Tonight, tens of thousands of crazy people will brave crappy weather to shoe-horn themselves into Times Square for the New Year. The forecast is calling for icy rain.
Maybe that will slow up the pickpockets.
Can someone PLEASE tell me what the appeal is?
While going out and partying on New Year’s Eve is fun (although I have found myself at home in recent years watching Dick Clark), I cannot fathom the reasons why people are drawn to a place where they’ll be packed in like sardines to……WATCH A BALL DROP?
My curiosity of the whole “ball” thing made me want to do a little research. Who the hell came up with THAT idea? Here’s the short version:
1904-The New York Times opens it’s new building at Longacre Square—and petitions the City to rename the triangular “square” in it’s honor—hence, Times Square.
Times owner Adolph Ochs announces a huge New Year’s celebration—and over 200,000 people show up (there wasn’t much else to do in 1904)---No ball, but there were foreworks.
1907-Times Chief electrician Walter palmer creates the first “ball” at the urging of Ochs, who wanted some kind of massive show to usher in the New Year. The first Ball descended from a flagpole in Times Square and was made of iron and wood with 100 25-watt bulbs.
1942-1943—The Ball didn’t descend due to wartime lighting restrictions in case of enemy attack.
1955-1980-Ball is replaced by one made of aluminum-and now weighs only 150 pounds.
1981-1988-Due to the “I Love NY” campaign, the bulbs are changed to red and the sphere grows a stem to reflect the “Big Apple”
1989-1994- Traditional white bulbs are back
1995-1998- Ball gets computerized with strobe light system and rhinestones.
1999-New aluminum Ball
2000-2007-Ball gets a new design for the Millennium, with Waterford crystal
2008-New Ball makeover for 100th anniversary
2009-Ball is DOUBLED in size, but more energy efficient (20%) and the Ball remains halfway up the pole as a permanent fixture all year long.
Check out this video of Guy Lombardo and company from the 1957-1958 New Year’s celebration! This was the earliest footage I could find—and happens to be the year of my birth….my, how times have changed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BfUp6iPAZ2M
Hard to believe that as many as a MILLION people now show up to “enjoy” the drop. Here’s another short clip about this year’s Ball:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5sACW5PqBc
I may take a sip or two of champagne, but don’t EVER look for me in Times Square. Maybe I should make a New Year’s resolution never to show up for the Ball drop. That way, I’ll at least have ONE resolution that won’t be broken by January 2nd.
Happy New Year! I’ll take tomorrow off from writing so I can watch the Ohio State Buckeyes win the Rose Bowl against Oregon (pretty please God) If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Wednesday, December 30, 2009
The Accidental Star
Rick Nelson was a teen idol crafted by television.
In fact, he may have been the first “manufactured” rock star, zooming to fame on the coat tails of the hit TV show “Ozzie and Harriet” in the 1950’s.
That show’s huge weekly audience, coupled with the birth of rock & roll created ideal conditions for the manipulation of teenage girls. A Petri dish of sorts, growing the culture of mass-media- influenced stardom, based mostly on exposure rather than talent.
Don’t get me wrong-I’m not trying to diminish the talent of Ricky Nelson, who was killed in a plane crash on this date in 1985. The man had enormous appeal—and no small measure of talent, but unlike Elvis or Buddy Holly, Nelson REQUIRED the measured rollout of his rock & roll persona on national TV to catapult him to stardom.
With his brother and parents essentially playing themselves on TV, Nelson was already a star. Attending Hollywood High, he showed little interest in music until his girlfriend raved to him about Elvis. He responded with a boast that he too was planning to cut a record. His father allowed him to cut a demo with his orchestra. Nelson said later that he chose to cover Fats Domino’s “I’m Walkin’” because it relied heavily on the two guitar chords that Nelson knew how to play.
When he played the song on the TV series, he became an overnight sensation. Here is the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwSwlkxHSnY
Nelson released his first album in November of 1957 and it flew to #1 on the Billboard charts. Ricky Nelson became one of the biggest selling singers in the 50’s—with 53 Top 100 hits—and 17 in the Top 10.
When “Ozzie and Harriet” went off the air in 1966, Ricky (who changed his name to Rick) Nelson’s career fizzled. He made a brief comeback after discovering the emerging style of country-rock—and had a #1 song with “Garden Party”—a ditty about his failed concert at Madison Square Garden—where he was booed off stage.
Performing more than 200 nights a year, he was traveling to Texas for a show when his plane crashed. Ironically, the very last song he performed live was a cover of “Rave On” by Buddy Holly—who also perished in a plane crash with The Big Bopper and Ritchie Valens in 1959 (often referred to as “The Day The Music Died”)
The “Travelin’Man” was gone. Rick Nelson was 45.
So, while not the musician thought of as influential like Holly, Rick Nelson was a pioneer.
He was the first in a long stream of ready-made teen idols created by television’s mass penetration. The Monkees were another such act—and I’m sure you can name more.
He was an appealing part of our pop culture—when innocence was still the order of the day. Rick was a wholesome star that a girl could bring home to meet her parents.
Ozzie and Harriet wouldn’t have had it any other way.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
In fact, he may have been the first “manufactured” rock star, zooming to fame on the coat tails of the hit TV show “Ozzie and Harriet” in the 1950’s.
That show’s huge weekly audience, coupled with the birth of rock & roll created ideal conditions for the manipulation of teenage girls. A Petri dish of sorts, growing the culture of mass-media- influenced stardom, based mostly on exposure rather than talent.
Don’t get me wrong-I’m not trying to diminish the talent of Ricky Nelson, who was killed in a plane crash on this date in 1985. The man had enormous appeal—and no small measure of talent, but unlike Elvis or Buddy Holly, Nelson REQUIRED the measured rollout of his rock & roll persona on national TV to catapult him to stardom.
With his brother and parents essentially playing themselves on TV, Nelson was already a star. Attending Hollywood High, he showed little interest in music until his girlfriend raved to him about Elvis. He responded with a boast that he too was planning to cut a record. His father allowed him to cut a demo with his orchestra. Nelson said later that he chose to cover Fats Domino’s “I’m Walkin’” because it relied heavily on the two guitar chords that Nelson knew how to play.
When he played the song on the TV series, he became an overnight sensation. Here is the clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CwSwlkxHSnY
Nelson released his first album in November of 1957 and it flew to #1 on the Billboard charts. Ricky Nelson became one of the biggest selling singers in the 50’s—with 53 Top 100 hits—and 17 in the Top 10.
When “Ozzie and Harriet” went off the air in 1966, Ricky (who changed his name to Rick) Nelson’s career fizzled. He made a brief comeback after discovering the emerging style of country-rock—and had a #1 song with “Garden Party”—a ditty about his failed concert at Madison Square Garden—where he was booed off stage.
Performing more than 200 nights a year, he was traveling to Texas for a show when his plane crashed. Ironically, the very last song he performed live was a cover of “Rave On” by Buddy Holly—who also perished in a plane crash with The Big Bopper and Ritchie Valens in 1959 (often referred to as “The Day The Music Died”)
The “Travelin’Man” was gone. Rick Nelson was 45.
So, while not the musician thought of as influential like Holly, Rick Nelson was a pioneer.
He was the first in a long stream of ready-made teen idols created by television’s mass penetration. The Monkees were another such act—and I’m sure you can name more.
He was an appealing part of our pop culture—when innocence was still the order of the day. Rick was a wholesome star that a girl could bring home to meet her parents.
Ozzie and Harriet wouldn’t have had it any other way.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, December 29, 2009
No, We're Not Related
Happy Birthday, Mary Tyler Moore!
Born in 1936, this talented actress has been part of American culture since 1961, when she was cast as Laura Petrie on the hit sitcom “The Dick Van Dyke Show”. Virtually unknown at the time, Mary soon became a star as bright as Mr. Van Dyke himself.
Not bad for someone who previously played the part of an elf during Hot Point appliance commercials within the “Ozzie And Harriett” show! She auditioned for the role of Danny Thomas’ daughter in his long running hit show, but was turned down. But, Thomas’ company was producing “The Dick Van Dyke Show”—and Danny himself recommended the young lady he rejected as his TV daughter to be Van Dyke’s TV wife!
Without a doubt, Mary Tyler Moore’s career triumph was her own show, “The Mary Tyler Moore Show”, where she played Mary Richards, a young TV News producer. The show was HUGE success, running from 1970-1977, winning multiple Emmys and creating spin-offs, including “Rhoda”, “Phyllis” and “Lou Grant”.
A couple of video clips here-one is of perhaps THE funniest episode, the funeral of “Chuckles The Clown”—and the other an outtake reel of bloopers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwC361O13gk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XHXeiMRSk
Great TV!
I wish I had a dime for every time someone has asked if we are related. I’d have a couple of bucks. And would trade all of it for a smidgen of her talent!
I’m still waiting to be “discovered”. How’s this- a sitcom about a radio DJ in Cincinnati?
Has that been done yet?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Born in 1936, this talented actress has been part of American culture since 1961, when she was cast as Laura Petrie on the hit sitcom “The Dick Van Dyke Show”. Virtually unknown at the time, Mary soon became a star as bright as Mr. Van Dyke himself.
Not bad for someone who previously played the part of an elf during Hot Point appliance commercials within the “Ozzie And Harriett” show! She auditioned for the role of Danny Thomas’ daughter in his long running hit show, but was turned down. But, Thomas’ company was producing “The Dick Van Dyke Show”—and Danny himself recommended the young lady he rejected as his TV daughter to be Van Dyke’s TV wife!
Without a doubt, Mary Tyler Moore’s career triumph was her own show, “The Mary Tyler Moore Show”, where she played Mary Richards, a young TV News producer. The show was HUGE success, running from 1970-1977, winning multiple Emmys and creating spin-offs, including “Rhoda”, “Phyllis” and “Lou Grant”.
A couple of video clips here-one is of perhaps THE funniest episode, the funeral of “Chuckles The Clown”—and the other an outtake reel of bloopers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EwC361O13gk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4XHXeiMRSk
Great TV!
I wish I had a dime for every time someone has asked if we are related. I’d have a couple of bucks. And would trade all of it for a smidgen of her talent!
I’m still waiting to be “discovered”. How’s this- a sitcom about a radio DJ in Cincinnati?
Has that been done yet?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, December 28, 2009
Books With No Pages
Amazon is touting the success of the “Kindle”, the electronic reader which is sold on the company’s hugely popular website. In the first battle between Kindle and the Sony “Reader”, it appears the Kindle has won. It enjoys a 65 percent share of the market, as opposed to 35 for the Sony product.
Before you make comparisons to the VHS vs. Sony Beta battle for the dominant standard for videotapes (in which Beta had almost universal acclaim as the superior format, but lost to VHS based on adoption/availability/cost), there may not be an exit from the market for the loser if sales are adequate for both.
Most astounding to me is the fact that, for the very first time ever, electronic books OUTSOLD conventional books (you know, the ones with PAPER in them)! Amazon didn’t release specific figures, but stated that it’s peak sales day was December 14th, where it sold 9.5 MILLION items overall worldwide! That comes out to 110 items per SECOND!
