OK…so the crowd at the Mall this past weekend wasn’t anywhere near the 500,000 to 880,000 that Glenn beck supporters claimed. Aerial photos—with a 6 percent margin of error—place it somewhere in the 80,000 range. Does it matter?
Still impressive, as each of those attendees arrived feeling unheard and unrepresented. The problem is that, in a vacuum, anyone voicing discontent can galvanize a constituency by merely showing up.
So, Beck showed up. With Sarah Palin, of all people.
Even Republicans must be cringing at the tone of the rhetoric that is quickly becoming associated with GOP doctrine (whether it actually is or not). Namely, it is the religious overtones of the Beck message, aimed squarely at the passionate base, but politically at the fringe.
Working the margins has never been more dangerous. Firing up the religious right is a sure-fire way to mobilize a HUGE portion of the electorate to the polls for the mid-terms. Unfortunately, the moderate Republicans who supported Obama in 2008 usually recoil when it appears the platform of the alternate candidate belongs in church.
While sounding much like a preacher, Beck chastised the President for religious reasons, accusing him of practicing—and I quote here: “A perversion of the gospel of Jesus Christ as most Christians know it”
Really?
While I give him credit for apologizing for calling Obama a “racist”, he didn’t do it before the crowd. No, he did it is response to a direct question from a reporter. An apology to avoid having to repeat the charge—clearly a mistake that cost the once high-flying Beck much of the respect that he had garnered as the voice of the “folks” .
“Restoring Honor” was both the theme and the objective of this rally.
Sticking to facts might be a good start.
There are plenty of issues to debate—and President Obama should face FAIR criticism over policy decisions. Leave out his religion, your religion, who’s closer to God and who knows what God really wants.
The Republican Party is in desperate need of a leader. Not someone like Mitt Romney, purposely staying out of the fray to mount a Presidential bid in 2012. Conservatives are a legitimate part of the nation. Their concerns need to be voiced—and debated.
There is someone out there who can unite the Republican Party, but that person is not Glenn Beck.
It is not Rush Limbaugh.
And it is certainly not Sarah Palin.
Resorting to cheap shots, untruths, half-truths—and maintaining silence when charges that Obama is a racist or a Muslim or not an American---is not the stuff of leaders.
A Republican needs to emerge who has the COURAGE to be both conservative—and pragmatic enough to work with Democrats. This Republican leader needs to advocate IDEAS and SOLUTIONS without worrying about political ground being lost if a legislative victory (that could be a victory for the country) is CREDITED to the Democrats because they are in the majority.
It’s the “scorched earth” policy that even conservative Republicans who oppose Obama cannot swallow. Namely, not EVERYTHING Obama does is evil, wrong or bad for the country. To say otherwise flies in the face of these pesky little things called facts. Republican politicians reversing their documented support simply because the President backs a bill---is both cowardly and wrong. It has been done several times.
A serious exchange cannot begin until there is a serious leader representing the Republican Party.
If he or she is out there, waiting for 2012 would be a mistake. Is anybody out there?
If you’d like my blog I your box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
Monday, August 30, 2010
The Disappearing Job
One of the curious aspects of the so-called “economic recovery” is the fact that although many companies are doing better—some spectacularly so, it is evident that the jobs that vanished in 2008 or earlier have not come back yet.
My inclination is to believe that many of them never will.
This rather pessimistic outlook is based on some direct experience, some applied common sense—and the words of some leading CEO’s.
A recent survey of top executives posed this very same question. So, if we’re all doing so much better, where are the jobs?
The conclusion of the study was a rather incoherent aggregate statement that alluded to hesitancy on the part of corporate America to grow payrolls because of “volatility of the consumer’s expectations”. In short, the titans of business were not at all confident of their customers pulling out their wallets and purses en masse to keep the momentum going.
Fair enough, but one CEO, speaking on the condition of anonymity, stated a far more ominous cause. Namely, that existing workloads merely shifted to the survivors of the corporate bloodletting (all of whom were willing to double or even triple their responsibilities in order to save their jobs)---and that companies enjoying these ongoing savings were loathe to increase their expenses by hiring relief help.
After all, the continuing unemployment has not abated—and those holding jobs are mostly unwilling to risk leaving them for uncharted waters. So, in other words, to hell with the human cost of increased workloads, hours and stress. There are plenty of people on the sidelines willing to jump in.
And every one of the currently employed, harried as they may be—knows it. And so they endure.
The common sense piece refers to the natural “corrections” that occur in markets when prices are driven artificially high. A crash of some sort has to occur—and this most recent one is exacerbated by the technology that allows more to be done—ever quicker and with less human involvement.
My sense is that many companies were bloated with middle and even upper management layers. People who, though they worked hard and cared about their company, had little to do with either the direct PRODUCTION of the product or service—or the SALE of that product or service. These were the positions most vulnerable to elimination. What further insult to the loss of your job than to know that after a year or two, things are running just as smoothly---or perhaps even smoother than when you were on the scene.
At least on the surface.
Some of that waste is real—and anyone in a major corporation can tell you just who isn’t “pulling their weight” or about so-and-so being a major drain, a waste of space etc.
What the CEO’s don’t see—is that talented people—those whose skills were seen as indispensable when the budget axe dropped—are being taxed beyond their limits. The smart companies, on the other hand, may indeed be mean and lean---but the forward-looking, people-first firms know the physical limits that can be expected of their work force. These opportunistic companies will descend upon the ranks of the beleaguered and burnt-out, offering positions that may not even pay more, but ones that come with an exciting fringe benefit: the time to have a LIFE.
Entire industries are going through transition now—and the web/digital technology is a big part of it. Radio stations can displace local personalities with syndicated shows beamed to hundreds of markets simultaneously. Just one automated checkout aisle removes a job at the supermarket. And real estate is quickly making the “agent” a thing of the past. No one needs someone standing in the house declaring “here is the living room”. We can have 360-degree views of every room online and the commissions paid to realtors are becoming a point of negotiation more than ever before.
The future lies with new technologies, new products and services—and those willing to make the transition. At no time in our history has retraining been more vital. People will now change careers many times in their working lives.
Our kids are OK with this.
We, the old fart generation are not. We’ll cling to what we know—or perhaps those arenas where our present skill-set can be redeployed. This type of thinking will annihilate us.
Instead, we must embrace the new technologies, learn them, REALLY learn them—and then harness them to build the future.
Who knows what new industries will exist 10 or 20 years from now?
No, many of the old jobs are never coming back…..but how about those NEW ones?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
My inclination is to believe that many of them never will.
This rather pessimistic outlook is based on some direct experience, some applied common sense—and the words of some leading CEO’s.
A recent survey of top executives posed this very same question. So, if we’re all doing so much better, where are the jobs?
The conclusion of the study was a rather incoherent aggregate statement that alluded to hesitancy on the part of corporate America to grow payrolls because of “volatility of the consumer’s expectations”. In short, the titans of business were not at all confident of their customers pulling out their wallets and purses en masse to keep the momentum going.
Fair enough, but one CEO, speaking on the condition of anonymity, stated a far more ominous cause. Namely, that existing workloads merely shifted to the survivors of the corporate bloodletting (all of whom were willing to double or even triple their responsibilities in order to save their jobs)---and that companies enjoying these ongoing savings were loathe to increase their expenses by hiring relief help.
After all, the continuing unemployment has not abated—and those holding jobs are mostly unwilling to risk leaving them for uncharted waters. So, in other words, to hell with the human cost of increased workloads, hours and stress. There are plenty of people on the sidelines willing to jump in.
And every one of the currently employed, harried as they may be—knows it. And so they endure.
The common sense piece refers to the natural “corrections” that occur in markets when prices are driven artificially high. A crash of some sort has to occur—and this most recent one is exacerbated by the technology that allows more to be done—ever quicker and with less human involvement.
My sense is that many companies were bloated with middle and even upper management layers. People who, though they worked hard and cared about their company, had little to do with either the direct PRODUCTION of the product or service—or the SALE of that product or service. These were the positions most vulnerable to elimination. What further insult to the loss of your job than to know that after a year or two, things are running just as smoothly---or perhaps even smoother than when you were on the scene.
At least on the surface.
Some of that waste is real—and anyone in a major corporation can tell you just who isn’t “pulling their weight” or about so-and-so being a major drain, a waste of space etc.
What the CEO’s don’t see—is that talented people—those whose skills were seen as indispensable when the budget axe dropped—are being taxed beyond their limits. The smart companies, on the other hand, may indeed be mean and lean---but the forward-looking, people-first firms know the physical limits that can be expected of their work force. These opportunistic companies will descend upon the ranks of the beleaguered and burnt-out, offering positions that may not even pay more, but ones that come with an exciting fringe benefit: the time to have a LIFE.
Entire industries are going through transition now—and the web/digital technology is a big part of it. Radio stations can displace local personalities with syndicated shows beamed to hundreds of markets simultaneously. Just one automated checkout aisle removes a job at the supermarket. And real estate is quickly making the “agent” a thing of the past. No one needs someone standing in the house declaring “here is the living room”. We can have 360-degree views of every room online and the commissions paid to realtors are becoming a point of negotiation more than ever before.
