Maine in February is no time to think about the greatest game ever invented, since the grass is usually completely hidden by FEET of snow.
This year, however, is different. The relatively mild temps, coupled with all that rain-and the fact that the Mid Atlantic states seem to have received all of our snow (our pleasure!), I am seeing my yard! There is GRASS there!
While I not-so-patiently wait for the chance to tee it up, I thought you might enjoy this golf blooper video. Even if golf is not your sport (and it most certainly isn’t for some of the poor souls in this film), you will get a chuckle out of this, the most humbling of games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sERwdGY_ITU
It won’t be long!
Have a terrific weekend—and if you’d like my blog in your daily in-box, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It is delivered to you daily FORE free!
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
First African American Congressman
In 2008, America crossed a threshold by electing Barack Obama as the very first President of African American descent. It was certainly an accomplishment in the sense that Americans of all stripes essentially set aside the issue of race in order to elect whom they felt was the best qualified candidate for the job.
It was about time—remarkable, but not astounding, since our nation has come a long way since the Civil War.
If you had asked me when the first African American was elected to Congress, I would probably have said sometime in the 1940’s or even the 50’s.
Not even close.
The year was 1870.
That’s right EIGHTEEN-seventy. Barely five years after the war prompted by the issue of slavery, Hiram Rhoades Revels, a Republican from Natchez, Mississippi was sworn into the U.S. Senate on this date in 1870.
Revels, a college-educated minister, helped form African American army regiments for the UNION cause, started a school for free men and served as a chaplain for the Union army. In January of 1870, Revels was elected to the Mississippi Legislature to fill the seat once occupied by none other than Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy. Now, THAT’S irony for ya!
Perhaps more amazing than a black man in the Senate just after the Civil War is the fact that (as of 2008) he remains one of only FIVE African Americans to serve as U.S. Senators. That fact is perhaps even more incredible than Revels' term coming when it did.
Here is a quick video resume for America’s first black congressman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=offq5Mp_FDU
Progress will truly come when sex, race and religion fail to affect the outcome of elections. President Kennedy dispelled the notion that a Roman Catholic could not be elected—and Barack Obama neutralized the issue of race in 2008. Hillary Clinton’s exceedingly close defeat to Obama demonstrated that gender would likely not have been a factor had she been the Democratic nominee.
There will surely be a woman President in the future, a Hispanic Chief Executive and maybe even someone whose religion is Islam—although I’ll bet that we are a long way from that last threshold, given the public's orientation today. Of course, the goal is never to affirm our absence of prejudice by purposely voting in someone of a specific “group”, be it nationality, gender or religious preference.
Let’s stick to the three C’s:
Character
Competence
Communicator
Other C’s like: Charisma or Correctness (as in Political) can dangle forever as completely irrelevant.
Remember, if Charisma (seen by many as essential) was employed as a “must-have” quality more than a century ago, a young lawyer by the name of Abraham Lincoln would never have been elected. And that’s a sobering thought.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It was about time—remarkable, but not astounding, since our nation has come a long way since the Civil War.
If you had asked me when the first African American was elected to Congress, I would probably have said sometime in the 1940’s or even the 50’s.
Not even close.
The year was 1870.
That’s right EIGHTEEN-seventy. Barely five years after the war prompted by the issue of slavery, Hiram Rhoades Revels, a Republican from Natchez, Mississippi was sworn into the U.S. Senate on this date in 1870.
Revels, a college-educated minister, helped form African American army regiments for the UNION cause, started a school for free men and served as a chaplain for the Union army. In January of 1870, Revels was elected to the Mississippi Legislature to fill the seat once occupied by none other than Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy. Now, THAT’S irony for ya!
Perhaps more amazing than a black man in the Senate just after the Civil War is the fact that (as of 2008) he remains one of only FIVE African Americans to serve as U.S. Senators. That fact is perhaps even more incredible than Revels' term coming when it did.
Here is a quick video resume for America’s first black congressman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=offq5Mp_FDU
Progress will truly come when sex, race and religion fail to affect the outcome of elections. President Kennedy dispelled the notion that a Roman Catholic could not be elected—and Barack Obama neutralized the issue of race in 2008. Hillary Clinton’s exceedingly close defeat to Obama demonstrated that gender would likely not have been a factor had she been the Democratic nominee.
There will surely be a woman President in the future, a Hispanic Chief Executive and maybe even someone whose religion is Islam—although I’ll bet that we are a long way from that last threshold, given the public's orientation today. Of course, the goal is never to affirm our absence of prejudice by purposely voting in someone of a specific “group”, be it nationality, gender or religious preference.
Let’s stick to the three C’s:
Character
Competence
Communicator
Other C’s like: Charisma or Correctness (as in Political) can dangle forever as completely irrelevant.
Remember, if Charisma (seen by many as essential) was employed as a “must-have” quality more than a century ago, a young lawyer by the name of Abraham Lincoln would never have been elected. And that’s a sobering thought.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Mascot Miscues
Anyone who thinks that being a sports team mascot is easy duty should be re-educated by those who have donned an oversize head and waded into a crowd of rowdy sports fans!
In Portland, we are blessed by a bunch of great mascots, from the Portland Pirates “Crackers” and “Salty Pete” to the Red Claws “Crusher” to the Lewiston Maineiacs “Kollide” to perhaps the most beloved, The Portland Sea Dogs “Slugger”. Of course, we also have “Oakie” from Oakhurst Dairy and even the City of Portland has a mascot (which looks suspiciously like Slugger if you ask me)
Imagine crawling into a fur suit on an 85 degree day-expected to do gymnastics and pranks-all sorts of athletic maneuvers wearing a costume that inhibits walking let alone jumping and dancing!
Yet with all the poking and probing, pulling and yanking, the people behind the mask come back year after year. There must be something FUN to it all, although many children scream in terror when the mascot heads their way. Others are drawn like a magnet—and even adults act like children in the presence of a mascot.
Several quick videos today—of our local sports mascots—then a HILARIOUS montage of Mascot Bloopers!
Here is the introductory video for the Maine Red Claws mascot “Crusher”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wv5S56QF5U
Ha! Now, here’s one for “Slugger” the Sea Dog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQeAHHyjhko
Couldn’t find any Pirates mascot video, but here is the Maineiacs “Kollide”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFTmKF9Ukc0
And NOW, the best---Mascot Bloopers—enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqCjrYgO3xw
I’d love to try out being a mascot—but wonder if I could LAST even one game in that stifling suit! And I think I am nearly alone in that desire…so, until you volunteer, be good to your mascots—they may be working harder than the athletes out there!
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
In Portland, we are blessed by a bunch of great mascots, from the Portland Pirates “Crackers” and “Salty Pete” to the Red Claws “Crusher” to the Lewiston Maineiacs “Kollide” to perhaps the most beloved, The Portland Sea Dogs “Slugger”. Of course, we also have “Oakie” from Oakhurst Dairy and even the City of Portland has a mascot (which looks suspiciously like Slugger if you ask me)
Imagine crawling into a fur suit on an 85 degree day-expected to do gymnastics and pranks-all sorts of athletic maneuvers wearing a costume that inhibits walking let alone jumping and dancing!
Yet with all the poking and probing, pulling and yanking, the people behind the mask come back year after year. There must be something FUN to it all, although many children scream in terror when the mascot heads their way. Others are drawn like a magnet—and even adults act like children in the presence of a mascot.
Several quick videos today—of our local sports mascots—then a HILARIOUS montage of Mascot Bloopers!