For its part, the Kindle became the most gifted item in Amazon history (albeit a relatively short one), due in part to extensive marketing of the device.
I know that environmentalists will embrace a “book” that doesn’t kill trees, but I am a purist. Call me old fashioned, but I like the tactile experience of reading. Holding a book, turning pages, using a bookmark. Although I admit not having test-driven the machine, the thought of navigating an electronic device (Learning Curve #4,568 of the decade) holds no appeal for me. Different covers, sizes, textures and page/paper grades make the experience of reading one that involves all five senses.
If unfamiliar with the Kindle, here’s a product review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAf4vxGEOAo
After watching, it does make me at least want to give the Kindle a try. Downloading entire books through thin air and being able to store THOUSANDS of books and documents in a compact handheld device has its advantages.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezo says this is the future of books, doing to reading what the iPod has done to music.
He may be right.
Nevertheless, I will choose to go the old fashioned route—until they stop the printing presses! You know that sometime soon, a prominent author like Dan Brown will make a novel available ONLY as an electronic download (with a generous advance from Amazon, no doubt), all in order to spur adoption of the new technology.
I guess one truth is evident with any of the new electronic readers—“you can’t judge a book by its cover”. This, because the cover will always be the same.
If you’d like to receive my weekday blog in your box---or downloadable from Google on your Kindle or Sony Reader, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Before you make comparisons to the VHS vs. Sony Beta battle for the dominant standard for videotapes (in which Beta had almost universal acclaim as the superior format, but lost to VHS based on adoption/availability/cost), there may not be an exit from the market for the loser if sales are adequate for both.
Most astounding to me is the fact that, for the very first time ever, electronic books OUTSOLD conventional books (you know, the ones with PAPER in them)! Amazon didn’t release specific figures, but stated that it’s peak sales day was December 14th, where it sold 9.5 MILLION items overall worldwide! That comes out to 110 items per SECOND!
For its part, the Kindle became the most gifted item in Amazon history (albeit a relatively short one), due in part to extensive marketing of the device.
I know that environmentalists will embrace a “book” that doesn’t kill trees, but I am a purist. Call me old fashioned, but I like the tactile experience of reading. Holding a book, turning pages, using a bookmark. Although I admit not having test-driven the machine, the thought of navigating an electronic device (Learning Curve #4,568 of the decade) holds no appeal for me. Different covers, sizes, textures and page/paper grades make the experience of reading one that involves all five senses.
If unfamiliar with the Kindle, here’s a product review:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GAf4vxGEOAo
After watching, it does make me at least want to give the Kindle a try. Downloading entire books through thin air and being able to store THOUSANDS of books and documents in a compact handheld device has its advantages.
Amazon CEO Jeff Bezo says this is the future of books, doing to reading what the iPod has done to music.
He may be right.
Nevertheless, I will choose to go the old fashioned route—until they stop the printing presses! You know that sometime soon, a prominent author like Dan Brown will make a novel available ONLY as an electronic download (with a generous advance from Amazon, no doubt), all in order to spur adoption of the new technology.
I guess one truth is evident with any of the new electronic readers—“you can’t judge a book by its cover”. This, because the cover will always be the same.
If you’d like to receive my weekday blog in your box---or downloadable from Google on your Kindle or Sony Reader, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Bette Davis Eyes
The Hollywood of today holds no appeal for me. I mean, if you cruise the streets, you may see a famous movie actor or actress shopping or eating in a café, but there is little of the glamour that USED to be Tinsel Town.
I’d love to go back to the glory days of Hollywood—the 30’s and 40’s, when the stars were truly glamorous—and the movies actually were filmed in Hollywood. Sure, the deals are still done there, but on-location shooting and computer-generated special effects have rendered Hollywood almost irrelevant when it comes to actually being the SITE for filmmaking.
Back in the day, actors and actresses signed multi-movie deals with studios—and the grand soundstages where classic films were made were surreal places where the early directors created magic!
It was on this date in 1930—nearly 80 years ago—that Bette Davis signed with Universal after years of work as a struggling actress. Born Ruth Elizabeth Davis in Massachusetts, she decided in high school to become a star. After some mediocre roles on Broadway, she was rejected by Goldwyn Studios following her first screen test.
Davis’ film debut was in “Bad Sister” in 1931. She played relatively unremarkable roles into the mid 30’s. Even after winning the Best Actress Oscar for her role in “Dangerous” (1935), she was still not offered the starring roles she coveted. Aiming for more respect, she moved to Warner Studios, but had the same luck there. Refusing roles that she felt inferior to her talent, Davis tried to work in England. Warner eventually won a court battle enforcing her contract to work exclusively for them. After the victory, Warner started to treat the actress with the respect she craved.
Here is a video clip of Bette Davis’ more memorable moments on the silver screen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea5__uUuxoU
Imagine being on the set of ANY of those films! Now, that’s the Hollywood that appeals to me.
Davis won Best Actress nominations for five consecutive years, including “Jezebel” (1938), “Dark Victory” (1939), “The Letter” (1940),”The Little Foxes” (1941) and “Now, Voyager” (1942) A stunning performance as actress Margo Channing in “All About Eve” in 1950 won huge critical acclaim.
Her career taped off in the 50’s, but was revived by her role in the 1962 movie “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?”---perhaps her creepiest performance, if you ask me!
In 1977, she became the first woman to receive the American Film Institute’s Life Achievement Award—and her filmography includes more than 80 movies.
Bette Davis died of cancer in 1989—but will live on forever in the movies that helped to define the Golden Age of Hollywood.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
I’d love to go back to the glory days of Hollywood—the 30’s and 40’s, when the stars were truly glamorous—and the movies actually were filmed in Hollywood. Sure, the deals are still done there, but on-location shooting and computer-generated special effects have rendered Hollywood almost irrelevant when it comes to actually being the SITE for filmmaking.
Back in the day, actors and actresses signed multi-movie deals with studios—and the grand soundstages where classic films were made were surreal places where the early directors created magic!
It was on this date in 1930—nearly 80 years ago—that Bette Davis signed with Universal after years of work as a struggling actress. Born Ruth Elizabeth Davis in Massachusetts, she decided in high school to become a star. After some mediocre roles on Broadway, she was rejected by Goldwyn Studios following her first screen test.
Davis’ film debut was in “Bad Sister” in 1931. She played relatively unremarkable roles into the mid 30’s. Even after winning the Best Actress Oscar for her role in “Dangerous” (1935), she was still not offered the starring roles she coveted. Aiming for more respect, she moved to Warner Studios, but had the same luck there. Refusing roles that she felt inferior to her talent, Davis tried to work in England. Warner eventually won a court battle enforcing her contract to work exclusively for them. After the victory, Warner started to treat the actress with the respect she craved.
Here is a video clip of Bette Davis’ more memorable moments on the silver screen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ea5__uUuxoU
Imagine being on the set of ANY of those films! Now, that’s the Hollywood that appeals to me.
Davis won Best Actress nominations for five consecutive years, including “Jezebel” (1938), “Dark Victory” (1939), “The Letter” (1940),”The Little Foxes” (1941) and “Now, Voyager” (1942) A stunning performance as actress Margo Channing in “All About Eve” in 1950 won huge critical acclaim.
Her career taped off in the 50’s, but was revived by her role in the 1962 movie “Whatever Happened to Baby Jane?”---perhaps her creepiest performance, if you ask me!
In 1977, she became the first woman to receive the American Film Institute’s Life Achievement Award—and her filmography includes more than 80 movies.
Bette Davis died of cancer in 1989—but will live on forever in the movies that helped to define the Golden Age of Hollywood.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
Nothing Says "Chickmobile" Like Corvette
The very notion that a CAR has the power to attract women (regardless of the dweeb behind the wheel) is amusing, but if there is ANY car with the power to accomplish this feat, it is the Corvette.
It was on this date in 1952 that the very first Corvette, a production-ready prototype-was produced. GM Chief William Durant decided to build a small sports car after traveling to Europe and seeing the popularity of the speedy roadsters there. The first Corvette was reportedly modeled after a Jaguar and the prototype was said to have cost between $50,000 to $60,000 to build. The first production ‘Vette rolled off the assembly line on June 30 of 1953. Just over 300 Corvettes were built--- hand—that first year.
OK, so now back to the women.
Ladies will often joke about a guy driving a hot car as trying to compensate for other, shall we say, “shortcomings”---but there seems to be no hesitation for most of them to jump in and take a ride, regardless of the Neanderthal in the driver’s seat.
I doubt that the reverse is true, however. Is there a woman out there who would NOT leap at the chance to take a drive with, say, George Clooney, even if the “ride” he was using was a ’69 Buick station wagon (with fake wood paneling)?
I think not.
Of course, this makes women look rather shallow, but what does it also say about men?
Namely, that we don’t have to be funny, interesting, good looking or kind. We, in fact, can be complete asses, as long as we have Italian driving gloves, cool shades and a hot sports car.
Here are a couple of vintage Corvette videos-the first is the original TV “commercial” for the 1953 Corvette. The second is from a decade later, as the 1963 ad has clearly migrated from sports car aficionados to sheer SEX APPEAL, which became the primary selling point, I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC8bwEQFx6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbxTHXUH4VE
Most of us have seen our share of middle-aged men trying to capture of spirit of their youth by tooling around in a sports car. The sunshine gleams off our bald heads as we wedge our portly frames into the bucket seats and challenge the teens and their muscle cars at every traffic light.
“Yeah! NOW, who’s cool!?”
Please shoot me if you ever see yours truly in this situation. While I cannot claim complete immunity from the outward manifestations of “midlife crisis”, it is another thing altogether to undergo this pain while making a complete ass out of myself in public.
Never mind. My wife will kill me before you get the chance.
If you’d like my blog in your inbox weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Sign up today. Chicks dig it.
It was on this date in 1952 that the very first Corvette, a production-ready prototype-was produced. GM Chief William Durant decided to build a small sports car after traveling to Europe and seeing the popularity of the speedy roadsters there. The first Corvette was reportedly modeled after a Jaguar and the prototype was said to have cost between $50,000 to $60,000 to build. The first production ‘Vette rolled off the assembly line on June 30 of 1953. Just over 300 Corvettes were built--- hand—that first year.
OK, so now back to the women.
Ladies will often joke about a guy driving a hot car as trying to compensate for other, shall we say, “shortcomings”---but there seems to be no hesitation for most of them to jump in and take a ride, regardless of the Neanderthal in the driver’s seat.
I doubt that the reverse is true, however. Is there a woman out there who would NOT leap at the chance to take a drive with, say, George Clooney, even if the “ride” he was using was a ’69 Buick station wagon (with fake wood paneling)?
I think not.
Of course, this makes women look rather shallow, but what does it also say about men?
Namely, that we don’t have to be funny, interesting, good looking or kind. We, in fact, can be complete asses, as long as we have Italian driving gloves, cool shades and a hot sports car.
