or viewed a web synopsis. She’s ready to answer your questions.

I’m not even VENTURING into the realm of movies seen by YOUR kids in some OTHER kid’s house! I am shocked at what parents of my children’s friends agree to as entertainment for my child.

As such, my wife and I have come across as “fuddy duddies” over the years, but I won’t apologize for any of it. Despite all the precautions, it’s a sure thing they have still seen some pretty shocking stuff.

Movie theatres would be well advised to REALLY screen their customers for age—and then WATCH the doors of adjoining theatres for those looking to movie-hop!

If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays (rated PG-13 most of the time), just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com

Nuclear Threats--Then And Now

The recent revelation of Iran’s nuclear missile program has reawakened the U.S. and the world to the possibility of a nuclear attack. Rational or irrational, it doesn’t really matter. It’s a gut level emotional response to the thought that a rogue nation could conceivably strike at the heart of America.

Of course, it isn’t the first time we have felt this way.

It was on this date in 1960 that President Kennedy advised families to build bomb shelters to protect themselves from nuclear fallout should an attack occur. The hoarding of canned goods began and an entire industry was created by opportunistic companies looking to cash in on the fear.

And cash in they did.

Thousands of backyard bomb shelters were constructed— supplied with food, water, blankets and batteries. Schools conducted drills that began with a shrill siren and ended up with us kids under our desks, wondering what the hell was going on. Our government had already produced the propaganda of preparation for consumption by an apprehensive public. Check out this video—and count the number of lies, half-truths and exaggerations regarding our safety following an attack:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V47Qs9Eyus

Avoiding panic may have been the objective, but dismissing things like radioactive fallout borders on criminal.

So, a half century has passed, but what has changed? And what should our response be to those who build nuclear weapons?

One school of thought is to simply negotiate or sanction like crazy any nation so disposed to building a nuclear program. Not likely to eliminate the threat.

Another school of thought is to vaporize these facilities militarily. Perhaps not a good public relations move on the world stage, but destroying capability at every location it is discovered would certainly help alleviate the nuclear threat-if only by delaying indefinitely and continuously the ability of any hostile regime to deploy such weapons. Such actions would likely have a side effect of increasing terrorist attacks on the country or countries engaging in the strategic bombing. This may be a game of numbers, where the greater good forces elimination of facilities at the risk of more sporadic (and certainly less catastrophic) attacks.

Foreign nations will point to OUR possession of nuclear weapons—and the fact that the U.S. is the only nation in world history to have used them (no matter how justified)—as argument to their own sovereign rights to self defense.

Admittedly, a good argument.

But the U.S. is also possessed of a record of NOT being the aggressor unless provoked, of not being a nation-builder or a country bent on conquest. As former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice remarked, “The only land we have ever sought is that small piece to bury those who didn’t return home” (sic)

There is a time for negotiation—and a time for action. And while a war in Iraq or Afghanistan can be sold as being fought for American security, destroying nuclear missile facilities may prove to be a far more effective way of safeguarding Americans (and those of other nations) from the decisions of a madman.

No ground troops….just smart-bomb, bunker-busting, GPS guided missiles to send a clear message to Iran that thumbing their nose at the world community is tantamount to suicide. Rendering nuclear facilities useless would be a public service of the highest order.

Like President Kennedy during the Cuban missile crisis, the line was drawn in the sand. Kennedy gave Khrushchev no options about dismantling the missile bases in Cuba—and this was long before American military superiority and technical warfare from afar were a reality.

We should do the same.

Vacillating at this juncture is not an option. Failure to act in a timely manner may someday be compared with the appeasement of Hitler prior to World War II. Let’s hope that we have learned from the past-and will use that knowledge to create a safer future for our children.

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

And Now A Word From Our Sponsor....

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.

While media consolidation has decreased ownership markedly, there seems to be enough evidence to suggest that even the big companies are by and large not centrally “controlling” programming, at least not in radio. My company, Citadel Broadcasting-has NO such model in place. As Operations Manager and Program Director for WHOM-FM and our sister station WJBQ-FM (Top 40), I am 100% free to program these stations for the local audiences that we serve. No central playlists, no corporate suits dictating which songs are “cleared” for airplay, etc.

None of it.

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 in the future. If 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@citcomm.com

And now, back to our program!

Gossip Is Taking Over The News

Let’s take a look at just SOME of the issues facing us as Americans and citizens of the world:

The Economy
Two Wars-Iraq & Afghanistan
Health Care
Education
Iran-Nuclear Development
Swine Flu
Unemployment
Global warming
Identity Theft

Am I missing anything? Actually, I’m probably missing A LOT of stuff. Point taken. The above topics have made their share of headlines, but the tonnage based on merit is tilted towards that which is not vital to our health, security or welfare.