Here is the introductory video for the Maine Red Claws mascot “Crusher”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wv5S56QF5U
Ha! Now, here’s one for “Slugger” the Sea Dog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQeAHHyjhko
Couldn’t find any Pirates mascot video, but here is the Maineiacs “Kollide”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFTmKF9Ukc0
And NOW, the best---Mascot Bloopers—enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqCjrYgO3xw
I’d love to try out being a mascot—but wonder if I could LAST even one game in that stifling suit! And I think I am nearly alone in that desire…so, until you volunteer, be good to your mascots—they may be working harder than the athletes out there!
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Take Ice Skating Out Of The Olympics
After taking a “blogcation” (a word I just made up for “vacation from blogging”), I am BACK with both guns blazing.
Yes, as the title suggests, I think figure skating should be thrown out of the Olympics.
In fact, I believe that Ice Dancing, Synchonized Swimming, Gymnastics and ANYTHING else that requires a judge to determine a winner should be jettisoned immediately.
No, I am not one of those people who don’t believe skating is a sport or that it is not athletic. Clearly it is, as are all of the others mentioned above. My issue is that SUBJECTIVE judgment by biased people should not enter into the formula. How many competitors have had their Olympic dreams dashed-not by their performance, but by their looks, their hairstyle or their nationality? The numbers would likely make us sick.
Don’t get me wrong. I truly enjoy watching all of these sports, but I cannot abide the snide remarks by the announcers (even if they are past champions) regarding so and so’s “interpretation of the music” or this couple’s “ability to connect” while doing their thing.
PLEASE.
As my brother-in-law Bob has said for years: “If it cannot be measured with a stopwatch, measuring tape or points scored against an opponent, it should not be an Olympic sport”. I completely agree. Speed skating works because there is a definitive winner-the only time judging comes into play is if intentional interference causes one skater to wipe another one out in order to win/advance.
I will sit and watch two performances (which I consider to be flawless because no one’s head smacked into the ice) and then be astounded when some self-important skating has-been doofus like DICK BUTTON will rip one of the pairs apart. Of course, he knows the ludicrous judging system because he is part of the problem—and he’ll usually be right. Sometimes, I’d like to hit him in the knee with a baseball bat—maybe Tonya Harding will lend me hers.
In case you’re not fully aware of the scoring system (which had to be changed after the 2002 Olympics when it was discovered that a Russian judge and a French judge colluded to rig the outcome), here is a short tutorial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYUXWqzSl80
Now, THAT’S simple and straightforward, no? When we are talking about .25 points here or there, there is a big problem.
The Ice Skating World, clique-ish enough as it is, blindly believes that the 2002 Olympics were somehow an aberration- that the rigging of results, the fixing of champions was not going on for years. The very phrase “He/she is a favorite of the judges!” is a blatant admission of bias in a sport where virtually EVERYTHING is subjective. Even though the present system is a vast improvement, each element carries the stigma of EVALUATION.
So, how to make it better?
Well, keep the present performances intact if skaters want to aspire to a career in the Ice Capades following their Olympic moment.
Do it for the TV audience.
But, for the scoring that the medals are based on, make everyone skate to the same music, perform the exact same routine—and score it based on time intervals between moves and whether or not one’s bottom lands on the ice.
Not perfect, I know, because judging is still involved, but eliminating these sports will just plain NOT happen. We know the odds of removing figure skating from the Olympics is about the same as Scott Hamilton playing inside linebacker for the Patriots.
Reducing everyone to the same program will also not happen-as boring to watch as the compulsories—which, while technically a better way to judge basic ability, makes dreadful TV.
No, it forever will be evaluation and judgment that control the outcome. What if that occurred in the other sports?Luge competitors aren’t scored on their “interpretation” of the course. At least with an identical routine, even viewers without judging credentials would likely pick the best competitors.
Do the same for gymnastics.
Let’s just drop synchronized swimming, OK?
If you’d like to receive my (mostly) weekday blog for free—a blog that 9 out of 10 judges have given a perfect score (never mind that I bribed them), just let me know:
Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Yes, as the title suggests, I think figure skating should be thrown out of the Olympics.
In fact, I believe that Ice Dancing, Synchonized Swimming, Gymnastics and ANYTHING else that requires a judge to determine a winner should be jettisoned immediately.
No, I am not one of those people who don’t believe skating is a sport or that it is not athletic. Clearly it is, as are all of the others mentioned above. My issue is that SUBJECTIVE judgment by biased people should not enter into the formula. How many competitors have had their Olympic dreams dashed-not by their performance, but by their looks, their hairstyle or their nationality? The numbers would likely make us sick.
Don’t get me wrong. I truly enjoy watching all of these sports, but I cannot abide the snide remarks by the announcers (even if they are past champions) regarding so and so’s “interpretation of the music” or this couple’s “ability to connect” while doing their thing.
PLEASE.
As my brother-in-law Bob has said for years: “If it cannot be measured with a stopwatch, measuring tape or points scored against an opponent, it should not be an Olympic sport”. I completely agree. Speed skating works because there is a definitive winner-the only time judging comes into play is if intentional interference causes one skater to wipe another one out in order to win/advance.
I will sit and watch two performances (which I consider to be flawless because no one’s head smacked into the ice) and then be astounded when some self-important skating has-been doofus like DICK BUTTON will rip one of the pairs apart. Of course, he knows the ludicrous judging system because he is part of the problem—and he’ll usually be right. Sometimes, I’d like to hit him in the knee with a baseball bat—maybe Tonya Harding will lend me hers.
In case you’re not fully aware of the scoring system (which had to be changed after the 2002 Olympics when it was discovered that a Russian judge and a French judge colluded to rig the outcome), here is a short tutorial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYUXWqzSl80
Now, THAT’S simple and straightforward, no? When we are talking about .25 points here or there, there is a big problem.
The Ice Skating World, clique-ish enough as it is, blindly believes that the 2002 Olympics were somehow an aberration- that the rigging of results, the fixing of champions was not going on for years. The very phrase “He/she is a favorite of the judges!” is a blatant admission of bias in a sport where virtually EVERYTHING is subjective. Even though the present system is a vast improvement, each element carries the stigma of EVALUATION.
So, how to make it better?
Well, keep the present performances intact if skaters want to aspire to a career in the Ice Capades following their Olympic moment.
Do it for the TV audience.
But, for the scoring that the medals are based on, make everyone skate to the same music, perform the exact same routine—and score it based on time intervals between moves and whether or not one’s bottom lands on the ice.
Not perfect, I know, because judging is still involved, but eliminating these sports will just plain NOT happen. We know the odds of removing figure skating from the Olympics is about the same as Scott Hamilton playing inside linebacker for the Patriots.
Reducing everyone to the same program will also not happen-as boring to watch as the compulsories—which, while technically a better way to judge basic ability, makes dreadful TV.
No, it forever will be evaluation and judgment that control the outcome. What if that occurred in the other sports?Luge competitors aren’t scored on their “interpretation” of the course. At least with an identical routine, even viewers without judging credentials would likely pick the best competitors.
Do the same for gymnastics.
Let’s just drop synchronized swimming, OK?
If you’d like to receive my (mostly) weekday blog for free—a blog that 9 out of 10 judges have given a perfect score (never mind that I bribed them), just let me know:
Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, February 12, 2010
Valentine's Day Pointers
When it comes to Valentine’s Day, there is definitely a RIGHT way to do it—and millions of WRONG ways---as men throughout history have discovered. As usual, we have found out the errors of our ways only AFTER the offending act or insensitive gift.