Here are a couple of vintage Corvette videos-the first is the original TV “commercial” for the 1953 Corvette. The second is from a decade later, as the 1963 ad has clearly migrated from sports car aficionados to sheer SEX APPEAL, which became the primary selling point, I think:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC8bwEQFx6M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbxTHXUH4VE
Most of us have seen our share of middle-aged men trying to capture of spirit of their youth by tooling around in a sports car. The sunshine gleams off our bald heads as we wedge our portly frames into the bucket seats and challenge the teens and their muscle cars at every traffic light.
“Yeah! NOW, who’s cool!?”
Please shoot me if you ever see yours truly in this situation. While I cannot claim complete immunity from the outward manifestations of “midlife crisis”, it is another thing altogether to undergo this pain while making a complete ass out of myself in public.
Never mind. My wife will kill me before you get the chance.
If you’d like my blog in your inbox weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Sign up today. Chicks dig it.
Monday, December 21, 2009
Life Before YouTube
Sometimes, it's interesting to remember what life was like before certain technological developments.
For me, it’s hard to imagine a world without e-mail (“when does the post office close?”), cell phones (“gotta find a payphone to make a call!”) and the internet (“you mean I have to CALL an airline to make a reservation?”)
These advances are largely taken for granted—we act as if we have always relied on these devices/services.
On a lesser level, the creation and worldwide adoption of YouTube as an on-demand source for entertainment and the common person’s access to almost everyone on Earth is maybe just a footnote.
It shouldn’t be.
Granted, perhaps 90% of YouTube’s content is drivel, but given there are millions of videos housed on those servers, even the 10% that's worthwhile accounts for untold millions of riveting video. Much of it is funny, but there are instructional, educational and historical videos that could occupy you for hours on end.
In fact, I rely heavily on YouTube daily to spice up the blog. The subject matter itself is often determined by what I happen to stumble upon when I go there daily.
Back to the funny stuff…here is a YouTube video of Jimmy Kimmel and Norah Jones doing a takeoff on the top YouTube videos of the year—in a novelty, holiday kind of way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGyIucmTcFw
That’s OK, but I don’t think they got anywhere near the best ones for 2009! If there is a YouTube video that you recommend for viewing, let me know! It could be the subject of a future blog.
Gotta run….Christmas shopping to do! A video camera, perhaps?
If you’d like this blog to arrive like magic in your inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
For me, it’s hard to imagine a world without e-mail (“when does the post office close?”), cell phones (“gotta find a payphone to make a call!”) and the internet (“you mean I have to CALL an airline to make a reservation?”)
These advances are largely taken for granted—we act as if we have always relied on these devices/services.
On a lesser level, the creation and worldwide adoption of YouTube as an on-demand source for entertainment and the common person’s access to almost everyone on Earth is maybe just a footnote.
It shouldn’t be.
Granted, perhaps 90% of YouTube’s content is drivel, but given there are millions of videos housed on those servers, even the 10% that's worthwhile accounts for untold millions of riveting video. Much of it is funny, but there are instructional, educational and historical videos that could occupy you for hours on end.
In fact, I rely heavily on YouTube daily to spice up the blog. The subject matter itself is often determined by what I happen to stumble upon when I go there daily.
Back to the funny stuff…here is a YouTube video of Jimmy Kimmel and Norah Jones doing a takeoff on the top YouTube videos of the year—in a novelty, holiday kind of way:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGyIucmTcFw
That’s OK, but I don’t think they got anywhere near the best ones for 2009! If there is a YouTube video that you recommend for viewing, let me know! It could be the subject of a future blog.
Gotta run….Christmas shopping to do! A video camera, perhaps?
If you’d like this blog to arrive like magic in your inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, December 18, 2009
Novelty Christmas Songs
After several weeks of being in “full Christmas mode” on 94.9 WHOM, we’ve gotten a sense of those Christmas songs that cause the phones to go CRAZY!
In almost every case, it’s the novelty tunes that burn up the request lines. Not sure why this is the case, but the offbeat, funny and silly holiday songs are getting the lion’s share of song suggestions.
Although this is not scientific, I would rank the Top Requests on 94.9 WHOM to be the following:
1) “Dominic The Donkey”-Lou Monte (yes, the Italian Christmas Donkey is still tops!)
2) “12 Days of Christmas”-Straight No Chaser (this was #1 last year-and is VERY
close to the ass in first place)
3) “12 Pains Of Christmas”-Bob Rivers (this DJ from Baltimore hit pay dirt years
ago with this one-now a novelty “classic”)
4) “The Chipmunk Song”-Alvin & The Chipmunks (yeah, it’s from the 60’s, but as
popular as ever due to the Chipmunk movies)
5) “12 Gifts of Christmas”-Alan Sherman (this too is from the 60’s-and although the
“gifts” may be a bit outdated, i.e. transistor radio—it is still funny!)
6) “Snoopy’s Christmas”-Royal Guardsmen (almost NOT a novelty song-gets its
share of calls)
7) “You’re A Mean One, Mr. Grinch”-Thurl Ravenscroft (deep throat scores a hit
thanks to the classic TV show)
8) “We Need A Little Christmas”-The Muppets (again, aside from some puppet
voices, this fits in fine with everything else)
A new entry is the latest from Straight No Chaser. It’s called “The Christmas Can-Can”!
Here is the video, which is also featured at http://www.949whom.com/:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZveAyEMWJ0
Of course, the above list doesn’t begin to cover the Christmas novelty tunes. There are others we will stick in there, but the short list below tends to generate more COMPLAINTS than requests. In no particular order, they are:
1) “Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer”-Elmo & Patsy (Grandpa, broken up by
the tragedy, is still drinking beer and watching football, but thankfully now believes in Santa. Nice.)
2) “Jingle Bells”-The Singing Dogs (a minute and a half of dogs barking-after a couple of listens, you might prefer a German Shepard chewing on your leg for a minute and a half than to hear it again)
3) “All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth”-Spike Jones (Chipmunks do an annoying version of this too)
4) “I Want A Hippopotamus for Christmas”-Gayla Peevey (just imagine house-breaking that critter)
So, I hope you’re not TOO disappointed that the short list above hardly ever makes it on the air!
And, a little “program note”: 94.9 WHOM will be playing 100% Christmas music COMMERCIAL FREE from noon on Thursday, December 24th right through Christmas Day! Yes, “Home For The Holidays” will be in it’s 20th year this Christmas-our little gift to you!!!
Listen over the air—or stream it LIVE on the website at http://www.949whom.com/!
If you would like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Merry Christmas!!
In almost every case, it’s the novelty tunes that burn up the request lines. Not sure why this is the case, but the offbeat, funny and silly holiday songs are getting the lion’s share of song suggestions.
Although this is not scientific, I would rank the Top Requests on 94.9 WHOM to be the following:
1) “Dominic The Donkey”-Lou Monte (yes, the Italian Christmas Donkey is still tops!)
2) “12 Days of Christmas”-Straight No Chaser (this was #1 last year-and is VERY
close to the ass in first place)
3) “12 Pains Of Christmas”-Bob Rivers (this DJ from Baltimore hit pay dirt years
ago with this one-now a novelty “classic”)
4) “The Chipmunk Song”-Alvin & The Chipmunks (yeah, it’s from the 60’s, but as
popular as ever due to the Chipmunk movies)
5) “12 Gifts of Christmas”-Alan Sherman (this too is from the 60’s-and although the
“gifts” may be a bit outdated, i.e. transistor radio—it is still funny!)
6) “Snoopy’s Christmas”-Royal Guardsmen (almost NOT a novelty song-gets its
share of calls)
7) “You’re A Mean One, Mr. Grinch”-Thurl Ravenscroft (deep throat scores a hit
thanks to the classic TV show)
8) “We Need A Little Christmas”-The Muppets (again, aside from some puppet
voices, this fits in fine with everything else)
A new entry is the latest from Straight No Chaser. It’s called “The Christmas Can-Can”!
Here is the video, which is also featured at http://www.949whom.com/:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZveAyEMWJ0
Of course, the above list doesn’t begin to cover the Christmas novelty tunes. There are others we will stick in there, but the short list below tends to generate more COMPLAINTS than requests. In no particular order, they are:
1) “Grandma Got Run Over By A Reindeer”-Elmo & Patsy (Grandpa, broken up by
the tragedy, is still drinking beer and watching football, but thankfully now believes in Santa. Nice.)
2) “Jingle Bells”-The Singing Dogs (a minute and a half of dogs barking-after a couple of listens, you might prefer a German Shepard chewing on your leg for a minute and a half than to hear it again)
3) “All I Want For Christmas Is My Two Front Teeth”-Spike Jones (Chipmunks do an annoying version of this too)
4) “I Want A Hippopotamus for Christmas”-Gayla Peevey (just imagine house-breaking that critter)
So, I hope you’re not TOO disappointed that the short list above hardly ever makes it on the air!
And, a little “program note”: 94.9 WHOM will be playing 100% Christmas music COMMERCIAL FREE from noon on Thursday, December 24th right through Christmas Day! Yes, “Home For The Holidays” will be in it’s 20th year this Christmas-our little gift to you!!!
Listen over the air—or stream it LIVE on the website at http://www.949whom.com/!
If you would like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Merry Christmas!!
Thursday, December 17, 2009
Health Reform Is Making Me Sick
OK, I am now officially LOST in the debate over Health Care reform.
My guess is that you are too.
In fact, it has gotten so bad that I cannot even interpret TV ads for and against as being from any particular group. Is that one being paid for by the Republicans, the Insurance companies or progressive Democrats? Who knows?
The bill being batted around in the Senate hardly resembles anything that it’s supporters originally proposed. In fact, no one really knows for certain what will happen, even though the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says it will have a net positive impact on the deficit, actually reducing it.
Of course, what we don’t know is the effect on COSTS to families. The addition of 30 million uninsured to the ranks of “now covered” is certainly a positive, as is the moratorium on exclusion due to pre-existing conditions.
What isn’t so clear is the cost to patients who have the so-called “high risk factors”. For instance, if someone has diabetes, the opponents to the bill say that insurance companies have no limits imposed on the rates they could—and would charge these patients. What good is being accepted by the insurance companies for coverage if you cannot afford it? Have we handed the insurance companies 30 million new customers with no constraints or competitive pressure for them to keep premiums down?
The public option is now OUT—perhaps removing the incentive to compete that would keep costs down. Buy-in to Medicare is also gone. What is left of the plan that Democrats originally embraced?
Check out this clever video “overview” of the issue—despite being produced by an insurance company, it at least “seems” like an objective primer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfZfgkX6uEk
Americans who elected President Obama largely on the belief that sweeping reform would occur are now becoming some of the biggest critics of the seemingly one-sided compromises.
When Howard Dean and Rush Limbaugh are in agreement on health care, there is a SERIOUS problem. One gets the feeling that the President wants something to sign, ANY bill that will allow him to claim “victory”. However, those is his own party have been increasingly critical of the bill—and his perceived lack of participation in the process by allowing Congress to battle it out without some arm-twisting from the Executive Branch is now being viewed as a vacuum in leadership.