The future lies with new technologies, new products and services—and those willing to make the transition. At no time in our history has retraining been more vital. People will now change careers many times in their working lives.
Our kids are OK with this.
We, the old fart generation are not. We’ll cling to what we know—or perhaps those arenas where our present skill-set can be redeployed. This type of thinking will annihilate us.
Instead, we must embrace the new technologies, learn them, REALLY learn them—and then harness them to build the future.
Who knows what new industries will exist 10 or 20 years from now?
No, many of the old jobs are never coming back…..but how about those NEW ones?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Saturday, August 28, 2010
Or Is THIS The Worst Music Video Ever?
When I released my blog of “The Worst Music Video Ever” (7/29), I was immediately inundated with a slew of other candidates.
All of them worthy…or unworthy, if you get my drift.
Most were homemade videos of horrible singers, combined with inferior video and a lousy sound quality.
My criteria for qualifying was that the video be a real attempt to craft something that would appeal to consumers. A real, “professional” singer or act. Someone who actually MEANT for their production to be viewed and enjoyed, unaware that the enjoyment was based in ridicule.
Enter Steklovata.
I think they’re Swedish…and I have to credit YouTube for sending them to my computer. Knowing I had searched under “Worst Music Video Ever” to come up with my July blog, the inanimate computer algorithm at YouTube headquarters somehow knew that THIS one would make me laugh out loud.
Hope you enjoy it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1j_LfpKb1o&feature=rec-exp_fresh+div-1r-20-HM
From the bad teeth to the gawky movements and snappy outfits—to the cutting-edge graphics behind these superstars, it’s clear that this is an award-winner. I’m only grateful that I cannot understand what the hell they are singing about!
As someone wise but anonymous once said: “Fashions come and fashions go, but bad taste is timeless”
How true.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
All of them worthy…or unworthy, if you get my drift.
Most were homemade videos of horrible singers, combined with inferior video and a lousy sound quality.
My criteria for qualifying was that the video be a real attempt to craft something that would appeal to consumers. A real, “professional” singer or act. Someone who actually MEANT for their production to be viewed and enjoyed, unaware that the enjoyment was based in ridicule.
Enter Steklovata.
I think they’re Swedish…and I have to credit YouTube for sending them to my computer. Knowing I had searched under “Worst Music Video Ever” to come up with my July blog, the inanimate computer algorithm at YouTube headquarters somehow knew that THIS one would make me laugh out loud.
Hope you enjoy it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1j_LfpKb1o&feature=rec-exp_fresh+div-1r-20-HM
From the bad teeth to the gawky movements and snappy outfits—to the cutting-edge graphics behind these superstars, it’s clear that this is an award-winner. I’m only grateful that I cannot understand what the hell they are singing about!
As someone wise but anonymous once said: “Fashions come and fashions go, but bad taste is timeless”
How true.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, August 26, 2010
Your Pain Is Funny...But Not Mine
Another crazy week for me means another ENCORE Blog today---but one that is back by popular demand, mostly for the hilarious video:
What is it about human beings that we find humor in other people’s pain?
Admit it.
You laugh when people fall down, get bonked in the head or take one in the crotch.Sometimes when it happens to US, we too, will crack up—only after we’ve checked to see there is no blood--or no body parts sticking out at funny (and by funny I mean unusual) angles.
Usually though, we are somewhat angry and offended when, after getting up from a spill, we gaze into the faces of our “friends”, who are too busy peeing in their pants to ask if we’re OK. Sometimes it’s a stilted, “Wow, are you alright” spoken through the gritted teeth of someone who is visibly suppressing laughter. Other times, your “buddies” are now themselves on the floor, rolling around and laughing like hyenas.
“Thanks for your CONCERN!”
The internet and the proliferation of video recording on cell phones, etc. has provided enough footage of people slamming themselves into walls, slipping on ice and generally making painful fools of themselves to keep us “entertained” for hours.It’s probably a good thing that we don’t get to see the trips to emergency rooms, hospitals and the morgue that come from these clips.
So, just how good are YOU?
Can you watch the following video and not even crack a SMILE?
Betcha you can’t:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdAYwMPFDcs
How did you do?
Perhaps we’ll get our just desserts in the next life (“Table for one in HELL, please!”)I operate with the ASSUMPTION that all injuries for which I have laughed at above were minor—and that the victim was a good sport.And the next time I wipe out, my first reaction will be to look around and make DAMN sure no one is filming!
If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
What is it about human beings that we find humor in other people’s pain?
Admit it.
You laugh when people fall down, get bonked in the head or take one in the crotch.Sometimes when it happens to US, we too, will crack up—only after we’ve checked to see there is no blood--or no body parts sticking out at funny (and by funny I mean unusual) angles.
Usually though, we are somewhat angry and offended when, after getting up from a spill, we gaze into the faces of our “friends”, who are too busy peeing in their pants to ask if we’re OK. Sometimes it’s a stilted, “Wow, are you alright” spoken through the gritted teeth of someone who is visibly suppressing laughter. Other times, your “buddies” are now themselves on the floor, rolling around and laughing like hyenas.
“Thanks for your CONCERN!”
The internet and the proliferation of video recording on cell phones, etc. has provided enough footage of people slamming themselves into walls, slipping on ice and generally making painful fools of themselves to keep us “entertained” for hours.It’s probably a good thing that we don’t get to see the trips to emergency rooms, hospitals and the morgue that come from these clips.
So, just how good are YOU?
Can you watch the following video and not even crack a SMILE?
Betcha you can’t:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdAYwMPFDcs
How did you do?
Perhaps we’ll get our just desserts in the next life (“Table for one in HELL, please!”)I operate with the ASSUMPTION that all injuries for which I have laughed at above were minor—and that the victim was a good sport.And the next time I wipe out, my first reaction will be to look around and make DAMN sure no one is filming!
If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
The Power Of A Letter
It was a quarter century ago that 13 year-old Samantha Smith, her father and eight others were killed in a plane crash.
Samantha made worldwide headlines just two years earlier—after writing a letter to Soviet President Yuri Andropov, asking him bluntly why he wanted to conquer the world. After initially receiving no response, Samantha wrote another letter to the Soviet Embassy, expressing her disappointment at not getting a letter in return.
Then, it got interesting.
Yuri Andropov wrote a personal reply, assuring the Maine schoolgirl that his country had no intention of starting a war or taking over the globe. What was surely a stroke of genius direct from the Soviet public relations/propaganda machine, was nevertheless gobbled up by the American media and the U.S. public. In the process, an unlikely celebrity was born.
Samantha Smith made her mark in her short life—and demonstrated the power of a letter. The intelligent and articulate 10 year-old (at the time) penned a direct question that was both naïve and profound. After all, there is hardly ever a logical case for war, violence and bloodshed. Framing it in the simplistic language of a child made the relationship that grew out of that simple one-page letter the stuff of legend.
Andropov invited Smith and her family to the Soviet Union, prompting another wave of worldwide attention and publicity. While the State Department no doubt cringed at the thought of the “Evil Empire” attempting to manipulate American public opinion by using a 10 year old child, there had to be some private concessions that perhaps this youngster had accomplished more diplomatically than any delegation sent from the White House ever could.
Check out Ted Koppel’s interview of Samantha on ABC’s “Nightline” program:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TgCEvWa16Y&feature=related
Amazing.
We lost this young leader too soon, but her memory lives on through the Samantha Smith Foundation, started by her mother Jane—to honor her daughter and perpetuate the cause of peace that this small ambassador started. If you’d like more information on the work of the Foundation, here is the link:
http://www.samanthasmith.info/Foundation.htm
One young life. Not many years –certainly not enough. But an impact that resonates even today, 27 years after that simple but fateful letter.
Just a letter.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Samantha made worldwide headlines just two years earlier—after writing a letter to Soviet President Yuri Andropov, asking him bluntly why he wanted to conquer the world. After initially receiving no response, Samantha wrote another letter to the Soviet Embassy, expressing her disappointment at not getting a letter in return.
Then, it got interesting.
Yuri Andropov wrote a personal reply, assuring the Maine schoolgirl that his country had no intention of starting a war or taking over the globe. What was surely a stroke of genius direct from the Soviet public relations/propaganda machine, was nevertheless gobbled up by the American media and the U.S. public. In the process, an unlikely celebrity was born.
Samantha Smith made her mark in her short life—and demonstrated the power of a letter. The intelligent and articulate 10 year-old (at the time) penned a direct question that was both naïve and profound. After all, there is hardly ever a logical case for war, violence and bloodshed. Framing it in the simplistic language of a child made the relationship that grew out of that simple one-page letter the stuff of legend.
Andropov invited Smith and her family to the Soviet Union, prompting another wave of worldwide attention and publicity. While the State Department no doubt cringed at the thought of the “Evil Empire” attempting to manipulate American public opinion by using a 10 year old child, there had to be some private concessions that perhaps this youngster had accomplished more diplomatically than any delegation sent from the White House ever could.