As far back as the caveman (who were banished to sofas made of stone), guys have been mystified by the magnitude of female rage following our boneheaded attempts to court our sweethearts.
Although I myself have no doubt joined in with these “errors of judgment”, (and thereby am disqualified from being an expert), there are some general do’s and don’t that may seem obvious, but their yearly violation by armies of men requires me to repeat this short list:
DO’s
1) This should be obvious, but I’ll say it anyway. DO SOMETHING. Blowing it off is simply not an option, unless you like the feeling of a cast iron frying pan slamming into your head. Ouch.
2) The Big Three are cool, but ho-hum. Flowers, Candy & Jewelry are good, but the jewelry takes top spot. Do all three and the shock alone may render her speechless.
3) If buying her clothes, be sure to size DOWN. Yes, SMALLER than she really is. See Number 3 of “Don’ts below.
4) Surprise her on the job! This won’t work this year unless she works on Sunday. Generally speaking, however, it’s a PLUS to have the flowers delivered where your lady can display them in front of her co-workers. Singing telegrams are romantic—and a good way to send your love. Strippers are NOT a good choice to deliver the sentiments here.
5) SPEND MONEY. Skimping on cost is not smart. Remember, she shops more than you do and can smell a cheap gift from a mile out. You WON’T fool her. If she doesn’t instinctively know how much you spent, she’ll look it up.
DON’T’s
1) Top of the list: DON’T FORGET. Tie a string around your finger, mark your datebook, write it on the wall. With TV, radio and print advertising impossible to avoid, there is no excuse for taking a whiff here.
2) Don’t get her a vacuum cleaner, a bowling ball, a Swiffer or brand new laundry basket. If you SURVIVE after giving such a gift, the cost of having a Hoover surgically removed from its most likely entry point will make you wish that you’d purchased a diamond necknace.
3) Don’t buy anything that implies she needs to lose weight. A gym membership, a case of SlimFast or clothes in size XXL are simply a death wish.
4) If a romantic meal at a restaurant is planned, make sure you MAKE A RESERVATION. Nothing kills the mood faster than standing amidst other thoughtless men and their dates, waiting for an hour to get a cramped table next to the Mens Room. Nice.
5) Don’t deliver the gift in the bag where you shopped for it, unless it's from Saks Fifth Avenue or a similar store. No matter how enticing the item is, it’s appeal plummets when yanked from a plastic WalMart bag.
Clearly this is an abbreviated list, but nevertheless, it behooves all men reading this blog to adhere strictly to the rules of engagement above. Ladies, you no doubt could add to this —and I welcome your input (as do all men worldwide)
Here’s a humorous ad that spoofs our ineptitude in selecting a proper gift:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pffeMdDSoY
Funny.
Of course, the desired emotion, guys, is LOVE, not laughter. AMORE!
Good luck! And Happy Valentine’s Day!!
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
As far back as the caveman (who were banished to sofas made of stone), guys have been mystified by the magnitude of female rage following our boneheaded attempts to court our sweethearts.
Although I myself have no doubt joined in with these “errors of judgment”, (and thereby am disqualified from being an expert), there are some general do’s and don’t that may seem obvious, but their yearly violation by armies of men requires me to repeat this short list:
DO’s
1) This should be obvious, but I’ll say it anyway. DO SOMETHING. Blowing it off is simply not an option, unless you like the feeling of a cast iron frying pan slamming into your head. Ouch.
2) The Big Three are cool, but ho-hum. Flowers, Candy & Jewelry are good, but the jewelry takes top spot. Do all three and the shock alone may render her speechless.
3) If buying her clothes, be sure to size DOWN. Yes, SMALLER than she really is. See Number 3 of “Don’ts below.
4) Surprise her on the job! This won’t work this year unless she works on Sunday. Generally speaking, however, it’s a PLUS to have the flowers delivered where your lady can display them in front of her co-workers. Singing telegrams are romantic—and a good way to send your love. Strippers are NOT a good choice to deliver the sentiments here.
5) SPEND MONEY. Skimping on cost is not smart. Remember, she shops more than you do and can smell a cheap gift from a mile out. You WON’T fool her. If she doesn’t instinctively know how much you spent, she’ll look it up.
DON’T’s
1) Top of the list: DON’T FORGET. Tie a string around your finger, mark your datebook, write it on the wall. With TV, radio and print advertising impossible to avoid, there is no excuse for taking a whiff here.
2) Don’t get her a vacuum cleaner, a bowling ball, a Swiffer or brand new laundry basket. If you SURVIVE after giving such a gift, the cost of having a Hoover surgically removed from its most likely entry point will make you wish that you’d purchased a diamond necknace.
3) Don’t buy anything that implies she needs to lose weight. A gym membership, a case of SlimFast or clothes in size XXL are simply a death wish.
4) If a romantic meal at a restaurant is planned, make sure you MAKE A RESERVATION. Nothing kills the mood faster than standing amidst other thoughtless men and their dates, waiting for an hour to get a cramped table next to the Mens Room. Nice.
5) Don’t deliver the gift in the bag where you shopped for it, unless it's from Saks Fifth Avenue or a similar store. No matter how enticing the item is, it’s appeal plummets when yanked from a plastic WalMart bag.
Clearly this is an abbreviated list, but nevertheless, it behooves all men reading this blog to adhere strictly to the rules of engagement above. Ladies, you no doubt could add to this —and I welcome your input (as do all men worldwide)
Here’s a humorous ad that spoofs our ineptitude in selecting a proper gift:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3pffeMdDSoY
Funny.
Of course, the desired emotion, guys, is LOVE, not laughter. AMORE!
Good luck! And Happy Valentine’s Day!!
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Jack Paar Protests Censorship
With all the focus lately on the battle of the late night TV shows, it’s easy to forget that “The Tonight Show” with Jack Paar was the trailblazer for Johnny Carson, Letterman, Leno and Conan…and Kimmel (sorry, Jimmy—you’re the best and I almost left you out)
With a prevalent belief that much of the so-called “drama” behind the scenes is actually scripted, it’s refreshing to know that in the early days of TV—when programs were carried LIVE, there was a spontaneity that’s largely missing today.
Case in point: Jack Paar’s walking off of the set of “The Tonight Show”—it happened 50 years ago today. Luckily for NBC, the network had recently started taping the show rather than airing it live—and the showman in Paar might never have abandoned a LIVE television program. Not so a half century ago today.
The issue was censorship. Once the show ceased being broadcast live, network censors had the power to edit out segments that were deemed objectionable. Infuriated when a joke about a “water closet” was cut—claiming poor taste, Paar stormed off the set in tears and didn’t return for a month.
I have a soft spot for Paar, in part because he eventually became the owner of what is now 94.9 WHOM and WMTW-TV when both were headquartered in Poland Spring-and both were transmitting from the top of Mt. Washington in New Hampshire (WHOM still does, of course, but Channel 8 has moved to another location in Baldwin, Maine)
Although not the original “Tonight Show” host (that honor belonged to Steve Allen), Paar advanced the show to heights not seen before—and became the inspiration for today’s hosts, who often site Paar as a major influence.
Check out these three short video clips-each showing a different side of the versatile Jack Paar:
1) His interview with Bobby Kennedy in March of 1964—the first public comments from RFK following his brother’s assassination-this interview after leaving his post as “Tonight Show” host
2) His bit with comedian Jonathan Winters—which is just plain silly and
3) An interview where the tables are turned—HE is the subject—and he reveals some insecurities that many in his audience would have been surprised to hear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01tTeOzPuZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zrhnMUhKzI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caw2_TsAoBY
Jack Paar left “The Tonight Show” for good in 1962. Several substitutes filled in until a young comedian by the name of Johnny Carson took over later that year.