One of the more interesting comments I have heard goes something like this:
The President has truly attempted to have Health Care Reform be perceived as a bi-partisan product. This may be why he left things largely to Congress. The stark truth is that no matter WHAT bill became law, Republicans would attack it unmercifully. As such, with regard to political reality, he was in a no win situation with the Republicans. Nevertheless, the majority party Democrats have increasingly compromised the bill with concessions to the minority party—a party that some believe has NO DESIRE to bargain in good faith anyway. As a group, Republicans would rather see the bill-any bill—go down to defeat. The positive effects politically (demonstrating even a majority of Democrats cannot govern) are too enticing, not to mention the delight of the health insurance lobby that has strangled health care reform for generations. This “death by a thousand paper cuts” effect has now created a rift with progressive Democrats.
So, the right is against the President and the bill. The far Left is deeply dissatisfied. And the Independents are already heading for the doors.
The fair question to ask then, is this: With a Democratic majority—and the process of reconciliation (the so-called “nuclear option”) available, not to mention the power of the President and his office, why doesn’t Obama simply ramrod the bill through Congress?
Don’t get me started about Joe Leiberman---if ONE man can bring this entire process down, we have a huge issue with the way this legislation has been handled.
I still don’t know where I stand, since there are arguments-plausible on both sides—as to what the effects of the current bill will be. Who the hell knows?
I do know that a bad bill IS worse than no bill—and we better be sure that whatever happens, we adhere to the Hippocratic oath of “first, do no harm”
President Obama has staked his presidency on this legislation. Failure to lead a bill that can unite his own party may make his stay in the White House a one term affair.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
My guess is that you are too.
In fact, it has gotten so bad that I cannot even interpret TV ads for and against as being from any particular group. Is that one being paid for by the Republicans, the Insurance companies or progressive Democrats? Who knows?
The bill being batted around in the Senate hardly resembles anything that it’s supporters originally proposed. In fact, no one really knows for certain what will happen, even though the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) says it will have a net positive impact on the deficit, actually reducing it.
Of course, what we don’t know is the effect on COSTS to families. The addition of 30 million uninsured to the ranks of “now covered” is certainly a positive, as is the moratorium on exclusion due to pre-existing conditions.
What isn’t so clear is the cost to patients who have the so-called “high risk factors”. For instance, if someone has diabetes, the opponents to the bill say that insurance companies have no limits imposed on the rates they could—and would charge these patients. What good is being accepted by the insurance companies for coverage if you cannot afford it? Have we handed the insurance companies 30 million new customers with no constraints or competitive pressure for them to keep premiums down?
The public option is now OUT—perhaps removing the incentive to compete that would keep costs down. Buy-in to Medicare is also gone. What is left of the plan that Democrats originally embraced?
Check out this clever video “overview” of the issue—despite being produced by an insurance company, it at least “seems” like an objective primer:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfZfgkX6uEk
Americans who elected President Obama largely on the belief that sweeping reform would occur are now becoming some of the biggest critics of the seemingly one-sided compromises.
When Howard Dean and Rush Limbaugh are in agreement on health care, there is a SERIOUS problem. One gets the feeling that the President wants something to sign, ANY bill that will allow him to claim “victory”. However, those is his own party have been increasingly critical of the bill—and his perceived lack of participation in the process by allowing Congress to battle it out without some arm-twisting from the Executive Branch is now being viewed as a vacuum in leadership.
One of the more interesting comments I have heard goes something like this:
The President has truly attempted to have Health Care Reform be perceived as a bi-partisan product. This may be why he left things largely to Congress. The stark truth is that no matter WHAT bill became law, Republicans would attack it unmercifully. As such, with regard to political reality, he was in a no win situation with the Republicans. Nevertheless, the majority party Democrats have increasingly compromised the bill with concessions to the minority party—a party that some believe has NO DESIRE to bargain in good faith anyway. As a group, Republicans would rather see the bill-any bill—go down to defeat. The positive effects politically (demonstrating even a majority of Democrats cannot govern) are too enticing, not to mention the delight of the health insurance lobby that has strangled health care reform for generations. This “death by a thousand paper cuts” effect has now created a rift with progressive Democrats.
So, the right is against the President and the bill. The far Left is deeply dissatisfied. And the Independents are already heading for the doors.
The fair question to ask then, is this: With a Democratic majority—and the process of reconciliation (the so-called “nuclear option”) available, not to mention the power of the President and his office, why doesn’t Obama simply ramrod the bill through Congress?
Don’t get me started about Joe Leiberman---if ONE man can bring this entire process down, we have a huge issue with the way this legislation has been handled.
I still don’t know where I stand, since there are arguments-plausible on both sides—as to what the effects of the current bill will be. Who the hell knows?
I do know that a bad bill IS worse than no bill—and we better be sure that whatever happens, we adhere to the Hippocratic oath of “first, do no harm”
President Obama has staked his presidency on this legislation. Failure to lead a bill that can unite his own party may make his stay in the White House a one term affair.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, December 16, 2009
Christmas Light Wars
Every neighborhood has one.
One house where the “spirit of the season” means enough Christmas lights to illuminate a small city. Often added into this gaudy display are the plastic Santa’s and fake reindeer (nice touch if actually on the roof). Of course, there are elves, giant candy canes, wrapped presents, etc.
If there is even a hint of religious fervor, there could be a Nativity scene wedged in between the flashing-nose Rudolph and the inflatable snow-globe contraptions that have become so popular.
Nice.
The kids love these displays—and so do many adults, evidenced by the parking problems caused by traffic in otherwise quiet neighborhoods when folks descend like locusts to “oooh and ahhh”.
Don’t call me a Grinch—I secretly enjoy the fruits of the labor of these crazy people who risk life and limb stringing lights off the highest places on their homes. I stare in wonder as I try to fathom which chromosome aberration causes the desire to have their homes be visible from outer space.
Forget the cost of the lights themselves. Think of the electricity they are burning through! Maybe a spotlight on the spinning meter outside the house would make for another riveting sight!
More intriguing than the isolated homes with staggering displays are those neighborhoods where it has clearly become a competition. Otherwise sane people somehow crack under the holiday pressure to “out-do” the next-door neighbor. Like the U.S and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the acquisition and deployment of Christmas decorations escalates to a level that threatens to take out the nearest power grid.
Checkout these two quick videos of rather EXTENSIVE displays:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8AUsmse15o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0s3sQt-mmA
Used as the grist for comedy (“Christmas Vacation” with the Griswolds) and TV commercials (Audi spot running now, where the owner of a pair of Audis outshines his warring neighbors and their Xmas displays), the dynamic of grown men stooping to this childish “one-upsmanship” would be funnier if it weren’t so pathetic.
Some of the more involved practitioners actually set their flashing displays to music-broadcast on low power FM transmitters that allow gawkers to listen on their car radios as they gape.
As for me, one or two strings of pretty lights convey my acknowledgment of the season and my “Christmas spirit”.
And, unlike my overzealous neighbors, I will be able to pay my power bill in January.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
One house where the “spirit of the season” means enough Christmas lights to illuminate a small city. Often added into this gaudy display are the plastic Santa’s and fake reindeer (nice touch if actually on the roof). Of course, there are elves, giant candy canes, wrapped presents, etc.
If there is even a hint of religious fervor, there could be a Nativity scene wedged in between the flashing-nose Rudolph and the inflatable snow-globe contraptions that have become so popular.
Nice.
The kids love these displays—and so do many adults, evidenced by the parking problems caused by traffic in otherwise quiet neighborhoods when folks descend like locusts to “oooh and ahhh”.
Don’t call me a Grinch—I secretly enjoy the fruits of the labor of these crazy people who risk life and limb stringing lights off the highest places on their homes. I stare in wonder as I try to fathom which chromosome aberration causes the desire to have their homes be visible from outer space.
Forget the cost of the lights themselves. Think of the electricity they are burning through! Maybe a spotlight on the spinning meter outside the house would make for another riveting sight!
More intriguing than the isolated homes with staggering displays are those neighborhoods where it has clearly become a competition. Otherwise sane people somehow crack under the holiday pressure to “out-do” the next-door neighbor. Like the U.S and the Soviet Union during the Cold War, the acquisition and deployment of Christmas decorations escalates to a level that threatens to take out the nearest power grid.
Checkout these two quick videos of rather EXTENSIVE displays:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O8AUsmse15o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0s3sQt-mmA
Used as the grist for comedy (“Christmas Vacation” with the Griswolds) and TV commercials (Audi spot running now, where the owner of a pair of Audis outshines his warring neighbors and their Xmas displays), the dynamic of grown men stooping to this childish “one-upsmanship” would be funnier if it weren’t so pathetic.
Some of the more involved practitioners actually set their flashing displays to music-broadcast on low power FM transmitters that allow gawkers to listen on their car radios as they gape.
As for me, one or two strings of pretty lights convey my acknowledgment of the season and my “Christmas spirit”.
And, unlike my overzealous neighbors, I will be able to pay my power bill in January.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Evil Gets The Death Sentence
It’s hard to believe, but there are actually people who insist that the Holocaust never happened.
A figment of Jewish imagination?
A truth too horrible to comprehend?
Such ignorance has been displayed with regard to other factual events, too. Some people refute the Moon landing in 1969—declaring it never happened—but at least here it was possible (if not plausible) to concoct a lunar walk in some hidden Hollywood studio and pass it off to the world as truth. Who could prove that we did reach the moon?
Not so with the extermination of six million people during World War II. The evidence of this tragedy on an unprecedented scale is far too extensive to dismiss.
The architect of that so-called “Final Solution”, Adolph Eichmann-was sentenced to death on this date in 1961.
Most amazing in this tale of justice is the manner in which Eichmann was finally captured. Arrested by U.S. troops following the war, Eichmann escaped a prison camp in 1946 before he could face a tribunal at Nuremburg. He traveled the Middle East and Europe under an alias until he arrived in Argentina. He was attracted by that country’s lax immigration policies. Indeed, Argentina was a safe haven for many Nazis following the war.
In 1957, a German prosecutor informed Israel that Eichmann was living in Argentina. It was at this point that the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad became involved. Knowing that Argentina would likely NOT extradite Eichmann, a plan was drawn up to abduct him.
On May 11, 1960, Mossad agents descended on Eichmann as he walked from the bus stop to his home in Buenos Aires. Drugged and flown out of the country, he was taken directly to Israel, where, 3 days later, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion announced to the world that Eichmann was in custody.
Check out this video of the capture and trial of Eichmann—and the background of a monster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKMFduz3gpU
For its part, Argentina demanded Eichmann’s return, but Israel argued that his status as an international war criminal gave them the right to proceed with a trial, which became the very first televised trial in Jerusalem.
Despite his claims that he was simply “following orders”, Eichmann’s own words, letters and documents sealed his fate, despite his stated remorse within his bulletproof stand.