Check out Ted Koppel’s interview of Samantha on ABC’s “Nightline” program:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TgCEvWa16Y&feature=related
Amazing.
We lost this young leader too soon, but her memory lives on through the Samantha Smith Foundation, started by her mother Jane—to honor her daughter and perpetuate the cause of peace that this small ambassador started. If you’d like more information on the work of the Foundation, here is the link:
http://www.samanthasmith.info/Foundation.htm
One young life. Not many years –certainly not enough. But an impact that resonates even today, 27 years after that simple but fateful letter.
Just a letter.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Klutz Syndrome-Afflicting Us All
We all know someone who can’t get out of their own way. Maybe you ARE that person.
These people are usually well aware of their tendency to crash into things—and often refer to themselves as a “klutz”. If there is something to trip over, a banana peel to slip on, a low hanging branch to walk into…they’ll find it.
Over time and many episodes of such behavior, the professional klutz has adapted socially, deftly picking themselves up and dusting themselves off, mastering the art of looking nonchalant as if they fall down an entire flight of stairs on a daily basis. Their battle cry is: “I’m OK!”, “Just a scratch” and “Wow, who put THAT there?!”
This tendency towards clumsiness is not genetic (I don’t think), but there are some folks who seem to be definitely accident prone. When we identify these unfortunate souls, we scramble to relieve them of any duties they’ll volunteer for, like say, offering to carry your grandmother’s antique china across the room to put away.
“Whoa! That’s OK…I’ve got it! No trouble!”
Whew. That was a close one.
The peculiar thing is that we have ALL suffered bouts of clumsiness—and rarely if ever can we attach a cause. There are just some days when it might have been better if we stayed in bed. The brain synapses don’t fire correctly for some reason on certain days, causing a bad case of “butterfingers” or the dreaded “Chevy Chase Syndrome”, where simply walking from Point A to Point B without falling becomes an insurmountable task.
So….the population is roughly divided into three general groups:
1) The Majority-Able to function without frequent episodes of clumsiness. We have “one of those days” every so often where we join the ranks of #2 below, but mercifully, its duration is relatively short.
2) The Klutz-People who are literally an “accident waiting to happen”. Since they expect things to go south, this of course is a self fulfilling prophesy that never fails to deliver. I wonder if these people also have “one of those days”---when everything goes RIGHT. A glimpse of normalcy in an otherwise vast wasteland of disaster.
3) The Athlete-Here’s the OTHER end of the spectrum. People with uncommon coordination and body control. Perhaps you know one or two of these fortunate folks. They always seem to GLIDE from one place to another. Cat-like reflexes, balance and grace. We tend to think of pro athletes when we conjure up images of physical expertise. True, the pros all exhibit above average coordination, but there are others---who may never sign a multi-million dollar sports contract—who have skills that equal or EXCEED those of the pro athlete.
Don’t believe me? Check out this INCREDIBLE video of athletic, gymnastic and physical prowess:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOOlUR9Cg1Q
Hey, don’t try THAT at home!
I think I’ll stick to golf…where being an occasional klutz on the links has me in good (and exceedingly large) company!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
These people are usually well aware of their tendency to crash into things—and often refer to themselves as a “klutz”. If there is something to trip over, a banana peel to slip on, a low hanging branch to walk into…they’ll find it.
Over time and many episodes of such behavior, the professional klutz has adapted socially, deftly picking themselves up and dusting themselves off, mastering the art of looking nonchalant as if they fall down an entire flight of stairs on a daily basis. Their battle cry is: “I’m OK!”, “Just a scratch” and “Wow, who put THAT there?!”
This tendency towards clumsiness is not genetic (I don’t think), but there are some folks who seem to be definitely accident prone. When we identify these unfortunate souls, we scramble to relieve them of any duties they’ll volunteer for, like say, offering to carry your grandmother’s antique china across the room to put away.
“Whoa! That’s OK…I’ve got it! No trouble!”
Whew. That was a close one.
The peculiar thing is that we have ALL suffered bouts of clumsiness—and rarely if ever can we attach a cause. There are just some days when it might have been better if we stayed in bed. The brain synapses don’t fire correctly for some reason on certain days, causing a bad case of “butterfingers” or the dreaded “Chevy Chase Syndrome”, where simply walking from Point A to Point B without falling becomes an insurmountable task.
So….the population is roughly divided into three general groups:
1) The Majority-Able to function without frequent episodes of clumsiness. We have “one of those days” every so often where we join the ranks of #2 below, but mercifully, its duration is relatively short.
2) The Klutz-People who are literally an “accident waiting to happen”. Since they expect things to go south, this of course is a self fulfilling prophesy that never fails to deliver. I wonder if these people also have “one of those days”---when everything goes RIGHT. A glimpse of normalcy in an otherwise vast wasteland of disaster.
3) The Athlete-Here’s the OTHER end of the spectrum. People with uncommon coordination and body control. Perhaps you know one or two of these fortunate folks. They always seem to GLIDE from one place to another. Cat-like reflexes, balance and grace. We tend to think of pro athletes when we conjure up images of physical expertise. True, the pros all exhibit above average coordination, but there are others---who may never sign a multi-million dollar sports contract—who have skills that equal or EXCEED those of the pro athlete.
Don’t believe me? Check out this INCREDIBLE video of athletic, gymnastic and physical prowess:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOOlUR9Cg1Q
Hey, don’t try THAT at home!
I think I’ll stick to golf…where being an occasional klutz on the links has me in good (and exceedingly large) company!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, August 23, 2010
Shopping As A Sport
The following is an ENCORE Tim Moore blog—written about a year ago—and I received a request to re-run “That shopping blog”….which I think is this one. Enjoy!
I talked to my nine-year old son this morning, happily on his way to the store with his older sister.
He was excited to go shopping, the subtext being that he expected to receive something from the trip. A small toy, a new pair of crocs, certainly something to eat. What kid wouldn’t want to go on such an excursion?
My worry is that no matter how innocent any isolated trip may be, there is a pattern—and a message—that I don’t want my kids to have ingrained in them. Namely, it is the notion that happiness is derived from THINGS. The best way to deal with boredom is to buy something.
I have noticed that “going shopping” has graduated from being a utilitarian endeavor (“I’m OUT of this, so I need to get THAT”) into a social experience and activity where the pursuit of “stuff” has merged with excess free time to create what for many people is a hobby or pastime.
“When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping” is a funny statement, but perhaps all too true. “Shop-aholics” are common in our culture—and the idea that spending money for materials goods may alleviate stress or provide a temporary “high” has some evidence of being fairly accurate. Of course, it is all an illusion. The thought that our innermost needs can be satisfied by THINGS is a pathetic statement of our culture-one that glorifies consumption and encourages comparison of different people based on their possessions. We need a more spiritual approach to affluence and the definition of success.
The Mall of America opened in August of 1992 in Bloomington, Minnesota. So big that a roller coaster entertains folks inside and so varied that it has become a VACATION DESTINATION!!! Over 40 MILLION people visit each year!
Below is a short video “tour” of the Mall of America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0WCMzxgz0k
I too, enjoy shopping-and I like buying things as much as the next guy. I don’t mean to imply that I am somehow immune from the tendencies to fixate on inanimate objects. It’s the idea of seeing this behavior in my children that drives me to ask—“Am I that bad too?”
Focusing on family, on people and human needs OUTSIDE our own is perhaps the most effective-and productive way to break the cycle of chasing things for the sake of acquisition alone.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It’s free-no shopping required!
I talked to my nine-year old son this morning, happily on his way to the store with his older sister.
He was excited to go shopping, the subtext being that he expected to receive something from the trip. A small toy, a new pair of crocs, certainly something to eat. What kid wouldn’t want to go on such an excursion?
My worry is that no matter how innocent any isolated trip may be, there is a pattern—and a message—that I don’t want my kids to have ingrained in them. Namely, it is the notion that happiness is derived from THINGS. The best way to deal with boredom is to buy something.
I have noticed that “going shopping” has graduated from being a utilitarian endeavor (“I’m OUT of this, so I need to get THAT”) into a social experience and activity where the pursuit of “stuff” has merged with excess free time to create what for many people is a hobby or pastime.
“When the going gets tough, the tough go shopping” is a funny statement, but perhaps all too true. “Shop-aholics” are common in our culture—and the idea that spending money for materials goods may alleviate stress or provide a temporary “high” has some evidence of being fairly accurate. Of course, it is all an illusion. The thought that our innermost needs can be satisfied by THINGS is a pathetic statement of our culture-one that glorifies consumption and encourages comparison of different people based on their possessions. We need a more spiritual approach to affluence and the definition of success.
The Mall of America opened in August of 1992 in Bloomington, Minnesota. So big that a roller coaster entertains folks inside and so varied that it has become a VACATION DESTINATION!!! Over 40 MILLION people visit each year!