Regardless of the parade of successors, there will never be another Jack Paar. What you saw was what you got.
And what you got was genuine.
What a concept.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
With a prevalent belief that much of the so-called “drama” behind the scenes is actually scripted, it’s refreshing to know that in the early days of TV—when programs were carried LIVE, there was a spontaneity that’s largely missing today.
Case in point: Jack Paar’s walking off of the set of “The Tonight Show”—it happened 50 years ago today. Luckily for NBC, the network had recently started taping the show rather than airing it live—and the showman in Paar might never have abandoned a LIVE television program. Not so a half century ago today.
The issue was censorship. Once the show ceased being broadcast live, network censors had the power to edit out segments that were deemed objectionable. Infuriated when a joke about a “water closet” was cut—claiming poor taste, Paar stormed off the set in tears and didn’t return for a month.
I have a soft spot for Paar, in part because he eventually became the owner of what is now 94.9 WHOM and WMTW-TV when both were headquartered in Poland Spring-and both were transmitting from the top of Mt. Washington in New Hampshire (WHOM still does, of course, but Channel 8 has moved to another location in Baldwin, Maine)
Although not the original “Tonight Show” host (that honor belonged to Steve Allen), Paar advanced the show to heights not seen before—and became the inspiration for today’s hosts, who often site Paar as a major influence.
Check out these three short video clips-each showing a different side of the versatile Jack Paar:
1) His interview with Bobby Kennedy in March of 1964—the first public comments from RFK following his brother’s assassination-this interview after leaving his post as “Tonight Show” host
2) His bit with comedian Jonathan Winters—which is just plain silly and
3) An interview where the tables are turned—HE is the subject—and he reveals some insecurities that many in his audience would have been surprised to hear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01tTeOzPuZQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zrhnMUhKzI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caw2_TsAoBY
Jack Paar left “The Tonight Show” for good in 1962. Several substitutes filled in until a young comedian by the name of Johnny Carson took over later that year.
Regardless of the parade of successors, there will never be another Jack Paar. What you saw was what you got.
And what you got was genuine.
What a concept.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Man Loses To Machine
This blog’s title implies that humans coming up short when matched against machines is either a rarity or newsworthy or both.
Not so.
Anyone who has lost a dollar in a vending machine can attest to the feelings of helplessness that accrue when those Fritos are RIGHT THERE—on the other side of the glass, yet unattainable, smugly nestled on their little perch, seemingly laughing at you. Kicking the machine makes you feel better—only until the moment of impact. The sight of you hopping around holding your now-throbbing foot only adds injury to insult.
Yes, machines have been pushing us around ever since Eli Whitney invented that cotton-pickin’ gin. Yet, despite it all, we have chalked up all frustrations with machines to man-made malfunctions in either design or construction. The INTELLIGENCE associated only with human beings could never be duplicated by an inanimate object.
That is, until this day in 1996.
The IBM computer named “Big Blue” defeated reigning World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov in the first game of a 6-game match. Although man eventually triumphed over machine—as Kasparov won the match 4-2, this initial defeat laid the groundwork for refinements in the computer software that eventually allowed for a better Big Blue, one that won a rematch in 1997 (3.5 to 2.5)
Although Big Blue could evaluate 100 million chess combinations PER SECOND (my guess is that Kasparov was a tad below this level of performance), the initial machine could not store PAST moves, thereby creating a predictability quotient for the individual player. After the initial match, IBM eggheads went back to Geek Central and improved this shortcoming. The Big Blue that faced our human hero a year later was now able to process 200 million combinations per second AND look backward to past moves.
Kasparov was toast.
Here’s the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJarxpYyoFI
I love chess—and played quite a bit while young. Matches were a slow affair and never did I attempt to play multiple games at once (show-offs!)
Although it could accurately be said that Kasparov was STILL playing against humans—the ones who created the computer and wrote the software, it’s my belief that part of our dignity DIED that day.
Artificial intelligence is now a common term and the capabilities of computers since 1996 are nowadays light years ahead. Robots with actual vision and manual dexterity are able to simulate much of human movement. Could they eventually replace human beings doing everyday tasks?
Maybe, but none would EVER be victorious against a vending machine that refuses to fork over the Fritos!
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Not so.
Anyone who has lost a dollar in a vending machine can attest to the feelings of helplessness that accrue when those Fritos are RIGHT THERE—on the other side of the glass, yet unattainable, smugly nestled on their little perch, seemingly laughing at you. Kicking the machine makes you feel better—only until the moment of impact. The sight of you hopping around holding your now-throbbing foot only adds injury to insult.
Yes, machines have been pushing us around ever since Eli Whitney invented that cotton-pickin’ gin. Yet, despite it all, we have chalked up all frustrations with machines to man-made malfunctions in either design or construction. The INTELLIGENCE associated only with human beings could never be duplicated by an inanimate object.
That is, until this day in 1996.
The IBM computer named “Big Blue” defeated reigning World Chess Champion Gary Kasparov in the first game of a 6-game match. Although man eventually triumphed over machine—as Kasparov won the match 4-2, this initial defeat laid the groundwork for refinements in the computer software that eventually allowed for a better Big Blue, one that won a rematch in 1997 (3.5 to 2.5)
Although Big Blue could evaluate 100 million chess combinations PER SECOND (my guess is that Kasparov was a tad below this level of performance), the initial machine could not store PAST moves, thereby creating a predictability quotient for the individual player. After the initial match, IBM eggheads went back to Geek Central and improved this shortcoming. The Big Blue that faced our human hero a year later was now able to process 200 million combinations per second AND look backward to past moves.
Kasparov was toast.
Here’s the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJarxpYyoFI
I love chess—and played quite a bit while young. Matches were a slow affair and never did I attempt to play multiple games at once (show-offs!)
Although it could accurately be said that Kasparov was STILL playing against humans—the ones who created the computer and wrote the software, it’s my belief that part of our dignity DIED that day.
Artificial intelligence is now a common term and the capabilities of computers since 1996 are nowadays light years ahead. Robots with actual vision and manual dexterity are able to simulate much of human movement. Could they eventually replace human beings doing everyday tasks?
Maybe, but none would EVER be victorious against a vending machine that refuses to fork over the Fritos!
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Beer Pong--Slam Dunk!
I should state up front that there is no socially redeeming value to the subject—or content of this blog.
When you view the video below, you will agree—while laughing hysterically.
In fact, if aliens from other planets had only this video with which to judge our species, they would no doubt conclude that not only was there no intelligent life on Earth—but also that it’s a minor miracle that natural selection had not targeted homo sapiens for extinction by now.
Think of college and you will also think of drinking—and more specifically of drinking GAMES. It’s not enough that we consume too much alcohol. We need a sporting platform on which to raise intoxication to a level that combines excessive intake with competition to see who can out-drink everyone else.
The winner—or loser----often has as his or his prize---an appointment praying to the porcelain god “O’Rourke” (pronounced emphatically, of course)
Enter Beer Pong----and its evil cousin, Beer Pong Slam Dunk!