Fund guilty of all 15 counts, including crimes against humanity, he was sentenced to death. On April 11, 1962, he was hanged.
It is hard to imagine how any human being could evolve into the kind of monster that Eichmann became. His zeal to be received favorably by Hitler (which apparently never occurred) motivated his ruthless extermination of millions of men, women and children.
The cry of the Jewish people is: “Never again”. As the years buffer emotions with the distance that time usually brings, it is important to sometimes re-live the horrible events that scar our past—if only to renew our resolve that such deeds never have even a chance of occurring again.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
A figment of Jewish imagination?
A truth too horrible to comprehend?
Such ignorance has been displayed with regard to other factual events, too. Some people refute the Moon landing in 1969—declaring it never happened—but at least here it was possible (if not plausible) to concoct a lunar walk in some hidden Hollywood studio and pass it off to the world as truth. Who could prove that we did reach the moon?
Not so with the extermination of six million people during World War II. The evidence of this tragedy on an unprecedented scale is far too extensive to dismiss.
The architect of that so-called “Final Solution”, Adolph Eichmann-was sentenced to death on this date in 1961.
Most amazing in this tale of justice is the manner in which Eichmann was finally captured. Arrested by U.S. troops following the war, Eichmann escaped a prison camp in 1946 before he could face a tribunal at Nuremburg. He traveled the Middle East and Europe under an alias until he arrived in Argentina. He was attracted by that country’s lax immigration policies. Indeed, Argentina was a safe haven for many Nazis following the war.
In 1957, a German prosecutor informed Israel that Eichmann was living in Argentina. It was at this point that the Israeli intelligence service, the Mossad became involved. Knowing that Argentina would likely NOT extradite Eichmann, a plan was drawn up to abduct him.
On May 11, 1960, Mossad agents descended on Eichmann as he walked from the bus stop to his home in Buenos Aires. Drugged and flown out of the country, he was taken directly to Israel, where, 3 days later, Prime Minister David Ben-Gurion announced to the world that Eichmann was in custody.
Check out this video of the capture and trial of Eichmann—and the background of a monster:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKMFduz3gpU
For its part, Argentina demanded Eichmann’s return, but Israel argued that his status as an international war criminal gave them the right to proceed with a trial, which became the very first televised trial in Jerusalem.
Despite his claims that he was simply “following orders”, Eichmann’s own words, letters and documents sealed his fate, despite his stated remorse within his bulletproof stand.
Fund guilty of all 15 counts, including crimes against humanity, he was sentenced to death. On April 11, 1962, he was hanged.
It is hard to imagine how any human being could evolve into the kind of monster that Eichmann became. His zeal to be received favorably by Hitler (which apparently never occurred) motivated his ruthless extermination of millions of men, women and children.
The cry of the Jewish people is: “Never again”. As the years buffer emotions with the distance that time usually brings, it is important to sometimes re-live the horrible events that scar our past—if only to renew our resolve that such deeds never have even a chance of occurring again.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, December 14, 2009
Second Place Stinks
Norwegian Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole on this date 98 years ago. The very first to do so, he was diverted from his initial expedition to the North Pole after learning that American Robert Peary had beaten him to it.
Nobody wants to be second.
So, the race to the South Pole was on---and Amundsen was not the only one to join in. British explorer Robert F. Scott also decided to be there first.
Considering the weather, I cannot fathom the desire to go there in the first place. A race to the Bahamas? Tahiti? Hawaii? Count me in.
Anywhere that requires walking across frozen tundra and temperatures that would cause body parts to fall off is not my cup of tea, to use the English vernacular.
What makes this story truly tragic is the result for Scott and his party, who all lost their lives---only after reaching their goal to find that the Norwegian explorer had gotten there first.
That stinks.
But, in a world where it’s truly the “survival of the fittest”, it’s quite plain to see in hindsight that Amundsen had the better plan. In a place as unforgiving as Antarctica, the failure to plan properly could (and would) cost you your life.
Amundsen’s superior strategy revolved around two major factors-especially when compared with Scott’s. Namely, they were:
1) Amundsen sailed his ship into Antarctica’s Bay of Whales and set up his base camp some 60 miles closer to the South Pole than did Scott.
2) The Norwegian used dogs to drive the equipment rather than horses. The Huskies were hardy in this climate. The horses, on the other hand-were not—and began dying immediately, forcing the expedition to carry and drag the equipment themselves over the many miles.
Check out this video tribute to Scott, whose tragic end is chronicled in still photos set to music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PbX-gFNbfw
When Scott’s party reached the South Pole on January 18th, 1912, they discovered that Amundsen has arrived there more than a month earlier. Ouch.
Can you IMAGINE the disappointment of seeing from afar the Norwegian flag planted after all that you had been through?
Amundsen had his own experience with being second.
After his successful South Pole expedition, he started a successful shipping business. He made several attempts to become the first to FLY OVER the North Pole. In 1926, he passed over the Pole in a dirigible---only to find out that American explorer Richard E. Byrd has apparently done so in an airplane just three DAYS earlier.
That stinks.
But, at least Amundsen didn’t lose his life in the attempt, unlike Scott.
Perhaps there are fewer frontiers to discover—and it’s likely that human physical endurance will not be put to the extreme test when they occur.
And so, while we celebrate the “winner” (Amundsen), we should not forget the tragic attempt of the guy who came in second.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Nobody wants to be second.
So, the race to the South Pole was on---and Amundsen was not the only one to join in. British explorer Robert F. Scott also decided to be there first.
Considering the weather, I cannot fathom the desire to go there in the first place. A race to the Bahamas? Tahiti? Hawaii? Count me in.
Anywhere that requires walking across frozen tundra and temperatures that would cause body parts to fall off is not my cup of tea, to use the English vernacular.
What makes this story truly tragic is the result for Scott and his party, who all lost their lives---only after reaching their goal to find that the Norwegian explorer had gotten there first.
That stinks.
But, in a world where it’s truly the “survival of the fittest”, it’s quite plain to see in hindsight that Amundsen had the better plan. In a place as unforgiving as Antarctica, the failure to plan properly could (and would) cost you your life.
Amundsen’s superior strategy revolved around two major factors-especially when compared with Scott’s. Namely, they were:
1) Amundsen sailed his ship into Antarctica’s Bay of Whales and set up his base camp some 60 miles closer to the South Pole than did Scott.
2) The Norwegian used dogs to drive the equipment rather than horses. The Huskies were hardy in this climate. The horses, on the other hand-were not—and began dying immediately, forcing the expedition to carry and drag the equipment themselves over the many miles.
Check out this video tribute to Scott, whose tragic end is chronicled in still photos set to music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PbX-gFNbfw
When Scott’s party reached the South Pole on January 18th, 1912, they discovered that Amundsen has arrived there more than a month earlier. Ouch.
Can you IMAGINE the disappointment of seeing from afar the Norwegian flag planted after all that you had been through?
Amundsen had his own experience with being second.
After his successful South Pole expedition, he started a successful shipping business. He made several attempts to become the first to FLY OVER the North Pole. In 1926, he passed over the Pole in a dirigible---only to find out that American explorer Richard E. Byrd has apparently done so in an airplane just three DAYS earlier.
That stinks.
But, at least Amundsen didn’t lose his life in the attempt, unlike Scott.
Perhaps there are fewer frontiers to discover—and it’s likely that human physical endurance will not be put to the extreme test when they occur.
And so, while we celebrate the “winner” (Amundsen), we should not forget the tragic attempt of the guy who came in second.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, December 11, 2009
Romantic Or Traitor...Or Both?
After a week where it seems like I’M the only person who hasn’t had an affair with Tiger Woods (oh, you too?), the thought struck me that it’s becoming increasingly clear that NOBODY has a squeaky clean record, despite what their public image may be.
Woods successfully cultivated a public persona that was ideal for the buttoned-down and staid world of golf—and crafted also for the corporate universe that attracted hugely lucrative sponsorships. All of this façade vanished with a small fender-bender.
Such is the fragility of a double-life, especially from someone so much in the public eye.
While we won’t know the extent of Tiger’s indiscretions for some time to come, it is clear that he is not the exception to the rule. In fact, more serious offenses by others have gone either undetected, ignored or dismissed.
Such MAY be the case with King Edward VIII, who abdicated the British throne on this date in 1936. The prevailing sentiment is that Edward gave it all up for love—and he has since been revered by many for choosing the woman of his dreams over the trappings of royalty.
The Readers Digest version of this story is that Edward voluntarily chose to exit the throne after the British Government, the public and the Church of England condemned his decision to marry American divorcee Wallis Warfield Simpson. Edward had been King for less than a year. Popular with his subjects, his affair with the then-married Simpson was reported widely in the U.S., but kept out of English newspapers.
So, end of story, right? Romance won out over power and wealth—and lovers of love the world over have elevated Edward to the throne as Ultimate Romantic.
It seems that there may be more to the story, as evidenced on this documentary. Part 1 is below—if you are interested, you can pull up the other segments-fascinating stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-bVcRB7CF0
So, was Edward a philanderer, a traitor and a Nazi sympathizer?
We may never know, but one thing is for sure. Prevailing sentiment that Edward gave it all up for the woman he loved has dominated the public image for so long—that the truth—whatever it may be---will likely not replace the storybook version that people desire to believe.
It may be the same with Tiger. There will be those who will stubbornly cling to the image of what they WANT him to be, regardless of what the truth may eventually reveal.
What is the truth?
People are complicated—and people of wealth and power are MORE complicated, if only because those within the inner circle around the rich and influential create images that belie the facts.
It’s likely the truth about King Edward VIII and Tiger Woods lies somewhere between the sordid allegations portrayed as facts---and the crafted façade. And most of us will choose one extreme or the other.
As for me, I’m glad that I am not a King….and that I suck at golf.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Woods successfully cultivated a public persona that was ideal for the buttoned-down and staid world of golf—and crafted also for the corporate universe that attracted hugely lucrative sponsorships. All of this façade vanished with a small fender-bender.
Such is the fragility of a double-life, especially from someone so much in the public eye.
While we won’t know the extent of Tiger’s indiscretions for some time to come, it is clear that he is not the exception to the rule. In fact, more serious offenses by others have gone either undetected, ignored or dismissed.
Such MAY be the case with King Edward VIII, who abdicated the British throne on this date in 1936. The prevailing sentiment is that Edward gave it all up for love—and he has since been revered by many for choosing the woman of his dreams over the trappings of royalty.
The Readers Digest version of this story is that Edward voluntarily chose to exit the throne after the British Government, the public and the Church of England condemned his decision to marry American divorcee Wallis Warfield Simpson. Edward had been King for less than a year. Popular with his subjects, his affair with the then-married Simpson was reported widely in the U.S., but kept out of English newspapers.
So, end of story, right? Romance won out over power and wealth—and lovers of love the world over have elevated Edward to the throne as Ultimate Romantic.