Below is a short video “tour” of the Mall of America:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0WCMzxgz0k
I too, enjoy shopping-and I like buying things as much as the next guy. I don’t mean to imply that I am somehow immune from the tendencies to fixate on inanimate objects. It’s the idea of seeing this behavior in my children that drives me to ask—“Am I that bad too?”
Focusing on family, on people and human needs OUTSIDE our own is perhaps the most effective-and productive way to break the cycle of chasing things for the sake of acquisition alone.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It’s free-no shopping required!
Friday, August 20, 2010
Penguins Are Cool
Hey, it’s Friday…and time to keep things light……
Ya gotta love penguins!
Here’s an animal that’s drawn a particularly bad hand:
1) You’re a bird, but you can’t fly
2) You can barely walk (waddle), but at least you can swim
3) You live in frigid temps on ice with food always a struggle to find
In spite of all this, the penguin seems to have accepted his/her situation with grace and even, some would say…a sense of humor.
Some penguins have it easier—and thus the focus of today’s blog is an amazing penguin who is kept as a pet and lives in Japan…check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11xs9mFKObs
Now that’s funny…for you true penguin aficionados, watch this BBC promo—that will have you scratching your head…until you realize it was released on April 1st:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4&feature=related
Have a great weekend!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know:
Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Ya gotta love penguins!
Here’s an animal that’s drawn a particularly bad hand:
1) You’re a bird, but you can’t fly
2) You can barely walk (waddle), but at least you can swim
3) You live in frigid temps on ice with food always a struggle to find
In spite of all this, the penguin seems to have accepted his/her situation with grace and even, some would say…a sense of humor.
Some penguins have it easier—and thus the focus of today’s blog is an amazing penguin who is kept as a pet and lives in Japan…check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11xs9mFKObs
Now that’s funny…for you true penguin aficionados, watch this BBC promo—that will have you scratching your head…until you realize it was released on April 1st:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dfWzp7rYR4&feature=related
Have a great weekend!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know:
Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, August 19, 2010
Auto Racing's Real Birthday
It was on this date in 1909 that the very first auto race at what would become the Indianapolis Motor Speedway took place.
The growing auto industry demanded the construction of a test facility—and local businessmen built a track on 328 acres of farmland. Eventually, the surface was replaced with over 3 million paving bricks in a bed of sand and fixed with mortar, thus earning the name “The Brickyard”.
Over 12,000 spectators were on hand to see Austrian engineer Louis Schwitzer take the checkered flag with an average speed of 57.4 miles per hour!
Low attendance following this inaugural race caused track officials to make a critical decision. Instead of a series of short races, a grueling race of great distance was decided upon.
The Indy 500 was born—and was a huge hit with audiences. Here is a video clip of that very first Indy 500—in 1911:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReLJ7UZdG9Q
Although I enjoy racing—and have been to a NASCAR event, I don’t really “get” the passion that true race fans exhibit. Racing is the #1 spectator sport in the U.S.—ahead of baseball, football, hockey, you name it! In fact, with an average attendance of 400,000, the Indy 500 is the best-attended event in U.S. sports.
There are many who do not consider it a “sport”—or the drivers “athletes”. I am not one of them. Unbelievable concentration, focus over many hours and catlike reflexes make race car drivers true athletes in my book. While these qualities/talents may be required in other sports, a lapse for even a second can cost the driver his/her life---not so with most other endeavors. Since the stakes are so high—and the danger so ever present, it’s difficult to NOT consider drivers athletes of the highest order.
Despite all this, you will rarely catch me watching any racing on TV…too boring. I like to view truly riveting sports on television.
Like golf.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
The growing auto industry demanded the construction of a test facility—and local businessmen built a track on 328 acres of farmland. Eventually, the surface was replaced with over 3 million paving bricks in a bed of sand and fixed with mortar, thus earning the name “The Brickyard”.
Over 12,000 spectators were on hand to see Austrian engineer Louis Schwitzer take the checkered flag with an average speed of 57.4 miles per hour!
Low attendance following this inaugural race caused track officials to make a critical decision. Instead of a series of short races, a grueling race of great distance was decided upon.
The Indy 500 was born—and was a huge hit with audiences. Here is a video clip of that very first Indy 500—in 1911:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ReLJ7UZdG9Q
Although I enjoy racing—and have been to a NASCAR event, I don’t really “get” the passion that true race fans exhibit. Racing is the #1 spectator sport in the U.S.—ahead of baseball, football, hockey, you name it! In fact, with an average attendance of 400,000, the Indy 500 is the best-attended event in U.S. sports.
There are many who do not consider it a “sport”—or the drivers “athletes”. I am not one of them. Unbelievable concentration, focus over many hours and catlike reflexes make race car drivers true athletes in my book. While these qualities/talents may be required in other sports, a lapse for even a second can cost the driver his/her life---not so with most other endeavors. Since the stakes are so high—and the danger so ever present, it’s difficult to NOT consider drivers athletes of the highest order.
Despite all this, you will rarely catch me watching any racing on TV…too boring. I like to view truly riveting sports on television.
Like golf.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, August 18, 2010
Religious Freedom Means Everyone...Or Does It?
I am torn over the recent debate over the so-called “mosque” being planned at “ground zero” in New York City.
Mixed feelings jockey back and forth within me--ones that accrue from feeling strongly about the right to religious freedom for all---and simultaneously having a visceral emotion that says that the location is in bad taste.
A few factual tidbits may clear up the situation for those still struggling with their own feelings on the issue:
1) The proposed building is actually a “community center”, not a mosque. A center, that while including a Muslim “prayer room” as part of the design, the facility is meant to be open to everyone.
2) The location is not technically at “ground zero”. It is a couple of blocks away. There are supposedly bars and strip joints closer to the former site of the World Trade Center towers than the proposed building.
Intellectually, I know that Islam—as a religion---does not preach violence. To equate the teachings of Mohammed to terrorism is simply, factually, incorrect.
That said, Islamic extremists, acting on their INTERPRETATION of the Quoran, nonetheless have committed thousands of acts of murder and violence in the name of Islam. This lingering truth has understandably caused millions of Americans to draw a correlation that connects the Muslim world directly to terrorism.
I guess my “opinion” would be summed up by saying; “They have a right to build it there, but I really wish they wouldn’t”.
President Obama has been put in an impossible situation by commenting on the controversy. It’s a no-win scenario—and a political depth charge that will no doubt resonate with voters in the midterm elections. Republicans like Newt Gingrich have already attacked the President. The knives are out—and they will probably be wielded right up until election day, where emotionally charged voters will punish those who support this project. And, make no mistake—no candidate, regardless of the location of their race—will escape weighing in on this topic.
Truthfully, there may be violence and/or terrorism if this center is built. If so, it is likely to be committed by non-Muslims and directed at the Islamic community.
Three short videos today:
A) President Obama’s statement
B) A YouTube statement against the mosque by a British man, who, while obviously not a fan of Islam, is at least articulate in his views.
C) A monologue by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who views are no less emotionally charged-and is likewise skilled in delivering them.
Watch all three—and decide for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGxErTnYHrM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0
Your conclusion may be that you don’t HAVE an opinion—and that’s OK, too. If you do, please feel free to weigh in—either here—or as a reply e-mail to those who receive the Tim Moore blog that way.
If you would like to receive this daily missive, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Mixed feelings jockey back and forth within me--ones that accrue from feeling strongly about the right to religious freedom for all---and simultaneously having a visceral emotion that says that the location is in bad taste.
A few factual tidbits may clear up the situation for those still struggling with their own feelings on the issue:
1) The proposed building is actually a “community center”, not a mosque. A center, that while including a Muslim “prayer room” as part of the design, the facility is meant to be open to everyone.
2) The location is not technically at “ground zero”. It is a couple of blocks away. There are supposedly bars and strip joints closer to the former site of the World Trade Center towers than the proposed building.
Intellectually, I know that Islam—as a religion---does not preach violence. To equate the teachings of Mohammed to terrorism is simply, factually, incorrect.
That said, Islamic extremists, acting on their INTERPRETATION of the Quoran, nonetheless have committed thousands of acts of murder and violence in the name of Islam. This lingering truth has understandably caused millions of Americans to draw a correlation that connects the Muslim world directly to terrorism.
I guess my “opinion” would be summed up by saying; “They have a right to build it there, but I really wish they wouldn’t”.
President Obama has been put in an impossible situation by commenting on the controversy. It’s a no-win scenario—and a political depth charge that will no doubt resonate with voters in the midterm elections. Republicans like Newt Gingrich have already attacked the President. The knives are out—and they will probably be wielded right up until election day, where emotionally charged voters will punish those who support this project. And, make no mistake—no candidate, regardless of the location of their race—will escape weighing in on this topic.
Truthfully, there may be violence and/or terrorism if this center is built. If so, it is likely to be committed by non-Muslims and directed at the Islamic community.
Three short videos today:
A) President Obama’s statement
B) A YouTube statement against the mosque by a British man, who, while obviously not a fan of Islam, is at least articulate in his views.