Wikipedia defines “beer pong” (also known as “Beirut”) as a drinking game prevalent on college campuses that involves tossing a ping pong ball into a series of cups containing varying levels of beer. Depending on how the game is set up—and with variations that are as complex as intoxicated logic can allow—success or failure to land balls in the cups will cause participants to consume the beer in the cup.
As if that were not enough, the latest variation involves a finale of the game in which the most visually compelling act in basketball—the SLAM DUNK---is applied to Beer Pong.
This is to say that a participant---usually the most intoxicated---must slam dunk his or her ping pong ball after leaping across the playing surface (usually a table).
What ensues is a fair measure of destruction, personal injury—and hyena-like laughter from anyone who happens to be witnessing the event.
Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9ZkddHsdpA
Thanks to friend and fellow Ohio State alum Geoffrey Hornbeck, who supplied the video—lamenting the fact that this was NOT a popular game when we were in college. Had it been, it’s likely that neither one of us would be alive today.
Please! No e-mails assailing this blog for being any of the following:
1) In bad taste (it is)
2) Glorifying excessive drinking (it is not)
3) Glorifying destructive behavior (it is not)
4) Glorifying dangerous risk taking (nope)
In fact, I glorify nothing, but I will concede that I laughed like a little girl when I viewed this video of these drunken idiots making fools of themselves! I am ashamed of this fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. If this is offensive to you, I sincerely apologize. If you are a parent about to send your son or daughter off to college, perhaps a family meeting that features compulsory viewing of this video will be a public service.
I’m here to help.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
When you view the video below, you will agree—while laughing hysterically.
In fact, if aliens from other planets had only this video with which to judge our species, they would no doubt conclude that not only was there no intelligent life on Earth—but also that it’s a minor miracle that natural selection had not targeted homo sapiens for extinction by now.
Think of college and you will also think of drinking—and more specifically of drinking GAMES. It’s not enough that we consume too much alcohol. We need a sporting platform on which to raise intoxication to a level that combines excessive intake with competition to see who can out-drink everyone else.
The winner—or loser----often has as his or his prize---an appointment praying to the porcelain god “O’Rourke” (pronounced emphatically, of course)
Enter Beer Pong----and its evil cousin, Beer Pong Slam Dunk!
Wikipedia defines “beer pong” (also known as “Beirut”) as a drinking game prevalent on college campuses that involves tossing a ping pong ball into a series of cups containing varying levels of beer. Depending on how the game is set up—and with variations that are as complex as intoxicated logic can allow—success or failure to land balls in the cups will cause participants to consume the beer in the cup.
As if that were not enough, the latest variation involves a finale of the game in which the most visually compelling act in basketball—the SLAM DUNK---is applied to Beer Pong.
This is to say that a participant---usually the most intoxicated---must slam dunk his or her ping pong ball after leaping across the playing surface (usually a table).
What ensues is a fair measure of destruction, personal injury—and hyena-like laughter from anyone who happens to be witnessing the event.
Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L9ZkddHsdpA
Thanks to friend and fellow Ohio State alum Geoffrey Hornbeck, who supplied the video—lamenting the fact that this was NOT a popular game when we were in college. Had it been, it’s likely that neither one of us would be alive today.
Please! No e-mails assailing this blog for being any of the following:
1) In bad taste (it is)
2) Glorifying excessive drinking (it is not)
3) Glorifying destructive behavior (it is not)
4) Glorifying dangerous risk taking (nope)
In fact, I glorify nothing, but I will concede that I laughed like a little girl when I viewed this video of these drunken idiots making fools of themselves! I am ashamed of this fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. If this is offensive to you, I sincerely apologize. If you are a parent about to send your son or daughter off to college, perhaps a family meeting that features compulsory viewing of this video will be a public service.
I’m here to help.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, February 8, 2010
Gilligan's Island Potato Cooking Tip
You’re gonna love this one.
It’s safe to say that on my BEST day, the Tim Moore blog may be interesting or funny, but rarely is it USEFUL.
Today is the exception.
If you’re a cook, you’ll love it—and even if your job in the kitchen is to stay out of everybody else's way, you may still find this interesting.
The source of the following potato cooking(or perhaps more accurately-PEELING) tip is none other than Dawn Wells the actress, best known for her role as “Mary Ann” from the Gilligan’s Island TV series.
Growing up, guys were often asked the question: “Ginger or Mary Ann?”
That was it. No other explanation was needed, cuz we watched the show and knew EXACTLY who these two characters were. Ginger was the “movie star”—voluptuous, glamorous and basically a sex kitten. Mary Ann, on the other hand, was the girl-next-door, the naturally beautiful and don’t-need-makeup-to-look-good kind of person. The answer to the question always defined a guy’s taste in women. If someone answered , “Mrs. Thurston Howell III”, then that was another matter entirely. But I digress.
For me, it was always Mary Ann. Wholesome, cute but not ravishing, she seemed approachable, likeable and a better fit.
Now, I see another entire side to the actress whose career was defined--and in fact limited-- by that one role. It is evident that Dawn Wells has aged well—and her tip for Idaho spuds may have you saying: “Gee, wish I’d known about this 20 years ago!”
Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4W0qIPJmoo
Thanks to Rick Cooper, faithful blog reader and co-owner of a couple of Chicago’s finer restaurants, including the award-winning Avec for providing the inspiration for this one.
Not sure if this tip will find its way into the routines of the world’s greatest chefs or not, but if it does, my guess is that none of them will credit Mary Ann from Gilligan’s Island.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It’s safe to say that on my BEST day, the Tim Moore blog may be interesting or funny, but rarely is it USEFUL.
Today is the exception.
If you’re a cook, you’ll love it—and even if your job in the kitchen is to stay out of everybody else's way, you may still find this interesting.
The source of the following potato cooking(or perhaps more accurately-PEELING) tip is none other than Dawn Wells the actress, best known for her role as “Mary Ann” from the Gilligan’s Island TV series.
Growing up, guys were often asked the question: “Ginger or Mary Ann?”
That was it. No other explanation was needed, cuz we watched the show and knew EXACTLY who these two characters were. Ginger was the “movie star”—voluptuous, glamorous and basically a sex kitten. Mary Ann, on the other hand, was the girl-next-door, the naturally beautiful and don’t-need-makeup-to-look-good kind of person. The answer to the question always defined a guy’s taste in women. If someone answered , “Mrs. Thurston Howell III”, then that was another matter entirely. But I digress.
For me, it was always Mary Ann. Wholesome, cute but not ravishing, she seemed approachable, likeable and a better fit.
Now, I see another entire side to the actress whose career was defined--and in fact limited-- by that one role. It is evident that Dawn Wells has aged well—and her tip for Idaho spuds may have you saying: “Gee, wish I’d known about this 20 years ago!”
Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4W0qIPJmoo
Thanks to Rick Cooper, faithful blog reader and co-owner of a couple of Chicago’s finer restaurants, including the award-winning Avec for providing the inspiration for this one.
Not sure if this tip will find its way into the routines of the world’s greatest chefs or not, but if it does, my guess is that none of them will credit Mary Ann from Gilligan’s Island.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, February 5, 2010
Infantile TV Ads--Thanks To E*Trade
I don’t know ANYONE who doesn’t love ALL of the E* Trade TV commercials for the discount online brokerage.
The ads, featuring babies overdubbed with adult wiseass voices are a hoot! Clever editing and terrific copywriting are the hallmark of these 30 second masterpieces. Whether E*Trade has seen business increase is another matter, but based on creativity and extensive placement, I sure hope so.
If not mistaken, I believe the “baby spots” made their debut during the Super Bowl several years ago—to rave reviews.