It seems that there may be more to the story, as evidenced on this documentary. Part 1 is below—if you are interested, you can pull up the other segments-fascinating stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-bVcRB7CF0
So, was Edward a philanderer, a traitor and a Nazi sympathizer?
We may never know, but one thing is for sure. Prevailing sentiment that Edward gave it all up for the woman he loved has dominated the public image for so long—that the truth—whatever it may be---will likely not replace the storybook version that people desire to believe.
It may be the same with Tiger. There will be those who will stubbornly cling to the image of what they WANT him to be, regardless of what the truth may eventually reveal.
What is the truth?
People are complicated—and people of wealth and power are MORE complicated, if only because those within the inner circle around the rich and influential create images that belie the facts.
It’s likely the truth about King Edward VIII and Tiger Woods lies somewhere between the sordid allegations portrayed as facts---and the crafted façade. And most of us will choose one extreme or the other.
As for me, I’m glad that I am not a King….and that I suck at golf.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Sinatra's Kidnapper Cashes In
It was a crime that was tailor made for the tabloids. Frank Sinatra’s 19 year old son Frank, Jr. was kidnapped on December 8, 1963.
Star power, money and both law enforcement and the mob all came together for a tale of intrigue that still has some wondering today exactly what happened.
Abducted at gunpoint from Harrah’s in Lake Tahoe, the young Sinatra, who was following in his father’s footsteps—was taken to Canoga Park, California. It was on this date 46 years ago that the victim spoke briefly to his father by phone. Afterwards, the kidnappers demanded a ransom of $240,000.
The young mastermind of the scheme, Barry Keenan, had also considered the sons of Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. He and his accomplices settled on Sinatra, however, thinking he would be tough enough to handle the ordeal. The crime was originally planned for November, but President Kennedy’s assassination delayed their scheme.
Robert Kennedy, then Attorney General offered his assistance. So too, did Sam Giancana, one of the country’s most powerful organized crime leaders. The elder Sinatra declined-and instead sought the help of the FBI.
Thankfully, the drop-off of the young victim on Mulholland Drive in Los Angeles occurred without harm to Sinatra. In an attempt to avoid a public scene, police actually stuffed Sinatra into the trunk of the squad car for the ride home!
Here’s a video of Frank, Jr. appearing with his sister Nancy on the Smothers Brothers Show some 4 years after his ordeal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqWZoL_luxo
Within a few days, one of Keenan’s partners John Irwin turned himself in to the FBI in San Diego. By December 14, all the perpetrators had been located and arrested.
Most interesting is the defense strategy at trial. Flamboyant LA attorney Gladys Root contended that Frank, Jr. has orchestrated his own abduction as a publicity stunt. To this day, there are those who believe this was true-despite the lack of evidence. Keenan was convicted-and served 4 ½ years in federal prison. After release, he became a successful real estate developer.
Instead of burying that chapter of his life, Keenan sold the rights to his story for over a million dollars. Before a movie could be made, the case ended up in court. Here’s a quick video explaining how Keenan made money from the kidnapping:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_XfxQP6he8
So, to avoid violating his “right to free speech”, Keenan indeed profited handsomely from his illegal deeds.
In a world where justice should prevent criminals from cashing in on their crimes, it seems that sometimes we are more concerned about the rights of the criminal than we are for the rights of the victim!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Star power, money and both law enforcement and the mob all came together for a tale of intrigue that still has some wondering today exactly what happened.
Abducted at gunpoint from Harrah’s in Lake Tahoe, the young Sinatra, who was following in his father’s footsteps—was taken to Canoga Park, California. It was on this date 46 years ago that the victim spoke briefly to his father by phone. Afterwards, the kidnappers demanded a ransom of $240,000.
The young mastermind of the scheme, Barry Keenan, had also considered the sons of Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. He and his accomplices settled on Sinatra, however, thinking he would be tough enough to handle the ordeal. The crime was originally planned for November, but President Kennedy’s assassination delayed their scheme.
Robert Kennedy, then Attorney General offered his assistance. So too, did Sam Giancana, one of the country’s most powerful organized crime leaders. The elder Sinatra declined-and instead sought the help of the FBI.
Thankfully, the drop-off of the young victim on Mulholland Drive in Los Angeles occurred without harm to Sinatra. In an attempt to avoid a public scene, police actually stuffed Sinatra into the trunk of the squad car for the ride home!
Here’s a video of Frank, Jr. appearing with his sister Nancy on the Smothers Brothers Show some 4 years after his ordeal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqWZoL_luxo
Within a few days, one of Keenan’s partners John Irwin turned himself in to the FBI in San Diego. By December 14, all the perpetrators had been located and arrested.
Most interesting is the defense strategy at trial. Flamboyant LA attorney Gladys Root contended that Frank, Jr. has orchestrated his own abduction as a publicity stunt. To this day, there are those who believe this was true-despite the lack of evidence. Keenan was convicted-and served 4 ½ years in federal prison. After release, he became a successful real estate developer.
Instead of burying that chapter of his life, Keenan sold the rights to his story for over a million dollars. Before a movie could be made, the case ended up in court. Here’s a quick video explaining how Keenan made money from the kidnapping:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_XfxQP6he8
So, to avoid violating his “right to free speech”, Keenan indeed profited handsomely from his illegal deeds.
In a world where justice should prevent criminals from cashing in on their crimes, it seems that sometimes we are more concerned about the rights of the criminal than we are for the rights of the victim!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Mountain Dew Is Not The Enemy
I know that sugary, caffeinated soft drinks are not exactly “health food”, but I am amused and simultaneously dismayed by the efforts by some to demonize these beverages as the CAUSE of childhood obesity, tooth decay and over stimulated behavior.
Huh?
In a society where there is ever-growing abdication of responsibility by parents, it is easy to find an enemy. More and more, that enemy is the media---and commercials that supposedly “target” young people.
Soft drinks are joining so-called “junk food”, “fast food”—and other products that are claimed to be harmful to young people (and adults as well). This is rubbish-if only because the food itself is not inherently harmful or dangerous. It is merely the level of intake that causes ANY food product to potentially cause a problem.
For your amusement, I have embedded the very first commercial for Mountain Dew. Seeing the “X-Game” persona of young people living-on-the-edge image that current marketing depicts, the original ad was a tad more…well…down home! Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xd8fzk8Rlk
It is the job of the media to inform and entertain. That entertainment is funded by corporate America. Companies supporting the media with advertising are in the business of creating demand for their products. It is the nature of our system. Go ahead and shoot the messenger, but until behavior makes an about face, the problem will continue to exist.
Childhood obesity may have a genetic component, but more likely is the result of parental neglect. Moms and Dads who allow excessive TV viewing, computer usage or video game activity (and we use the word “activity” tongue-in-cheek here)—and further allow these pastimes to be combined with unrestricted snacking have only themselves to blame.
Not the media, not corporate America, not “social pressures”, not a “syndrome” to be given a label. Just plain ol’ Mom and Dad.
In my house, it’s called “screen time”—and whether it is a Gameboy, Nintendo DS or TV, the amount of sedentary time tethered to the gadget must be regulated—and restricted.
Of course, there are real issues of children with too much time on their hands while their parents are working. This may be the source—as the machines have assumed the role of electronic babysitter.
A soft drink or two won’t kill you. Neither will a Twinkie. Consuming a case of Dew and a box of Twinkies—and combining with chips, candy and unlimited inactivity---well, that’s another story!
Let’s take our kids back and show them the outdoors again! It is not the media’s issue-it is ours.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Huh?
In a society where there is ever-growing abdication of responsibility by parents, it is easy to find an enemy. More and more, that enemy is the media---and commercials that supposedly “target” young people.
Soft drinks are joining so-called “junk food”, “fast food”—and other products that are claimed to be harmful to young people (and adults as well). This is rubbish-if only because the food itself is not inherently harmful or dangerous. It is merely the level of intake that causes ANY food product to potentially cause a problem.
For your amusement, I have embedded the very first commercial for Mountain Dew. Seeing the “X-Game” persona of young people living-on-the-edge image that current marketing depicts, the original ad was a tad more…well…down home! Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xd8fzk8Rlk
It is the job of the media to inform and entertain. That entertainment is funded by corporate America. Companies supporting the media with advertising are in the business of creating demand for their products. It is the nature of our system. Go ahead and shoot the messenger, but until behavior makes an about face, the problem will continue to exist.
Childhood obesity may have a genetic component, but more likely is the result of parental neglect. Moms and Dads who allow excessive TV viewing, computer usage or video game activity (and we use the word “activity” tongue-in-cheek here)—and further allow these pastimes to be combined with unrestricted snacking have only themselves to blame.
Not the media, not corporate America, not “social pressures”, not a “syndrome” to be given a label. Just plain ol’ Mom and Dad.
In my house, it’s called “screen time”—and whether it is a Gameboy, Nintendo DS or TV, the amount of sedentary time tethered to the gadget must be regulated—and restricted.
Of course, there are real issues of children with too much time on their hands while their parents are working. This may be the source—as the machines have assumed the role of electronic babysitter.
A soft drink or two won’t kill you. Neither will a Twinkie. Consuming a case of Dew and a box of Twinkies—and combining with chips, candy and unlimited inactivity---well, that’s another story!
Let’s take our kids back and show them the outdoors again! It is not the media’s issue-it is ours.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Take Heart Redskin Fans-It Has Been Worse
Diehard Washington Redskin football fans like myself have been distraught over this season’s horrible team.
Sunday’s near-win over undefeated New Orleans has been seen by some as a sign of improvement. Maybe so, but no one can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the ‘Skins! The Saints were the third team in a row that Washington played well against, were essentially close to beating—and then the wheels came off. Philadelphia the week before and Dallas before that have made just BEING a Redskin fan a painful experience in 2009.
Some say that the team has never been lower.
Hope this will cheer you up then, as it was on this date in 1940 that the NFL record was set for lopsided victory. Yes, friends, it was the Washington Redskins who were the victim of the Chicago Bears in the NFL Championship game.
The score? 73-0
Yes, that’s right-SEVENTY-THREE to ZERO (It actually looks better written out like that). Here’s a short clip of the slaughter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XONlSb4ka8
Chicago had lost to the Redskins during the regular season. Afterwards, Washington owner George Preston Marshall told reporters that the Bears were “quitters” and “crybabies”. Chicago owner George Halas used Marshall’s words to fire up his team when it came time to play in the championship.
I think it worked.
It was 28-0 at the half—and officials actually asked the Bears to refrain from kicking extra points.
Why?
Because they were running out of FOOTBALLS, so many had been kicked into the stands!
For those cities whose teams have never tasted Super Bowl victory (Minneapolis/St. Paul, Houston, Buffalo and yes, New Orleans) it may seem greedy to complain when there have been years of gloryin 'ol D.C.. Three World Championships are nothing to scoff at.
However-and maybe it’s just me—the Daniel Snyder ownership era has been riddled with knee-jerk coaching changes, big dollars spent for marginal performers—and most recently, the threat to SUE SEASON TICKET HOLDERS who could not afford the costs of tickets due to the economy. Now, THAT’S great P.R., no?