C) A monologue by MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, who views are no less emotionally charged-and is likewise skilled in delivering them.
Watch all three—and decide for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGxErTnYHrM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjS0Novt3X4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZpT2Muxoo0
Your conclusion may be that you don’t HAVE an opinion—and that’s OK, too. If you do, please feel free to weigh in—either here—or as a reply e-mail to those who receive the Tim Moore blog that way.
If you would like to receive this daily missive, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
"Paper Lace" Flunks History, But Scores A #1 Hit
Back from vacation (it was great, thank you)—and digging out from a mountain of e-mail, voicemail and..uh…..mail. As such, we’re keeping it “light” today.
Today in history marks the conclusion of Woodstock in 1969, the birth of actor Robert DeNiro in 1943, a deadly earthquake in Turkey in 1999 and death of Hitler’s last henchman (Rudolph Hess) in 1987.
Also on this date, the band “Paper Lace” reached the top of the U.S. charts with a song that, while factually incorrect, was popular nevertheless. “The Night Chicago Died” peaked at #1 on this date in 1974.
Ugh.
They should have been a one-hit wonder, but the English group Paper Lace actually scored TWO “hits”, songs that are at once both catchy and totally forgettable. If you have either or both on your iPod, you are not likely to admit it. The other song was “Billy, Don’t Be A Hero”, which was a huge hit in the UK. Before it could be released in the states, it was recorded and released by Bo Donaldson and the Heywoods (another supergroup, no?)
Back to “Chicago”. Most people know that gangster Al Capone was brought to justice not by gun-toting law enforcement officers, but rather by pencil-pushing accountants who finally snagged him on tax evasion charges.
However, a song about bean counters was not about to capture the imagination of American audiences. So, what to do?
“The Night Chicago Died” was a song chronicling a fierce battle between the cops and Capone’s men on the East side of Chicago---a battle that never happened on a side of Chicago which, if it existed, would be submerged below Lake Michigan.
In case you don’t remember the tune (or are merely blocking it out), here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-L0NpaErkk
Watching the frames of the last “video”, perhaps the most amusing is the LP cover of an album that was Paper Lace’s “Greatest Hits”!Now, that’s funny.
Pop music in the early seventies was not remarkably strong. Graphic evidence comes from just knowing which song knocked “The Night Chicago Died” out of the #1 slot.
It was “(You’re) Havin’ My Baby” by Paul Anka.
This blog needs to end before I need a stomach distress bag.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Today in history marks the conclusion of Woodstock in 1969, the birth of actor Robert DeNiro in 1943, a deadly earthquake in Turkey in 1999 and death of Hitler’s last henchman (Rudolph Hess) in 1987.
Also on this date, the band “Paper Lace” reached the top of the U.S. charts with a song that, while factually incorrect, was popular nevertheless. “The Night Chicago Died” peaked at #1 on this date in 1974.
Ugh.
They should have been a one-hit wonder, but the English group Paper Lace actually scored TWO “hits”, songs that are at once both catchy and totally forgettable. If you have either or both on your iPod, you are not likely to admit it. The other song was “Billy, Don’t Be A Hero”, which was a huge hit in the UK. Before it could be released in the states, it was recorded and released by Bo Donaldson and the Heywoods (another supergroup, no?)
Back to “Chicago”. Most people know that gangster Al Capone was brought to justice not by gun-toting law enforcement officers, but rather by pencil-pushing accountants who finally snagged him on tax evasion charges.
However, a song about bean counters was not about to capture the imagination of American audiences. So, what to do?
“The Night Chicago Died” was a song chronicling a fierce battle between the cops and Capone’s men on the East side of Chicago---a battle that never happened on a side of Chicago which, if it existed, would be submerged below Lake Michigan.
In case you don’t remember the tune (or are merely blocking it out), here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-L0NpaErkk
Watching the frames of the last “video”, perhaps the most amusing is the LP cover of an album that was Paper Lace’s “Greatest Hits”!Now, that’s funny.
Pop music in the early seventies was not remarkably strong. Graphic evidence comes from just knowing which song knocked “The Night Chicago Died” out of the #1 slot.
It was “(You’re) Havin’ My Baby” by Paul Anka.
This blog needs to end before I need a stomach distress bag.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Dechaine Deserves New Trial, New Judge
Justice.
Webster’s Dictionary defines it as : a)“the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b)(1) the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal.”
In a world where we see a known terrorist who murdered hundreds released by Scottish officials on “humanitarian” grounds, where we hear of admitted murderers get plea-bargained sentences that allow them to see the light of day a few scant years after their crimes, it is no wonder that the public has no appetite for going “soft” on criminals.
Justice is a joke when these abuses are made known.
But what about those wrongly accused?
Dennis Dechaine has been behind bars for over 22 YEARS for a crime he could not possibly have committed. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could have happened to you or me.
An enormity of evidence—both denied to the jury at trial and discovered after the conviction—have, in my opinion, cleared Dennis Dechaine from any involvement in the abduction and murder of 12 year old Sarah Cherry back in 1988.
Despite this evidence, including DNA—Dechaine and his lawyers have been thwarted at every turn in their quest to gain Dennis a new trial. Legal procedure delays, petty maneuvering and the Maine “good ‘ol boy” legal community have conspired to deny a man with a compelling case for innocence the chance at a new trial.
Why?
Simple, really. The ego investment of the prosecutor, the judge and those police officers who failed to follow ANY OTHER leads or suspects would have their incompetence or obstruction of justice become completely exposed in a new trial.
The original prosecutor Eric Wright, in his zeal to satiate the public’s thirst for a suspect and a conviction, made a series of decisions that obscured the time of death (something defense attorney Tom Connolly acknowledged was a failing on his part to explore) This piece of critical evidence alone would have exonerated Dechaine. While finding the TRUTH should be the charge of the Prosecutor’s office, instead it was merely about finding someone to convict—and making the circumstantial evidence conform to sway a jury already predisposed by intense media exposure—to punish someone.
The judge?
Justice Carl O. Bradford. Many believe he made a series of errors in the original trial. I won’t assume his motives were suspect, but clearly the legal tradition of having the ORIGINAL PRESIDING JUDGE decide the fate of appeals is simply ludicrous!
Judge Bradford is semi-retired but still active enough to be the JUDGE WHO WILL DECIDE whether Dechaine gets a new trial in September?
Are you kidding me?
It’s been said that only judges have bigger egos than lawyers—and this judge has turned a blind eye to the JUSTICE principle defined above—to hide behind a stream of legal mumbo-jumbo, anything at all to divert attention away from the blunders he made that have ruined an innocent man’s life. Dennis actually pushed for DNA testing prior to his trial. Does this sound like the request of a guilty man?
Prosecutors opposed the introduction of this DNA evidence—and it was denied by Judge Bradford. One can speculate on WHY the state would oppose a method that would definitively isolate the true killer. Or, why, before Dechaine’s appeal could come to court, why the state INCINERATED all potential DNA evidence, save for a thumbnail, which, through an error of the court clerk, was placed in the possession of the defense counsel.
State laws were painstakingly changed to allow for the presentation of DNA evidence. Here’s another suggestion for a state law:
FORBID THE APPELATE REVIEW OF ANY CASE FROM BEING HEARD BY THE ORIGINAL PRESIDING JUDGE.
Yeah, I know that judges are SUPPOSED to be unbiased, but they are also human—and the last thing that Justice Carl O. Bradford will ever do is admit that he screwed up.
He did.
He probably knows it.
And he doesn’t care…….or does he? Does he really care for this concept called “justice”?
While we certainly can suspect the prosecutor’s office in the withholding and/or destruction of critical evidence, we will ASSUME the judge was not at all aware of these shenanigans. Revelation of these irregularities ALONE should compel the good judge to err on the side of…JUSTICE…and allow a new trial on this basis solely.
Judge Bradford’s upcoming decision on whether or not to grant Dechaine a new trial will define his career on the bench. Should he take into account the mountain of evidence that points in another direction, evidence that makes Dechaine’s guilt physically impossible and takes into consideration the criminally irresponsible behavior of the prosecutor’s office in the conduct of its investigation and subsequent trial, he will rule for justice, a forum where ALL of the evidence can be heard by a jury. Should he continue to hide behind the manipulation of words that lawyers use to distort the truth, he will concoct a lengthy document that, while filled with impressive legalese, will say nothing—other than the system he presides over is corrupt—and he is a part of that corruption.
Which will it be, your honor?
This case has haunted me ever since I read the excellent book by James P. Moore (no relation), entitled “Human Sacrifice”. It reads like a novel—gripping and astonishing, but to those connected to both the victim and the accused, it is nothing short of a real-life horror story. A retired law enforcement officer with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Moore attended a meeting of “Trial and error”, the group of Dechaine supporters who believe in his innocence and have, for over two decades, sought legal avenues toward gaining Dennis a new trial.
It is difficult to imagine living in prison, but to do so knowing that you didn’t commit the crime is beyond my ability to comprehend.
For those not familiar with the case, here are the basics.