With the “big game” set for Sunday, no doubt there will be a slew of memorable ads we’ll all be talking about, but let’s not forget these little award-winners!
Here are some of the best—including this “out-takes” spot that you may not have seen-it is a stitch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHPg262Kr9c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhfl4mFH1No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZetD7cdj7w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdfvWAp5GUw
Have a terrific weekend! If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
The ads, featuring babies overdubbed with adult wiseass voices are a hoot! Clever editing and terrific copywriting are the hallmark of these 30 second masterpieces. Whether E*Trade has seen business increase is another matter, but based on creativity and extensive placement, I sure hope so.
If not mistaken, I believe the “baby spots” made their debut during the Super Bowl several years ago—to rave reviews.
With the “big game” set for Sunday, no doubt there will be a slew of memorable ads we’ll all be talking about, but let’s not forget these little award-winners!
Here are some of the best—including this “out-takes” spot that you may not have seen-it is a stitch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHPg262Kr9c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yhfl4mFH1No
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZetD7cdj7w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gdfvWAp5GUw
Have a terrific weekend! If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Patty Hearst--Victim or Felon?
It was on this date 36 years ago that we first heard the name Patricia Hearst. On February 4, 1974, the 19 year-old media heiress captured headlines in her family’s newspapers as well as those across the world with word of her kidnapping.
An unknown group identified as the Symbionese Liberation Army claimed responsibility—and what unfolded over the next months and years became a bizarre tale of crime, brainwashing and perhaps…betrayal.
Patty, at the center of it all, fluctuated from being a victim to a willing participant in the revolutionary endeavors of the SLA. Never has the public been so confused as to the guilt or innocence of an individual as was the case with Patty Hearst. From sympathetic concern to uncertainty to conviction that she was part of the plot---all of these emotions swirled as public sentiment swung wildly with each news report. Her arrest in September of 1975 did little to settle the details of her captivity and subsequent participation in a crime caught on tape
To this day, many people frankly don’t know WHAT to believe. Neither do I, but I find the entire case fascinating.
From her abduction to her arrest, trial and conviction for bank robbery—to her release and subsequent Presidential pardon, Patty Hearst has been a mystery, en enigma.
Here are four videos you may find interesting:
A) News report shortly after her abduction in 1974
B) Bank footage of Patty during a robbery
C) Her appearance a couple of years ago on Larry King Live Part 1
D) Larry King appearance Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Q4XsXiZlc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad6s0gUgiwc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p05xGAvTjIg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV9AGvfN13M
So….do you have an opinion? Was she a victim brainwashed by her captors—or did she evolve into a willing member of the SLA? Did she deserve to go to prison—or conversely, did she deserve a pardon?
We’ll probably never know the truth—and I doubt there will ever be a case even remotely similar.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
An unknown group identified as the Symbionese Liberation Army claimed responsibility—and what unfolded over the next months and years became a bizarre tale of crime, brainwashing and perhaps…betrayal.
Patty, at the center of it all, fluctuated from being a victim to a willing participant in the revolutionary endeavors of the SLA. Never has the public been so confused as to the guilt or innocence of an individual as was the case with Patty Hearst. From sympathetic concern to uncertainty to conviction that she was part of the plot---all of these emotions swirled as public sentiment swung wildly with each news report. Her arrest in September of 1975 did little to settle the details of her captivity and subsequent participation in a crime caught on tape
To this day, many people frankly don’t know WHAT to believe. Neither do I, but I find the entire case fascinating.
From her abduction to her arrest, trial and conviction for bank robbery—to her release and subsequent Presidential pardon, Patty Hearst has been a mystery, en enigma.
Here are four videos you may find interesting:
A) News report shortly after her abduction in 1974
B) Bank footage of Patty during a robbery
C) Her appearance a couple of years ago on Larry King Live Part 1
D) Larry King appearance Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e7Q4XsXiZlc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ad6s0gUgiwc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p05xGAvTjIg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NV9AGvfN13M
So….do you have an opinion? Was she a victim brainwashed by her captors—or did she evolve into a willing member of the SLA? Did she deserve to go to prison—or conversely, did she deserve a pardon?
We’ll probably never know the truth—and I doubt there will ever be a case even remotely similar.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Show Biz People---Just Like Us, No?
Well, no, actually.
Don’t get me wrong—I love music—hard to do this job without being open to all kinds of music and I really enjoy all genres , from classical to rap (well, SOME rap)
I program the music for 94.9 WHOM, but also for the Top 40 station WJBQ (Q97.9) in Portland. As such, I hear all of the newest acts. The rock bands, the boy bands, the rappers, singer-songwriters and pop diva wannabes. I am exposed to it all—including the brand new acts that somehow break through.
Lady GaGa is such an act. A year ago, she was a completely unknown performer with a rather checkered past. Last Sunday, she performed the opening number at the Grammy Awards with Elton John. A long way—in a very short time.
And she fit right in. Which is to say, she is a whack-job, like most of the other performers. All nice people, but show biz being what it is, NORMAL is not a word that’s welcome to describe someone trying to entertain the masses.
Crazy, weird, bizarre, eccentric…these are the buzzwords of success. Just ask pop singer Pink, who was practically naked as she did a flying trapeze act during the Grammy telecast.
Elton John knows this all too well—as his flamboyant stage persona dating from the 70’s was a huge hit---it was a SHOW. The music has to hold up, of course, but concerts need to be VISUALLY compelling as well.
In case you missed it, here is the Grammy Award performance of Lady GaGa and Elton John:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuYsqPWXLTo
Coming off of FIVE #1 Top 40 hits guaranteed Lady GaGa a prime spot on the Grammy Awards—and singing with Sir Elton John had to be a career highlight for this pop diva who likely couldn’t have gotten into the venue as a SPECTATOR a year ago!
If you’d like me blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Don’t get me wrong—I love music—hard to do this job without being open to all kinds of music and I really enjoy all genres , from classical to rap (well, SOME rap)
I program the music for 94.9 WHOM, but also for the Top 40 station WJBQ (Q97.9) in Portland. As such, I hear all of the newest acts. The rock bands, the boy bands, the rappers, singer-songwriters and pop diva wannabes. I am exposed to it all—including the brand new acts that somehow break through.
Lady GaGa is such an act. A year ago, she was a completely unknown performer with a rather checkered past. Last Sunday, she performed the opening number at the Grammy Awards with Elton John. A long way—in a very short time.
And she fit right in. Which is to say, she is a whack-job, like most of the other performers. All nice people, but show biz being what it is, NORMAL is not a word that’s welcome to describe someone trying to entertain the masses.
Crazy, weird, bizarre, eccentric…these are the buzzwords of success. Just ask pop singer Pink, who was practically naked as she did a flying trapeze act during the Grammy telecast.
Elton John knows this all too well—as his flamboyant stage persona dating from the 70’s was a huge hit---it was a SHOW. The music has to hold up, of course, but concerts need to be VISUALLY compelling as well.
In case you missed it, here is the Grammy Award performance of Lady GaGa and Elton John:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XuYsqPWXLTo
Coming off of FIVE #1 Top 40 hits guaranteed Lady GaGa a prime spot on the Grammy Awards—and singing with Sir Elton John had to be a career highlight for this pop diva who likely couldn’t have gotten into the venue as a SPECTATOR a year ago!
If you’d like me blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Super Injustice?
OK, this is about sports---but it’s more about fairness, so if the thought of reading a football blog in the week leading up to the Super Bowl makes you glaze over, give this one a chance.