Short of an ownership change-and a head coaching change (again), the Redskins will likely struggle for a few more years-at least until they aquire a QB who can LEAD the team. Last week’s performance notwithstanding, Jason Campbell is a horrible quarterback—and in this league, some ability beyond mere arm strength must be required.
Campbell has a good arm, but unfortunately not a good head to go with it. Head Coach Jim Zorn, himself a former QB and quarterbacks coach—has had plenty of time to turn the young man around. It hasn’t worked.
So, Redskin fans—take heart! As we wait, fill your head with visions of Riggins, Theismann, Sonny and better days! Our time will come again…someday!Hail to the Redskins!If you’d like my blog in your box, drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Sunday’s near-win over undefeated New Orleans has been seen by some as a sign of improvement. Maybe so, but no one can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the ‘Skins! The Saints were the third team in a row that Washington played well against, were essentially close to beating—and then the wheels came off. Philadelphia the week before and Dallas before that have made just BEING a Redskin fan a painful experience in 2009.
Some say that the team has never been lower.
Hope this will cheer you up then, as it was on this date in 1940 that the NFL record was set for lopsided victory. Yes, friends, it was the Washington Redskins who were the victim of the Chicago Bears in the NFL Championship game.
The score? 73-0
Yes, that’s right-SEVENTY-THREE to ZERO (It actually looks better written out like that). Here’s a short clip of the slaughter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XONlSb4ka8
Chicago had lost to the Redskins during the regular season. Afterwards, Washington owner George Preston Marshall told reporters that the Bears were “quitters” and “crybabies”. Chicago owner George Halas used Marshall’s words to fire up his team when it came time to play in the championship.
I think it worked.
It was 28-0 at the half—and officials actually asked the Bears to refrain from kicking extra points.
Why?
Because they were running out of FOOTBALLS, so many had been kicked into the stands!
For those cities whose teams have never tasted Super Bowl victory (Minneapolis/St. Paul, Houston, Buffalo and yes, New Orleans) it may seem greedy to complain when there have been years of gloryin 'ol D.C.. Three World Championships are nothing to scoff at.
However-and maybe it’s just me—the Daniel Snyder ownership era has been riddled with knee-jerk coaching changes, big dollars spent for marginal performers—and most recently, the threat to SUE SEASON TICKET HOLDERS who could not afford the costs of tickets due to the economy. Now, THAT’S great P.R., no?
Short of an ownership change-and a head coaching change (again), the Redskins will likely struggle for a few more years-at least until they aquire a QB who can LEAD the team. Last week’s performance notwithstanding, Jason Campbell is a horrible quarterback—and in this league, some ability beyond mere arm strength must be required.
Campbell has a good arm, but unfortunately not a good head to go with it. Head Coach Jim Zorn, himself a former QB and quarterbacks coach—has had plenty of time to turn the young man around. It hasn’t worked.
So, Redskin fans—take heart! As we wait, fill your head with visions of Riggins, Theismann, Sonny and better days! Our time will come again…someday!Hail to the Redskins!If you’d like my blog in your box, drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, December 7, 2009
Pearl Harbor-68 Years Later
It was on this date in 1941—at around 7:55am local time, that 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.
I have just finished reading 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
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.
Our recent uncovering of a future terrorist attack was the most heartening news we have had. Where many were shocked and frightened by the exposure of this plot, I was frankly comforted in the knowledge that at least some portion of our national security team is working overtime to stop the threats BEFORE they occur.
It’s important to note that while we were looking elsewhere, the 9-11 terrorists were all HERE, living among us, taking flight lessons, assimilating into our culture. They were biding their time, leaving clues as to their plans---but clues that we collectively ignored—or worse, didn’t even see.
“They” are still here, still planning.
Let’s catch them before they surprise us again in a horrific way.
In short, REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR and 9/11!!
If you’d like my weekday blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
I have just finished reading 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
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.
Our recent uncovering of a future terrorist attack was the most heartening news we have had. Where many were shocked and frightened by the exposure of this plot, I was frankly comforted in the knowledge that at least some portion of our national security team is working overtime to stop the threats BEFORE they occur.
It’s important to note that while we were looking elsewhere, the 9-11 terrorists were all HERE, living among us, taking flight lessons, assimilating into our culture. They were biding their time, leaving clues as to their plans---but clues that we collectively ignored—or worse, didn’t even see.
“They” are still here, still planning.
Let’s catch them before they surprise us again in a horrific way.
In short, REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR and 9/11!!
If you’d like my weekday blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, December 4, 2009
Economic Gymnastics
Part of the problem with our economic system is that it is run by a bunch of eggheads who have likely not gone out and bought a dozen eggs or a loaf of bread in years. They are living in a bubble, completely detached from the everyday people who struggle to make ends meet.
Instead, these elite intellectuals are locked up in their “think tanks”, presumably….thinking. But given the current state of affairs, they might just be playing Super Mario Brothers or Solitaire on those supercomputers of theirs.
I took Economics in college-and I still remember enough of it that terms like “M-1” (money supply) and “discount rate” make sense to me. However, when you delve into “derivatives”, “hedge funds backed by commercial paper”, etc…I start to glaze over. My guess is that most other people do too.
Yeah, let’s “fix” the economy, but what the hell do you actually DO? I haven’t the foggiest notion of what WOULD work—or worse, what could make the situation more dire. It’s my guess that Congress doesn’t know either. Aside from the shared indignation for continued multi-million dollar bonuses for managers of bailed-out companies (hey, it’s OUR money they are getting), there is little to grasp onto.
My guess is that guys like Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke rely on this collective ignorance to spin their web of excuses and reasoning for why things are not getting much better—and especially for shielding us from the specific information on exactly WHERE all that money went to. I don’t accuse him of willful malfeasance—however, there is a certain amount of arrogance and disdain born of the feelings of intellectual superiority that rise to the surface when the lowly (Congress, the media, the American people) challenges their judgment.
First of all, I have NO IDEA whether Bernanke is the man for the job. I thought he was a bright economist with a scholarly approach to the job given his supposed expertise with the historical underpinnings of why the Great Depression was made WORSE by meddling from Congress and the President.
Ben sat in a very hot seat yesterday—as he was grilled, toasted, screwed and tattooed by the Republican Senator from Kentucky, Jim Bunning. I have no idea if he knows what he is talking about, but watch this and see if what he says has merit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVwr-Nf0slQ
OK…do you have an opinion?
Bernanke did a poor job of defending himself, I think, but where would you begin to refute all of the accusations?
I don’t know if Bernanke is part of the problem, but I sure would like to hear him answer each charge definitively.
Would love to hear YOUR feedback on this---maybe your opinion will become mine, as I currently don’t have one!
If you’d like my weekday blog in your inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Instead, these elite intellectuals are locked up in their “think tanks”, presumably….thinking. But given the current state of affairs, they might just be playing Super Mario Brothers or Solitaire on those supercomputers of theirs.
I took Economics in college-and I still remember enough of it that terms like “M-1” (money supply) and “discount rate” make sense to me. However, when you delve into “derivatives”, “hedge funds backed by commercial paper”, etc…I start to glaze over. My guess is that most other people do too.
Yeah, let’s “fix” the economy, but what the hell do you actually DO? I haven’t the foggiest notion of what WOULD work—or worse, what could make the situation more dire. It’s my guess that Congress doesn’t know either. Aside from the shared indignation for continued multi-million dollar bonuses for managers of bailed-out companies (hey, it’s OUR money they are getting), there is little to grasp onto.
My guess is that guys like Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke rely on this collective ignorance to spin their web of excuses and reasoning for why things are not getting much better—and especially for shielding us from the specific information on exactly WHERE all that money went to. I don’t accuse him of willful malfeasance—however, there is a certain amount of arrogance and disdain born of the feelings of intellectual superiority that rise to the surface when the lowly (Congress, the media, the American people) challenges their judgment.
First of all, I have NO IDEA whether Bernanke is the man for the job. I thought he was a bright economist with a scholarly approach to the job given his supposed expertise with the historical underpinnings of why the Great Depression was made WORSE by meddling from Congress and the President.
Ben sat in a very hot seat yesterday—as he was grilled, toasted, screwed and tattooed by the Republican Senator from Kentucky, Jim Bunning. I have no idea if he knows what he is talking about, but watch this and see if what he says has merit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVwr-Nf0slQ
OK…do you have an opinion?
Bernanke did a poor job of defending himself, I think, but where would you begin to refute all of the accusations?
I don’t know if Bernanke is part of the problem, but I sure would like to hear him answer each charge definitively.
Would love to hear YOUR feedback on this---maybe your opinion will become mine, as I currently don’t have one!
If you’d like my weekday blog in your inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Practical Jokes
Everyone knows somebody whose idea of a good time is to pull “practical jokes” on unsuspecting family members, co-workers---and even strangers.
Not sure if this propensity is genetic—a recessive cruelty gene—or perhaps the effects of a warped childhood. Maybe those who partake of these often elaborate schemes were themselves the target of these jokes and now--- it’s payback time.
Where did the term “practical joke” come from? Webster’s Dictionary gives several definitions of the word “practical”, only the first of which can be STRETCHED to apply:
1) “of or obtained through practice or action” (this one has to be it)
2) “useful” (uh…..I don’t think so)
3) “concerned with the application of knowledge to useful ends” (here again the word “useful” disqualifies #3)
4) “dealing realistically and sensibly with everyday matters” ( nope)
Enjoy this video compilation of everyday people being scared out of their wits by—in most cases—people they seem to know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MOriOpcgeQ
OK, I admit that I laughed out loud at most of these, but in the case of the older people, isn’t a fatal heart attack a possible outcome here? In this case, the victim may get the last laugh as they get to watch you (from the pearly gates, of course) being sent to a federal prison for involuntary manslaughter!
We have all been guilty of participating in practical jokes at one time or another I suppose, but I’d like to think that my transgressions have not been of the severity that would cause instant death or serious injury.
A warning to those who may attempt to make ME the butt of the joke---if it’s harmless, I’ll be fine with it. However, if you do ANY of the things depicted in the video above, you’ll “crusin’ for a bruisin’”!!!
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Not sure if this propensity is genetic—a recessive cruelty gene—or perhaps the effects of a warped childhood. Maybe those who partake of these often elaborate schemes were themselves the target of these jokes and now--- it’s payback time.
Where did the term “practical joke” come from? Webster’s Dictionary gives several definitions of the word “practical”, only the first of which can be STRETCHED to apply:
1) “of or obtained through practice or action” (this one has to be it)
2) “useful” (uh…..I don’t think so)
3) “concerned with the application of knowledge to useful ends” (here again the word “useful” disqualifies #3)
4) “dealing realistically and sensibly with everyday matters” ( nope)
Enjoy this video compilation of everyday people being scared out of their wits by—in most cases—people they seem to know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MOriOpcgeQ
OK, I admit that I laughed out loud at most of these, but in the case of the older people, isn’t a fatal heart attack a possible outcome here? In this case, the victim may get the last laugh as they get to watch you (from the pearly gates, of course) being sent to a federal prison for involuntary manslaughter!