On July 6, 1988, 12-year old Sarah Cherry was abducted while babysitting. Her body was found two days later in the woods. She had been strangled and tortured. Dennis Dechaine was picked up by police after leaving the woods. He was injecting drugs and had become disoriented, losing awareness of the location of his truck. He emerged from the woods around 8:45pm on the 6th.
After Sarah’s body was discovered on the 8th, Dechaine was arrested and charged with murder. He has not been free since.
I remember the case well. I also remember being convinced by news reports—ones that I myself delivered on the radio back then---that the police had arrested the right guy. I am about the same age as Dechaine. In 1988, I was 30 years old and living in Ellsworth, Maine. In the 22 years since then, my life has changed profoundly. Three children, two of whom are in college now. Advances in my career, moving to Portland, buying new houses and cars. Countless vacations, dinners out, family celebrations, holidays and excursions and simple pleasures have filled my days and nights. My wife and I just celebrated our 25th anniversary. It has truly been glorious.
For Dennis Dechaine?
Those same 22 years—losing his wife (a mutually agreed upon divorce to protect her assets from a civil trial), no family, no such simple pleasures—and the crushing boredom of endless days in the hell that is prison. No end in sight. Every hope, every wisp of a chance to introduce JUSTICE is delayed, blunted and thwarted by players in a legal system that’s more concerned with “following procedure/precedent” than finding truth. How Dennis has maintained his sanity and seemingly has come to terms with the bitterness of his situation is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Author James Moore was intrigued by the case—enough to conduct his own investigation—but warned members of “Trial and error” that if he found evidence to CONFIRM Dechaine’s guilt, he would make it public.
In fact, Moore, in his own telling of the circumstances, entered his investigation convinced of Dechaine’s guilt. After all, Dechaine was seen stumbling out the woods near where Sarah Cherry’s body was later found. Items from his truck were found in the driveway where Sarah was abducted. Police reports told of “confessions” by Dechaine-which was used as evidence in the trial, despite the absence of these so-called confessions in the police notes-and Dechaine’s denial of ever confessing to the crime.
The evidence that exonerates Dechaine (in my opinion) but at the VERY LEAST should gain him a new trial is overwhelming, but contains these highlights:
1) According to the medical examiner’s report—given huge windows on either side of the time of death of Sarah Cherry, Dennis Dechaine could not POSSIBLY have committed the crime-----because he was either in custody, being questioned or at home following his initial release by police—and under surveillance. Sarah’s throat was constricted in such a manner that she could not possibly have lived more than about 2 minutes from the time she was strangled. Dechaine was in custody when she died. It’s my opinion that Prosecutor Eric Wright was also aware of the problematic nature of the timing and thus, glossed over it at trial. Had the defense made this an issue, there could have been a different result.
2) DNA evidence from Sarah’s fingernails contain blood that is hers, but also blood from a man who is NOT Dennis Dechaine.
3) Forensic evidence concluded that Sarah Cherry was NEVER in Dennis Dechaine’s pickup truck. No fiber, no hairs, nothing. She was never there.
4) A known child molester with a history of violence was ignored as a suspect. Police notes outlining a set of footprints to this persons trailer—one adult and one barefoot child (Sarah was barefoot when abducted-her shoes left at the home of the people she was babysitting) were never followed up on.
5) Dennis Dechaine had absolutely no record of violence in his past. None. The mutilation that occurred to Sarah suggests a sociopath. Additionally, her panties were missing. Psychologists say that perpetrators of crimes like these often take a “souvenir” such as this. Dechaine had nothing like this on his person, in his truck or in his house. They have never been found—because the killer took them. A killer who is not Dennis Dechaine.
6) Of the nearly 200 items found in Dechaine’s truck, the only two that contained his name (and were part of the damning evidence that convicted him) where the ones that “fell out” of his truck during the abduction. The odds that only these two would be left behind is astronomical. This was a frameup. Remember, Sarah Cherry was NEVER in this truck that supposedly abducted her.
7) Dennis Dechaine did not know Sarah Cherry and would have had no reason to know that she would be at that house, at that time.
8) Dechaine himself pressed for examination of his house, his truck and his person, confident that an honest investigation would clear him. His mistake was in believing in the system, believing that his innocence would be evident.
9) There were multiple alternate suspects in the vicinity, men with criminal records of violence—and violence towards children. Dechaine’s arrest effectively halted all subsequent investigation into these more likely killers. Dechaine’s arrest was reasonable—he should have been a suspect, but certainly NOT the only one—and, as it turns out, the exclusive attention paid to him allowed the real killer to escape investigation and arrest.
There are many other pieces of evidence, circumstances—and just plain common sense that would point towards the notion of a new trial being a good idea.
Here is some video of Dennis himself, being interviewed in prison 6 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVIb2qplq_U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KslcRNuk9iQ&feature=related
Dennis Dechaine tried to take his own life in April. It was not successful—and new charges of trafficking in the drugs he used may be pending. Who could blame him? If you ask: how someone with a new trial decision pending could possibly take his own life, my only response would be that after over two decades of one legal disappointment after another, it’s likely that Dennis is just about out of hope.
So what about the victim’s family?
Many believe that Sarah’s family has been short-changed in all of this—and I cannot disagree. While at least one juror who voted for conviction has publicly said that the introduction of this new evidence would have been grounds for acquittal, I have yet to read or hear from a family member of the victim who believes Dechaine is innocent.
Sarah Cherry, were she alive today, would no doubt be a beautiful and vibrant 34 year old woman. Judging from the details we know about her as a 12 year old, she would likely have graduated college with distinction, perhaps have been an athlete and would likely now be a mother herself.
Perhaps the only “witness” to the abduction of Sarah Cherry was the infant who was being cared for—and who would be about 23 years old today. Apart from the killer, this infant was likely the last person to see Sarah alive.
This brutal murder cries out for justice, not merely “closure”. The conviction of the wrong person does not constitute justice or closure, only retribution.
If you’d like to know more about this case, I highly recommend the book “Human Sacrifice” by James P. Moore. I also encourage you to visit the website of Trial and error:
www.trialanderrordennis.org
The tragedy of Sarah Cherry’s death is the ultimate one.
The tragedy of Dennis Dechaine’s wrongful conviction is second in line---and vies with the knowledge that the TRUE killer got away with it (and did God knows what to others since)
Let’s not compound this series of tragedies by allowing Dechaine to be denied a new trial by a judge who has NO BUSINESS being involved with this case any longer. Judge Bradford has the final say, whether he deserves it or not.
It’s not about who made a mistake—or who may have concealed evidence.
It’s about justice.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Webster’s Dictionary defines it as : a)“the quality of being just, impartial, or fair b)(1) the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action (2): conformity to this principle or ideal.”
In a world where we see a known terrorist who murdered hundreds released by Scottish officials on “humanitarian” grounds, where we hear of admitted murderers get plea-bargained sentences that allow them to see the light of day a few scant years after their crimes, it is no wonder that the public has no appetite for going “soft” on criminals.
Justice is a joke when these abuses are made known.
But what about those wrongly accused?
Dennis Dechaine has been behind bars for over 22 YEARS for a crime he could not possibly have committed. He was in the wrong place at the wrong time. It could have happened to you or me.
An enormity of evidence—both denied to the jury at trial and discovered after the conviction—have, in my opinion, cleared Dennis Dechaine from any involvement in the abduction and murder of 12 year old Sarah Cherry back in 1988.
Despite this evidence, including DNA—Dechaine and his lawyers have been thwarted at every turn in their quest to gain Dennis a new trial. Legal procedure delays, petty maneuvering and the Maine “good ‘ol boy” legal community have conspired to deny a man with a compelling case for innocence the chance at a new trial.
Why?
Simple, really. The ego investment of the prosecutor, the judge and those police officers who failed to follow ANY OTHER leads or suspects would have their incompetence or obstruction of justice become completely exposed in a new trial.
The original prosecutor Eric Wright, in his zeal to satiate the public’s thirst for a suspect and a conviction, made a series of decisions that obscured the time of death (something defense attorney Tom Connolly acknowledged was a failing on his part to explore) This piece of critical evidence alone would have exonerated Dechaine. While finding the TRUTH should be the charge of the Prosecutor’s office, instead it was merely about finding someone to convict—and making the circumstantial evidence conform to sway a jury already predisposed by intense media exposure—to punish someone.
The judge?
Justice Carl O. Bradford. Many believe he made a series of errors in the original trial. I won’t assume his motives were suspect, but clearly the legal tradition of having the ORIGINAL PRESIDING JUDGE decide the fate of appeals is simply ludicrous!
Judge Bradford is semi-retired but still active enough to be the JUDGE WHO WILL DECIDE whether Dechaine gets a new trial in September?
Are you kidding me?
It’s been said that only judges have bigger egos than lawyers—and this judge has turned a blind eye to the JUSTICE principle defined above—to hide behind a stream of legal mumbo-jumbo, anything at all to divert attention away from the blunders he made that have ruined an innocent man’s life. Dennis actually pushed for DNA testing prior to his trial. Does this sound like the request of a guilty man?