My thanks to faithful blog reader Rick Johnson, who suggested this topic---one near and dear to his heart as a lifelong fan of Baltimore teams—and a sports fanatic and walking encyclopedia on sports in general.
In a nutshell, the situation---and the cause:
After a rocky relationship between then BALTIMORE Colts owner Robert Irsay and the City of Baltimore, Irsay literally moved the team to Indianapolis in the middle of the night on March 28,1984. To fans in Baltimore, this continues to be a day that lives in infamy.
Needless to say, The Indianapolis Colts—now under the ownership of Robert Irsay’s son Jim—has been quite successful, having already won one Super Bowl and poised to take another championship this Sunday.
In the meantime, Baltimore has a new football team, The Ravens---who used to be the Cleveland Browns. This team has also won a Super Bowl and was in contention in the playoffs this year (as New England Patriots fans are all too well aware of)
So, what’s the issue?
Well, for fans of the BALTIMORE Colts, there is a sense of discontent over the Pro Football Hall of Fame’s exhibit in Canton. Namely, the history of the Baltimore Colts in essentially buried within the INDIANAPOLIS Colts display. The HOF has turned a deaf ear to efforts to right this wrong.
While this news may be greeted with a resounding “So What?”, you may change your thinking after viewing this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYRIrRe_65Q
So, it seems only fair to give Baltimore its due at the Hall of Fame, separate from the exhibit that honors the Indianapolis Colts.
If you are so inclined, there are a couple of websites that Rick has forwarded where you can sign a petition to make the distinction. Although I personally don’t “have a horse in this race” being a lifelong Redskin fan (that’s ANOTHER story), I will add my name to the petition list out of sense of fairness for the legacy that Baltimore players left to their city.
This in no way diminishes the heritage (however young) of the INDIANAPOLIS Colts, who have their own proud-albeit short history. It’s more of a nod to the history that the original Colts brought to football.
Of course, all of this would have been unnecessary if the Indianapolis team had simply chosen another name. After all, the Colts themselves USED to be the Dallas Texans before they were moved to Baltimore in 1953—and “Texans” is a name that has been resurrected in the Lone Star State. When Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore in 1996, the “Browns” name and logo (or lack of one) remained in Cleveland to be used by the future owner of the Cleveland franchise.
Perhaps the NFL should REQUIRE a name change when teams exit a city in order to prevent this confusion. I still think of St. Louis, not Arizona when I hear the nickname “Cardinals”—regardless of the baseball/football duplication. The nickname resides in the town where it originates-independent of the sport. Do a word association with anyone from New York and “Brooklyn” will beat out “Los Angeles” when they hear the word “Dodgers”. Every time.
Until the day the NFL chooses to make this happen, we’ll have to focus on the Hall of Fame to do what’s right for the men who are part of the Baltimore Colts history. Thanks to Rick, here are a couple of websites to visit—including the sign-in petition site:
http://ravens24x7.blogspot.com/2010/01/restoring-baltimores-football-heritage.html
http://www.coltsheritage.com/
As for the Super Bowl this Sunday? I have a lot of respect for the son of despised Baltimore Colts owner Robert Irsay. Jim Irsay has done a magnificent job-and runs a class operation. However, I have to root for the New Orleans Saints this weekend. Combine the fact that this is their FIRST trip to the championship game (no matter how many times the City of New Orleans has hosted a Super Bowl) with the entire specter of Hurricane Katrina and what this team has meant to this city.
I have to join the masses in rooting for the sentimental favorite.
Go Saints! (I’ll bet that most of Baltimore feels this way too)
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
My thanks to faithful blog reader Rick Johnson, who suggested this topic---one near and dear to his heart as a lifelong fan of Baltimore teams—and a sports fanatic and walking encyclopedia on sports in general.
In a nutshell, the situation---and the cause:
After a rocky relationship between then BALTIMORE Colts owner Robert Irsay and the City of Baltimore, Irsay literally moved the team to Indianapolis in the middle of the night on March 28,1984. To fans in Baltimore, this continues to be a day that lives in infamy.
Needless to say, The Indianapolis Colts—now under the ownership of Robert Irsay’s son Jim—has been quite successful, having already won one Super Bowl and poised to take another championship this Sunday.
In the meantime, Baltimore has a new football team, The Ravens---who used to be the Cleveland Browns. This team has also won a Super Bowl and was in contention in the playoffs this year (as New England Patriots fans are all too well aware of)
So, what’s the issue?
Well, for fans of the BALTIMORE Colts, there is a sense of discontent over the Pro Football Hall of Fame’s exhibit in Canton. Namely, the history of the Baltimore Colts in essentially buried within the INDIANAPOLIS Colts display. The HOF has turned a deaf ear to efforts to right this wrong.
While this news may be greeted with a resounding “So What?”, you may change your thinking after viewing this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYRIrRe_65Q
So, it seems only fair to give Baltimore its due at the Hall of Fame, separate from the exhibit that honors the Indianapolis Colts.
If you are so inclined, there are a couple of websites that Rick has forwarded where you can sign a petition to make the distinction. Although I personally don’t “have a horse in this race” being a lifelong Redskin fan (that’s ANOTHER story), I will add my name to the petition list out of sense of fairness for the legacy that Baltimore players left to their city.
This in no way diminishes the heritage (however young) of the INDIANAPOLIS Colts, who have their own proud-albeit short history. It’s more of a nod to the history that the original Colts brought to football.
Of course, all of this would have been unnecessary if the Indianapolis team had simply chosen another name. After all, the Colts themselves USED to be the Dallas Texans before they were moved to Baltimore in 1953—and “Texans” is a name that has been resurrected in the Lone Star State. When Art Modell moved the Browns to Baltimore in 1996, the “Browns” name and logo (or lack of one) remained in Cleveland to be used by the future owner of the Cleveland franchise.
Perhaps the NFL should REQUIRE a name change when teams exit a city in order to prevent this confusion. I still think of St. Louis, not Arizona when I hear the nickname “Cardinals”—regardless of the baseball/football duplication. The nickname resides in the town where it originates-independent of the sport. Do a word association with anyone from New York and “Brooklyn” will beat out “Los Angeles” when they hear the word “Dodgers”. Every time.
Until the day the NFL chooses to make this happen, we’ll have to focus on the Hall of Fame to do what’s right for the men who are part of the Baltimore Colts history. Thanks to Rick, here are a couple of websites to visit—including the sign-in petition site:
http://ravens24x7.blogspot.com/2010/01/restoring-baltimores-football-heritage.html
http://www.coltsheritage.com/
As for the Super Bowl this Sunday? I have a lot of respect for the son of despised Baltimore Colts owner Robert Irsay. Jim Irsay has done a magnificent job-and runs a class operation. However, I have to root for the New Orleans Saints this weekend. Combine the fact that this is their FIRST trip to the championship game (no matter how many times the City of New Orleans has hosted a Super Bowl) with the entire specter of Hurricane Katrina and what this team has meant to this city.
I have to join the masses in rooting for the sentimental favorite.
Go Saints! (I’ll bet that most of Baltimore feels this way too)
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, February 1, 2010
Auto Insurance Merry Go Round
When it comes to Auto Insurance, should I buy from the black guy who played the President on “24” (Allstate), that obnoxious girl selling shoeboxes of coverage over the counter (Progressive) or the lizard? (GEICO)?
Maybe I should buy from the dude with the huge red umbrella, since his company was first in. Yep, Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford , CT (shocker) issued the VERY FIRST Auto Insurance policy on this date in 1898.