We have all been guilty of participating in practical jokes at one time or another I suppose, but I’d like to think that my transgressions have not been of the severity that would cause instant death or serious injury.
A warning to those who may attempt to make ME the butt of the joke---if it’s harmless, I’ll be fine with it. However, if you do ANY of the things depicted in the video above, you’ll “crusin’ for a bruisin’”!!!
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Sports Hero
After the Tiger Woods revelations today (with no doubt more to come), I’ve decided not to “pile on”. I have always admired his talent and his competitive spirit—and now that we have seen that he is merely human with all of the flaws that many of us have, I’ll respect his wishes for privacy—and will decline judging him.
There are sports heroes I do admire—and Archie Griffin of The Ohio State University is one of them. The ONLY two-time Heisman Trophy winner picked up his second statue on this date in 1975.
All of that could change a week from Saturday( the 12th), as Tim Tebow of Florida could garner his second award. In fact, Tebow was a finalist last year and the prospect of his winning three was NOT remote after scoring the first one as a sophomore.
As an OSU alum, I cannot begin to claim impartiality, but Griffin’s accomplishments are the stuff of legend. In his very first game as a freshman (the first year that true freshman could play varsity), Coach Woody Hayes was reluctant about putting Griffin in the game against North Carolina.
He shouldn’t have worried. Griffin rushed for 239 yards in his very first appearance, setting a single-game rushing record for Ohio State! Needless to say, Griffin started every other game in his career-and in 1974, became only the 5th junior to win the Heisman.
During his senior season, Griffin extended his streak of 100-plus-yard games to 31, picking up his unprecedented SECOND Heisman on this day 34 years ago.
Enjoy this Ohio State football propaganda film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZoGCFXcdJA
Griffin went on to play for the Cincinnati Bengals-a career that lasted for seven years before a serious stomach injury sidelined him for good.
He returned to his alma mater in 1984, becoming Associate Athletic Director-and later President of the OSU Alumni Association.
His number (45) was the first one ever retired at Ohio State.
GO BUCKS!!!!
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
There are sports heroes I do admire—and Archie Griffin of The Ohio State University is one of them. The ONLY two-time Heisman Trophy winner picked up his second statue on this date in 1975.
All of that could change a week from Saturday( the 12th), as Tim Tebow of Florida could garner his second award. In fact, Tebow was a finalist last year and the prospect of his winning three was NOT remote after scoring the first one as a sophomore.
As an OSU alum, I cannot begin to claim impartiality, but Griffin’s accomplishments are the stuff of legend. In his very first game as a freshman (the first year that true freshman could play varsity), Coach Woody Hayes was reluctant about putting Griffin in the game against North Carolina.
He shouldn’t have worried. Griffin rushed for 239 yards in his very first appearance, setting a single-game rushing record for Ohio State! Needless to say, Griffin started every other game in his career-and in 1974, became only the 5th junior to win the Heisman.
During his senior season, Griffin extended his streak of 100-plus-yard games to 31, picking up his unprecedented SECOND Heisman on this day 34 years ago.
Enjoy this Ohio State football propaganda film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZoGCFXcdJA
Griffin went on to play for the Cincinnati Bengals-a career that lasted for seven years before a serious stomach injury sidelined him for good.
He returned to his alma mater in 1984, becoming Associate Athletic Director-and later President of the OSU Alumni Association.
His number (45) was the first one ever retired at Ohio State.
GO BUCKS!!!!
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
I Can Hardly Spell Afghanistan
Well, tonight’s the night.
President Obama will use the backdrop of West Point to outline his plans for the war in Afghanistan. In a sea of horrible choices, he will make one that will likely please no one (not even the generals who requested extra troops). His challenge, without a doubt—is to define what SUCCESS means for this war and to articulate an end game.
Good luck, Mr. President.
It’s true that this is not a mess that Obama got us into. That said, the President’s campaign rhetoric focused on Afghanistan as being the true focal point for the war, not Iraq. It’s likely this was a political move to be able to simultaneously be critical of the Bush war strategy without appearing soft on terrorism. At the time, Obama proposed 8,000 to 10,000 additional troops.
Since the election, we have sent about 20,000 more troops in—and the advances on tonight’s plan indicate the President will send another 30 to 35 thousand American soldiers into the country, a nation that is led by a corrupt government.
Watch this outstanding report on Afghanistan, produced for “60 Minutes” earlier this year—and you’ll get a better sense of what we are up against:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDonqtAf-8
FDR had to fight isolationist sentiment at the start of WWII. After the first World War-and still suffering the effects of the Depression with unemployment exceedingly high (sound familiar?), the nation was in no mood to send American boys overseas-again. Roosevelt’s wildly inventive “Lend-Lease” strategy to supply Great Britain and Russia with war materiel (avoiding the restrictions of the Neutrality Act) gained American support SOLELY because assisting the British and Russians in fighting the war against Hitler was far superior to the U.S. getting involved ourselves.
At some point, we have got to realize that the United States cannot impose its will on other countries without having it bite us in the rear. We should have learned this with the Shah of Iran. We did not. Numerous examples of meddling in the affairs of other nations have done nothing but plant the seeds of hatred that have caused extremists to export their “jihad” to our shores.
We need to get out—and soon.
Is it “isolationist” to engage politically and economically, but NOT militarily? As the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” depicted, supplying the forces we support with arms and cash is a far cry from landing in their backyard with American ground troops.
Security starts at home—and it is my belief that terrorists plotting against the United States are likely ALREADY HERE and making their plans with biochemical weapons, investigating our water supplies, our electrical grids and other mass destruction avenues that have little to do with desert training in the mountains of Afghanistan.
The rationale for staying the course revolves around the notion that our exit will allow the Taliban to flourish.
Guess what? They will anyway, unless the PEOPLE of Afghanistan rise up against that type of oppression. If the people can organize and fight the Taliban, the U.S. can be there with the implements of war and the training—but NOT the troops. It is widely believed that Afghanistan’s tribal in-fighting prevents a unified attack. OK, but how is that now OUR problem?
We simply cannot be the world’s policeman—and our selective outrage at certain countries for “crimes against humanity” are neutralized by our indifference to similar offenses committed by other countries (like China) with whom we have a stronger economic relationship (read “dependency”)
It’s hypocritical to feign indignation at one country and ignorance for another when both are engaging in similar behavior.
The security we seek is for AMERICAN targets on AMERICAN soil. As this past week’s sad breach at the White House demonstrated, all a willing terrorist needs to assassinate our President at his own party is a tuxedo or evening gown.
We are missing the true threat. It is HERE, not THERE.
Get out—responsibly, but rapidly. Bring the troops home. Employ the National Guard in ways they were meant to be used—protecting OUR borders, protecting OUR facilities and guarding OUR people.
Work diplomatically and economically to alleviate the woes of the world, but stop short of doing it militarily.
Much has changed since WWII, so references to FDR are perhaps irrelevant, but on this day, the 54th anniversary of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama bus, the United States has a black man as President.
Much progress has been made-and Obama embodies that progress.
This man, our Commander-In-Chief, needs to define a new era of what we are to do in a hostile country thousands of miles away—and what the future role of the United States should be in the world community going forward.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
President Obama will use the backdrop of West Point to outline his plans for the war in Afghanistan. In a sea of horrible choices, he will make one that will likely please no one (not even the generals who requested extra troops). His challenge, without a doubt—is to define what SUCCESS means for this war and to articulate an end game.
Good luck, Mr. President.
It’s true that this is not a mess that Obama got us into. That said, the President’s campaign rhetoric focused on Afghanistan as being the true focal point for the war, not Iraq. It’s likely this was a political move to be able to simultaneously be critical of the Bush war strategy without appearing soft on terrorism. At the time, Obama proposed 8,000 to 10,000 additional troops.
Since the election, we have sent about 20,000 more troops in—and the advances on tonight’s plan indicate the President will send another 30 to 35 thousand American soldiers into the country, a nation that is led by a corrupt government.
Watch this outstanding report on Afghanistan, produced for “60 Minutes” earlier this year—and you’ll get a better sense of what we are up against:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDonqtAf-8
FDR had to fight isolationist sentiment at the start of WWII. After the first World War-and still suffering the effects of the Depression with unemployment exceedingly high (sound familiar?), the nation was in no mood to send American boys overseas-again. Roosevelt’s wildly inventive “Lend-Lease” strategy to supply Great Britain and Russia with war materiel (avoiding the restrictions of the Neutrality Act) gained American support SOLELY because assisting the British and Russians in fighting the war against Hitler was far superior to the U.S. getting involved ourselves.
At some point, we have got to realize that the United States cannot impose its will on other countries without having it bite us in the rear. We should have learned this with the Shah of Iran. We did not. Numerous examples of meddling in the affairs of other nations have done nothing but plant the seeds of hatred that have caused extremists to export their “jihad” to our shores.
We need to get out—and soon.
Is it “isolationist” to engage politically and economically, but NOT militarily? As the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” depicted, supplying the forces we support with arms and cash is a far cry from landing in their backyard with American ground troops.
Security starts at home—and it is my belief that terrorists plotting against the United States are likely ALREADY HERE and making their plans with biochemical weapons, investigating our water supplies, our electrical grids and other mass destruction avenues that have little to do with desert training in the mountains of Afghanistan.
The rationale for staying the course revolves around the notion that our exit will allow the Taliban to flourish.
Guess what? They will anyway, unless the PEOPLE of Afghanistan rise up against that type of oppression. If the people can organize and fight the Taliban, the U.S. can be there with the implements of war and the training—but NOT the troops. It is widely believed that Afghanistan’s tribal in-fighting prevents a unified attack. OK, but how is that now OUR problem?
We simply cannot be the world’s policeman—and our selective outrage at certain countries for “crimes against humanity” are neutralized by our indifference to similar offenses committed by other countries (like China) with whom we have a stronger economic relationship (read “dependency”)
It’s hypocritical to feign indignation at one country and ignorance for another when both are engaging in similar behavior.
The security we seek is for AMERICAN targets on AMERICAN soil. As this past week’s sad breach at the White House demonstrated, all a willing terrorist needs to assassinate our President at his own party is a tuxedo or evening gown.
We are missing the true threat. It is HERE, not THERE.
Get out—responsibly, but rapidly. Bring the troops home. Employ the National Guard in ways they were meant to be used—protecting OUR borders, protecting OUR facilities and guarding OUR people.
Work diplomatically and economically to alleviate the woes of the world, but stop short of doing it militarily.
Much has changed since WWII, so references to FDR are perhaps irrelevant, but on this day, the 54th anniversary of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama bus, the United States has a black man as President.
Much progress has been made-and Obama embodies that progress.
This man, our Commander-In-Chief, needs to define a new era of what we are to do in a hostile country thousands of miles away—and what the future role of the United States should be in the world community going forward.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