Prosecutors opposed the introduction of this DNA evidence—and it was denied by Judge Bradford. One can speculate on WHY the state would oppose a method that would definitively isolate the true killer. Or, why, before Dechaine’s appeal could come to court, why the state INCINERATED all potential DNA evidence, save for a thumbnail, which, through an error of the court clerk, was placed in the possession of the defense counsel.
State laws were painstakingly changed to allow for the presentation of DNA evidence. Here’s another suggestion for a state law:
FORBID THE APPELATE REVIEW OF ANY CASE FROM BEING HEARD BY THE ORIGINAL PRESIDING JUDGE.
Yeah, I know that judges are SUPPOSED to be unbiased, but they are also human—and the last thing that Justice Carl O. Bradford will ever do is admit that he screwed up.
He did.
He probably knows it.
And he doesn’t care…….or does he? Does he really care for this concept called “justice”?
While we certainly can suspect the prosecutor’s office in the withholding and/or destruction of critical evidence, we will ASSUME the judge was not at all aware of these shenanigans. Revelation of these irregularities ALONE should compel the good judge to err on the side of…JUSTICE…and allow a new trial on this basis solely.
Judge Bradford’s upcoming decision on whether or not to grant Dechaine a new trial will define his career on the bench. Should he take into account the mountain of evidence that points in another direction, evidence that makes Dechaine’s guilt physically impossible and takes into consideration the criminally irresponsible behavior of the prosecutor’s office in the conduct of its investigation and subsequent trial, he will rule for justice, a forum where ALL of the evidence can be heard by a jury. Should he continue to hide behind the manipulation of words that lawyers use to distort the truth, he will concoct a lengthy document that, while filled with impressive legalese, will say nothing—other than the system he presides over is corrupt—and he is a part of that corruption.
Which will it be, your honor?
This case has haunted me ever since I read the excellent book by James P. Moore (no relation), entitled “Human Sacrifice”. It reads like a novel—gripping and astonishing, but to those connected to both the victim and the accused, it is nothing short of a real-life horror story. A retired law enforcement officer with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, Moore attended a meeting of “Trial and error”, the group of Dechaine supporters who believe in his innocence and have, for over two decades, sought legal avenues toward gaining Dennis a new trial.
It is difficult to imagine living in prison, but to do so knowing that you didn’t commit the crime is beyond my ability to comprehend.
For those not familiar with the case, here are the basics.
On July 6, 1988, 12-year old Sarah Cherry was abducted while babysitting. Her body was found two days later in the woods. She had been strangled and tortured. Dennis Dechaine was picked up by police after leaving the woods. He was injecting drugs and had become disoriented, losing awareness of the location of his truck. He emerged from the woods around 8:45pm on the 6th.
After Sarah’s body was discovered on the 8th, Dechaine was arrested and charged with murder. He has not been free since.
I remember the case well. I also remember being convinced by news reports—ones that I myself delivered on the radio back then---that the police had arrested the right guy. I am about the same age as Dechaine. In 1988, I was 30 years old and living in Ellsworth, Maine. In the 22 years since then, my life has changed profoundly. Three children, two of whom are in college now. Advances in my career, moving to Portland, buying new houses and cars. Countless vacations, dinners out, family celebrations, holidays and excursions and simple pleasures have filled my days and nights. My wife and I just celebrated our 25th anniversary. It has truly been glorious.
For Dennis Dechaine?
Those same 22 years—losing his wife (a mutually agreed upon divorce to protect her assets from a civil trial), no family, no such simple pleasures—and the crushing boredom of endless days in the hell that is prison. No end in sight. Every hope, every wisp of a chance to introduce JUSTICE is delayed, blunted and thwarted by players in a legal system that’s more concerned with “following procedure/precedent” than finding truth. How Dennis has maintained his sanity and seemingly has come to terms with the bitterness of his situation is beyond my ability to comprehend.
Author James Moore was intrigued by the case—enough to conduct his own investigation—but warned members of “Trial and error” that if he found evidence to CONFIRM Dechaine’s guilt, he would make it public.
In fact, Moore, in his own telling of the circumstances, entered his investigation convinced of Dechaine’s guilt. After all, Dechaine was seen stumbling out the woods near where Sarah Cherry’s body was later found. Items from his truck were found in the driveway where Sarah was abducted. Police reports told of “confessions” by Dechaine-which was used as evidence in the trial, despite the absence of these so-called confessions in the police notes-and Dechaine’s denial of ever confessing to the crime.
The evidence that exonerates Dechaine (in my opinion) but at the VERY LEAST should gain him a new trial is overwhelming, but contains these highlights:
1) According to the medical examiner’s report—given huge windows on either side of the time of death of Sarah Cherry, Dennis Dechaine could not POSSIBLY have committed the crime-----because he was either in custody, being questioned or at home following his initial release by police—and under surveillance. Sarah’s throat was constricted in such a manner that she could not possibly have lived more than about 2 minutes from the time she was strangled. Dechaine was in custody when she died. It’s my opinion that Prosecutor Eric Wright was also aware of the problematic nature of the timing and thus, glossed over it at trial. Had the defense made this an issue, there could have been a different result.
2) DNA evidence from Sarah’s fingernails contain blood that is hers, but also blood from a man who is NOT Dennis Dechaine.
3) Forensic evidence concluded that Sarah Cherry was NEVER in Dennis Dechaine’s pickup truck. No fiber, no hairs, nothing. She was never there.
4) A known child molester with a history of violence was ignored as a suspect. Police notes outlining a set of footprints to this persons trailer—one adult and one barefoot child (Sarah was barefoot when abducted-her shoes left at the home of the people she was babysitting) were never followed up on.
5) Dennis Dechaine had absolutely no record of violence in his past. None. The mutilation that occurred to Sarah suggests a sociopath. Additionally, her panties were missing. Psychologists say that perpetrators of crimes like these often take a “souvenir” such as this. Dechaine had nothing like this on his person, in his truck or in his house. They have never been found—because the killer took them. A killer who is not Dennis Dechaine.
6) Of the nearly 200 items found in Dechaine’s truck, the only two that contained his name (and were part of the damning evidence that convicted him) where the ones that “fell out” of his truck during the abduction. The odds that only these two would be left behind is astronomical. This was a frameup. Remember, Sarah Cherry was NEVER in this truck that supposedly abducted her.
7) Dennis Dechaine did not know Sarah Cherry and would have had no reason to know that she would be at that house, at that time.
8) Dechaine himself pressed for examination of his house, his truck and his person, confident that an honest investigation would clear him. His mistake was in believing in the system, believing that his innocence would be evident.
9) There were multiple alternate suspects in the vicinity, men with criminal records of violence—and violence towards children. Dechaine’s arrest effectively halted all subsequent investigation into these more likely killers. Dechaine’s arrest was reasonable—he should have been a suspect, but certainly NOT the only one—and, as it turns out, the exclusive attention paid to him allowed the real killer to escape investigation and arrest.
There are many other pieces of evidence, circumstances—and just plain common sense that would point towards the notion of a new trial being a good idea.
Here is some video of Dennis himself, being interviewed in prison 6 years ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zVIb2qplq_U
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KslcRNuk9iQ&feature=related
Dennis Dechaine tried to take his own life in April. It was not successful—and new charges of trafficking in the drugs he used may be pending. Who could blame him? If you ask: how someone with a new trial decision pending could possibly take his own life, my only response would be that after over two decades of one legal disappointment after another, it’s likely that Dennis is just about out of hope.
So what about the victim’s family?
Many believe that Sarah’s family has been short-changed in all of this—and I cannot disagree. While at least one juror who voted for conviction has publicly said that the introduction of this new evidence would have been grounds for acquittal, I have yet to read or hear from a family member of the victim who believes Dechaine is innocent.
Sarah Cherry, were she alive today, would no doubt be a beautiful and vibrant 34 year old woman. Judging from the details we know about her as a 12 year old, she would likely have graduated college with distinction, perhaps have been an athlete and would likely now be a mother herself.
Perhaps the only “witness” to the abduction of Sarah Cherry was the infant who was being cared for—and who would be about 23 years old today. Apart from the killer, this infant was likely the last person to see Sarah alive.
This brutal murder cries out for justice, not merely “closure”. The conviction of the wrong person does not constitute justice or closure, only retribution.
If you’d like to know more about this case, I highly recommend the book “Human Sacrifice” by James P. Moore. I also encourage you to visit the website of Trial and error:
www.trialanderrordennis.org
The tragedy of Sarah Cherry’s death is the ultimate one.
The tragedy of Dennis Dechaine’s wrongful conviction is second in line---and vies with the knowledge that the TRUE killer got away with it (and did God knows what to others since)
Let’s not compound this series of tragedies by allowing Dechaine to be denied a new trial by a judge who has NO BUSINESS being involved with this case any longer. Judge Bradford has the final say, whether he deserves it or not.
It’s not about who made a mistake—or who may have concealed evidence.