Dr, Truman J. Martin of Buffalo, New York paid a premium of $11.25 for the policy that covered $5,000 to $10,000 of liability. A bargain, to be sure, but back then there were a whole lot FEWER cars to bump into. In 1898, you were much more likely to run over an unsuspecting pedestrian…or a cow.
I admit that I have not shopped around much for insurance—as my policy combining home and auto makes stripping the auto portion out a PAIN in my rear fender—and likely not cost effective.
At least that’s what my agent tells me.
Not that I haven’t been exposed to the endless offers. GEICO has clearly been the most persistent. First, it was spoofs of reality shows, news broadcasts and just about everything else that all ended with a pitch for auto coverage that fooled just about every first-time viewer. When the novelty of these ads ran out, in crawled the gecko, then the caveman (“So easy a caveman can do it!”) and now, the stack of dollar bills that sport eyeballs and stare at you. Nice.
I’ve got to give GEICO and their advertising agency some credit for creativity. How many COMMERCIALS inspire a TV series (Cavemen), no matter how stupid the premise? People across the country often followed up the commonplace line” “I’ve got some great news!” with “I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance!” for so long that the first sentence was almost inextricably linked to the second.
The Progressive girl couldn’t sell me an auto travel cup. At first, I thought the Progressive pitch was effective because they claimed an unbiased website where THE lowest premium would be displayed from a variety of companies—and that even if Progressive wasn’t the lowest, they would show it all. Now, THAT’S progressive—but does that still happen? It certainly is NOT the thrust of their TV ads, which have shifted to the typical “we have the lowest premiums”
Who can believe any of it anymore? They each quote a dollar savings feature when compared to a host of other companies (which they each identify by name). Problem is, they are ALL doing it, so somebody is lying.
And now, Allstate has something called “accident forgiveness”, where your premium won’t “necessarily” go up if you get into a crash. And, if you go accident-free, you actually receive a CHECK back from the company for up to 10% of your premium every six months. Good gimmick, but it could be that you are simply overpaying by 10% (or more) and that giving the excess back makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about your insurance company (yes, I just used “warm and fuzzy” and “insurance company” in the same sentence).
This Allstate gimmick to keep your premiums steady, even after an accident--- is worth looking into, however. We should read the fine print on THAT one.
For me, this is the great scam of auto insurance. Unless there is personal injury or excessive damage, NO ONE wants to make a claim for a fender bender. If your premium is, say, $2,500 a year for minimum liability and some collision, suppose you run into a fire hydrant and cause $1,000 in damage to your car. If you make a claim, the deductible portion is about $500---and then your yearly premium goes up to $3,000 or worse. So, instead of fixing it yourself and forking over the $1,000, you pay a $500 deductible and your premium goes up by the other $500. Seems like a wash until you realize that increase isn’t going away. Five years later, you’ve paid out $3,000 ($2,500 in increased premiums plus the $500 deductible) for that $1,000 accident.
Great deal—if you’re the insurance company.
Here’s quick video on buying cheap auto insurance online that may be helpful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwAC6MnuSsc
The fact is that auto insurance is NOT an option. It is required in nearly every state—and the relatively low claims to total autos on the road also means it is a HIGHLY lucrative business, hence the aggressive advertising to dominate the market.
No one with a brain can afford to drive around without insurance, but we are also at the mercy of a business model that resembles Las Vegas. The odds are permanently stacked in favor of the House.
Peace of mind is the true product—and benefit of any insurance policy—and if purchasing from a little green lizard does the trick, then you are getting your money’s worth—just pray you don’t have to ever test your policy limits!
If you’d like my weekday blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Maybe I should buy from the dude with the huge red umbrella, since his company was first in. Yep, Travelers Insurance Company of Hartford , CT (shocker) issued the VERY FIRST Auto Insurance policy on this date in 1898.
Dr, Truman J. Martin of Buffalo, New York paid a premium of $11.25 for the policy that covered $5,000 to $10,000 of liability. A bargain, to be sure, but back then there were a whole lot FEWER cars to bump into. In 1898, you were much more likely to run over an unsuspecting pedestrian…or a cow.
I admit that I have not shopped around much for insurance—as my policy combining home and auto makes stripping the auto portion out a PAIN in my rear fender—and likely not cost effective.
At least that’s what my agent tells me.
Not that I haven’t been exposed to the endless offers. GEICO has clearly been the most persistent. First, it was spoofs of reality shows, news broadcasts and just about everything else that all ended with a pitch for auto coverage that fooled just about every first-time viewer. When the novelty of these ads ran out, in crawled the gecko, then the caveman (“So easy a caveman can do it!”) and now, the stack of dollar bills that sport eyeballs and stare at you. Nice.
I’ve got to give GEICO and their advertising agency some credit for creativity. How many COMMERCIALS inspire a TV series (Cavemen), no matter how stupid the premise? People across the country often followed up the commonplace line” “I’ve got some great news!” with “I just saved a bunch of money on my car insurance!” for so long that the first sentence was almost inextricably linked to the second.
The Progressive girl couldn’t sell me an auto travel cup. At first, I thought the Progressive pitch was effective because they claimed an unbiased website where THE lowest premium would be displayed from a variety of companies—and that even if Progressive wasn’t the lowest, they would show it all. Now, THAT’S progressive—but does that still happen? It certainly is NOT the thrust of their TV ads, which have shifted to the typical “we have the lowest premiums”
Who can believe any of it anymore? They each quote a dollar savings feature when compared to a host of other companies (which they each identify by name). Problem is, they are ALL doing it, so somebody is lying.
And now, Allstate has something called “accident forgiveness”, where your premium won’t “necessarily” go up if you get into a crash. And, if you go accident-free, you actually receive a CHECK back from the company for up to 10% of your premium every six months. Good gimmick, but it could be that you are simply overpaying by 10% (or more) and that giving the excess back makes you feel all warm and fuzzy about your insurance company (yes, I just used “warm and fuzzy” and “insurance company” in the same sentence).
This Allstate gimmick to keep your premiums steady, even after an accident--- is worth looking into, however. We should read the fine print on THAT one.
For me, this is the great scam of auto insurance. Unless there is personal injury or excessive damage, NO ONE wants to make a claim for a fender bender. If your premium is, say, $2,500 a year for minimum liability and some collision, suppose you run into a fire hydrant and cause $1,000 in damage to your car. If you make a claim, the deductible portion is about $500---and then your yearly premium goes up to $3,000 or worse. So, instead of fixing it yourself and forking over the $1,000, you pay a $500 deductible and your premium goes up by the other $500. Seems like a wash until you realize that increase isn’t going away. Five years later, you’ve paid out $3,000 ($2,500 in increased premiums plus the $500 deductible) for that $1,000 accident.
Great deal—if you’re the insurance company.
Here’s quick video on buying cheap auto insurance online that may be helpful:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SwAC6MnuSsc
The fact is that auto insurance is NOT an option. It is required in nearly every state—and the relatively low claims to total autos on the road also means it is a HIGHLY lucrative business, hence the aggressive advertising to dominate the market.
No one with a brain can afford to drive around without insurance, but we are also at the mercy of a business model that resembles Las Vegas. The odds are permanently stacked in favor of the House.
Peace of mind is the true product—and benefit of any insurance policy—and if purchasing from a little green lizard does the trick, then you are getting your money’s worth—just pray you don’t have to ever test your policy limits!
If you’d like my weekday blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