Now, let’s take a look at what has consumed the media of late:

Jon and Kate Plus 8
Michael Jackson
The extra-marital affairs of ________members of Congress
Rihanna and Chris Brown
Britney Spears
Kanye West & Taylor Swift

And now…..David Letterman

WHO CARES??
What is the fascination with all this celebrity gossip? We as consumers of media are spending an inordinate amount of our free time watching the distorted representation of deeply flawed celebrities. We are enjoying in a perverse way how the mighty can fall. Of course, after “piling on”-as we did in the pathetic case of Britney Spears, we then allow for complete rehabilitation-and restoration to the front page of the Enquirer when a new scandal starts the roller coaster ride anew.

Perhaps we derive some satisfaction from watching those whom we envy for their talent, wealth or success fall from grace or become publicly embarrassed. If any one of us had a camera crew filming our every move, God help US as well!

It’s not just celebrities.
It’s plain old everyday people whose exposure in a national reality show (Jon and Kate Plus 8) has VAULTED them to celebrity status. Their dirty laundry is being flaunted to a mass audience-and we are eating it up.

Not me.

It is the visual/aural equivalent of junk food. I refuse to watch reality TV and refuse to give any significant measure of my time and attention to trivial squabbles among trivial people.

I like TV-and I like entertainment and news. It’s just hard to separate the wheat from the chaff. When the “Today” show—which I’ll tune to for news—includes the scandals of celebrities AS news, I am dismayed.

It was on this date in 1962 that Johnny Carson began his stint as host of the “Tonight Show”. Maybe a simpler time, but I enjoyed Johnny for his talent-without giving a HOOT how his personal life was going. Here’s a clip of Johnny narrating that first night-from the broadcast of his final show:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUOvkKRjKW4

I’m sure that every celebrity-then and now—has skeletons in their closets—in fact, we probably ALL do…..

How about we focus on the IMPORTANT things? And find our “entertainment” somewhere other than in other people’s misery or humiliation.

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

National Parks-Did The Government Actually Do Something Right?

Like much of America, I am riveted to the Ken Burns multi-part PBS series on our National Parks. It is excellent!

Today is actually the “birthday” of Yosemite National Park, which was established by an act of Congress on this date in 1890. I knew that environmental pioneer John Muir was largely responsible for paving the way—I just never knew what a fascinating character this Muir fellow was until Ken Burns came along.

Here’s a guy whose intelligence was unquestioned-and whose ability to make a living (and a fortune) in business was all but assured. Muir wanted none this “success”or its trappings. Off to the woods he went—walking thousands of miles and “communing” with nature in a way that had perhaps never been done before. Literally sitting in front of a plant or insect for hours on end, observing—and listening.

No wonder many people thought he was off his rocker. “Eccentric” was one of the kinder terms used to describe behavior that just seemed strange to those without his insight. Muir saw the beautiful Yosemite Valley being commercialized and ruined by greedy entrepreneurs—and fearing that the great spaces out west would end up looking like the industrial east, he set upon a campaign that became a life-long quest. Namely, to set aside, protect and nurture these natural American treasures.

Thankfully for us, he and other visionaries were successful!

In an era when governmental involvement in ANYTHING is seen as a “takeover”, an “infringement on our rights” and at best-a costly and inefficient way to run anything, we need to look no farther than the National Park System as a model of what good things can happen when the greed motive of capitalism (an indisputable force for good and prosperity) is selectively “curbed” for the greater good.

Since we perhaps have taken the National Parks for granted, it is an interesting exercise to imagine what they would look like today if Uncle Sam had NOT stepped in.

Vast beauty—built up with resorts and strip malls, large tracts of private lands inaccessible to the public—and no doubt a disturbing level of pollution and overdevelopment. We know this is likely the scenario because it was already starting to happen back when Yosemite became overrun following the Gold Rush.

I have no idea how many National Parks I have visited-since some are designated as such due to their historical significance (Gettysburg)—I do know that I haven’t been to Yosemite or Yellowstone National Park. This leaves as MY favorite-the one National Park I am most familiar with-and closest to: Acadia National Park here in Maine. Here is a short video of this beautiful place:






I’m looking forward to seeing how Ken Burns tells the story of Acadia. If it's half as good as the segments I have seen so far (and I have missed some—did he DO Acadia yet??), it will be a thrill to see anew the breathtaking spaces where my family and I have spent so many magical hours.

So, while we may all be critical of our Federal government-and our politics today, let’s all at least concede that the Feds got this one right---and since some have stated that such an endeavor would NEVER get through a partisan Congress today, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned about cooperation and the greater good.

Take note, politicians! Working together makes sense-for our destinies are bound together as one.

If you’d like my blog in your inbox each weekday, please let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com