It’s about justice.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, August 3, 2010
The Macarena
The all-time tsunami of fads and novelty songs began its reign atop the charts on this date 14 years ago (seems like only yesterday, no?)
“The Macarena” was both a song AND a dance—and 1996 was the year it peaked, but the song set a record for longevity on the Billboard charts (60 weeks)
Originally recorded in 1992 as a rumba, it was released the following year and was huge in Latin American countries. This popularity leaked into cities like Miami and New York, where the Latin population was significant.
Like a wildfire raging out of control, the song by Los Del Rio landed on the radio—and that was it!
The dance took off, the video only fueled the craze—and a pop culture phenomenon was born. Here is the video—viewed over 10 MILLION times on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN62PAKoBfE
Over 50,000 fans did the dance simultaneously at Yankee Stadium in 1996, setting the Guiness World Record for crowd dancing. At the Democratic Convention that year, Al Gore got the crowd roaring by doing “his” version…..standing completely still while the song played.
But, just as fast as it ascended in popularity, it dropped like a stone after 1997. What was once greeted enthusiastically by young and old alike (no matter how silly it make them appear)—was soon greeted by groans when played in public.
Like fashion, the “Macarena” will probably enjoy a resurgence someday…but hopefully not soon! The composers would love to see it—as this one song has sold over 11 million copies, making the duo exceedingly wealthy virtually overnight. VH-1 named it the “#1 All Time One-Hit Wonder”
If you’d like my blog in your box, just dance over to your computer and e-mail me: tim.moore@citcomm.com
“The Macarena” was both a song AND a dance—and 1996 was the year it peaked, but the song set a record for longevity on the Billboard charts (60 weeks)
Originally recorded in 1992 as a rumba, it was released the following year and was huge in Latin American countries. This popularity leaked into cities like Miami and New York, where the Latin population was significant.
Like a wildfire raging out of control, the song by Los Del Rio landed on the radio—and that was it!
The dance took off, the video only fueled the craze—and a pop culture phenomenon was born. Here is the video—viewed over 10 MILLION times on YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sN62PAKoBfE
Over 50,000 fans did the dance simultaneously at Yankee Stadium in 1996, setting the Guiness World Record for crowd dancing. At the Democratic Convention that year, Al Gore got the crowd roaring by doing “his” version…..standing completely still while the song played.
But, just as fast as it ascended in popularity, it dropped like a stone after 1997. What was once greeted enthusiastically by young and old alike (no matter how silly it make them appear)—was soon greeted by groans when played in public.
Like fashion, the “Macarena” will probably enjoy a resurgence someday…but hopefully not soon! The composers would love to see it—as this one song has sold over 11 million copies, making the duo exceedingly wealthy virtually overnight. VH-1 named it the “#1 All Time One-Hit Wonder”
If you’d like my blog in your box, just dance over to your computer and e-mail me: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, August 2, 2010
Charity At The Register
There appears to be new trend for charities collecting funds for various causes, one that I think goes a bit over the top.
Namely, it’s the capturing of cash at the register where you are making a purchase for something completely different. My guess is that you, too, have faced this situation:
You are in, say, a department store. A big one that will remain nameless but is based in Arkansas, begins with a “W” and employs seniors to greet shoppers. You are at the register with about 20 items and have removed your wallet or purse to pay for your purchase. At that moment, the clerk, in a voice loud enough for everyone around you to hear, says something like: “Would you like to donate a dollar to help so-and-so?” You, the shopper, are faced with one of two choices:
1) Say “Yes” because you don’t wish to appear greedy, miserly, tightfisted and heartless to the group of strangers waiting their turn to be accosted—or..
2) Say “Not today”, “no thanks” or “I gave at the office”, feeling at once somewhat relieved that you asserted yourself and spoke your true feelings—and at the same time guilty for not tossing a dollar to someone without the means of acquiring that which you are at this moment purchasing.
At the risk of sounding like an ass,
Enough, already!
I know that this blog will elicit hate mail, but I suspect that some readers will, at least SECRETLY agree with me.
I realize that charitable organizations do wonderful work and that the rough economy has probably hit them harder than for-profit businesses. However, ambushing customers at the cash register will, I believe, have a backlash effect on those businesses that choose to engage in it. The customer is at a distinct social disadvantage—and everybody knows it. And while the tactic is no doubt enormously lucrative, I for one, am left with a somewhat negative feeling for the business AND the charity.
No, I don’t want to buy a paper shamrock and put my name on it for display in your store. That goes for paper balloons, cars, airplanes or elephants.
At the root of it all is trust. Or, I should say, a lack thereof. The sheer number of scams posing as charities and preying on generous people have skyrocketed. They go door to door, they call on the phone, invade your mailbox , text your cellphone and now…..they are at the point of purchase.
Here’s a quick video about one door-to-door cheat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa61MOTwpSM
I do give to charities—and I believe in sharing the wealth. From the United Way, to Maineshare, to my church and various disease-related charities. I’ll donate to fight breast cancer, MS, Parkinson’s Disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, cancer in general and to the Heart Association. I’ll give to Jerry’s Kids—and the list goes on.
However, I won’t do it over the phone, via e-mail or, unless you’re a kid going door-to-door collecting for a school trip, visiting my house won’t work either.
While it’s true that a few bad apples have spoiled it for all of the legitimate charities, I have become distrustful of even LEGITIMATE charities when the funds are channeled through a for-profit business. Giving ten dollars to the Red Cross in the wake of the Haiti earthquake was a given. Having AT&T TEXT me to respond and then have my “donation” show up on the next phone bill is something else entirely. How much of that ten-spot went to AT&T for, uh..”administrative costs”?
Is it asking too much to be sure that your dollars are actually helping people in need—rather than people in greed?
A huge corporation THEMSELVES giving generously to a charity will earn my respect—and my business. That same corporation using its clout to extract huge donations from its customers will lose both my donation---and my business.
If you’d like my blog in your box daily (and no, I won’t solicit you for money), e-mail me at tim.moore@citcomm.com
Namely, it’s the capturing of cash at the register where you are making a purchase for something completely different. My guess is that you, too, have faced this situation:
You are in, say, a department store. A big one that will remain nameless but is based in Arkansas, begins with a “W” and employs seniors to greet shoppers. You are at the register with about 20 items and have removed your wallet or purse to pay for your purchase. At that moment, the clerk, in a voice loud enough for everyone around you to hear, says something like: “Would you like to donate a dollar to help so-and-so?” You, the shopper, are faced with one of two choices:
1) Say “Yes” because you don’t wish to appear greedy, miserly, tightfisted and heartless to the group of strangers waiting their turn to be accosted—or..
2) Say “Not today”, “no thanks” or “I gave at the office”, feeling at once somewhat relieved that you asserted yourself and spoke your true feelings—and at the same time guilty for not tossing a dollar to someone without the means of acquiring that which you are at this moment purchasing.
At the risk of sounding like an ass,
Enough, already!
I know that this blog will elicit hate mail, but I suspect that some readers will, at least SECRETLY agree with me.
I realize that charitable organizations do wonderful work and that the rough economy has probably hit them harder than for-profit businesses. However, ambushing customers at the cash register will, I believe, have a backlash effect on those businesses that choose to engage in it. The customer is at a distinct social disadvantage—and everybody knows it. And while the tactic is no doubt enormously lucrative, I for one, am left with a somewhat negative feeling for the business AND the charity.
No, I don’t want to buy a paper shamrock and put my name on it for display in your store. That goes for paper balloons, cars, airplanes or elephants.
At the root of it all is trust. Or, I should say, a lack thereof. The sheer number of scams posing as charities and preying on generous people have skyrocketed. They go door to door, they call on the phone, invade your mailbox , text your cellphone and now…..they are at the point of purchase.
Here’s a quick video about one door-to-door cheat:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fa61MOTwpSM
I do give to charities—and I believe in sharing the wealth. From the United Way, to Maineshare, to my church and various disease-related charities. I’ll donate to fight breast cancer, MS, Parkinson’s Disease, Lou Gehrig’s disease, cancer in general and to the Heart Association. I’ll give to Jerry’s Kids—and the list goes on.
However, I won’t do it over the phone, via e-mail or, unless you’re a kid going door-to-door collecting for a school trip, visiting my house won’t work either.
While it’s true that a few bad apples have spoiled it for all of the legitimate charities, I have become distrustful of even LEGITIMATE charities when the funds are channeled through a for-profit business. Giving ten dollars to the Red Cross in the wake of the Haiti earthquake was a given. Having AT&T TEXT me to respond and then have my “donation” show up on the next phone bill is something else entirely. How much of that ten-spot went to AT&T for, uh..”administrative costs”?
Is it asking too much to be sure that your dollars are actually helping people in need—rather than people in greed?
A huge corporation THEMSELVES giving generously to a charity will earn my respect—and my business. That same corporation using its clout to extract huge donations from its customers will lose both my donation---and my business.
If you’d like my blog in your box daily (and no, I won’t solicit you for money), e-mail me at tim.moore@citcomm.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
