Time Traveler Revealed in 1928 Movie!

It created such a buzz this week that Brian Williams featured it on the NBC Nightly News.

“It” is an intriguing piece of film that was discovered recently—supposedly depicting a woman walking down the street talking on a cell phone.

Nothing out of the ordinary there—except that the film clip was part of a Charlie Chaplin movie shot in 1928---nearly a half century before the advent of mobile phones. The first mobile phone made its debut in 1973—and was enormous in size, compared to the handheld cell phones of today. The phone in this scene seems to be more like the devices of today, making the gap in years approaching 80!

The brief clip features a woman walking down the street clearly clutching what appears to be a cell phone in her left hand. She stops and almost faces the camera for an instant—and in that brief glimpse, it appears that she is carrying on some sort of conversation.

So, what exactly WAS it?

Perhaps a time traveler?

Check out the clip for yourself:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRvVN39ZwtM

There has been some speculation that the device she was holding was a type of hearing aid that was used in the 20’s. Critics of this theory say the hearing-assist unit was larger, shaped differently and would have been held in a different manner or orientation.

Of course, if this woman WAS a time traveler—whom was she calling? Perhaps someone in current times? Of course, we’ll never know---I just hope that the carrier won’t charge that lady for a call that lasts from 1928-2010.

Nobody has that many minutes in their plan.

Have a great weekend!

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

No Arms, No Legs, No Worries

Sometimes my blogs are nothing more than the spewing of my opinion (like yesterday’s on negative political ads)—sometimes they are a reference point in history—“on this date”-type stuff---and other times, the video embedded will speak for itself.

Today’s is that kind of blog.

Thanks to a friend who sent this via e-mail. I was having a somewhat frustrating day, not accomplishing that which I was determined to check off my little list. Nothing disastrous, mind you---just “one of those days”.

Then, I saw the following video and decided that I was a complete ass for even THINKING that I was having a bad day.

Watch, learn—and be inspired:



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

I love the phrase “Every man is my superior in that I may learn from him”. Nick Vujicic may have no arms or legs, but he has a heart, soul and spirit larger than virtually anyone I have ever known.

Amazing. And I hope this was an inspiration to you, too.

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

Negative Political Ads

It’s no wonder why the American public is disgusted with politics and politicians. The common practice of character-bashing, negative attack ads are so pervasive that Nevada’s ballot choice of “none of the above” is making more sense with every passing day.

Based on ALL of the commercials I’ve seen for ALL of the candidates, I can conclude the following:

1) Each and every candidate has voted to raise our taxes
2) Each and every candidate is against growing our economy/creating jobs
3) Each and every candidate is unethical in some way, shape or form
4) Each and every candidate clubs baby seals in their spare time

OK, the last one is not true, but then again---are ANY of the claims even PARTIALLY factual?

Who knows? After awhile, we tend to tune them out. If there is one fact, it is this sad one:

NEGATIVE ADS WORK.

What does that say about us?
Namely, it means that we are generally ill equipped to make a rational decision in most political races. Not all of us, but most of us.

Some segments of the population actually follow each candidate’s voting record, their stated stands on issues and their conduct/performance in previous positions. Most of us, however, base our decisions on such irrelevant criteria as:

1) Their race, gender, family name or physical attractiveness

2) Our “feeling” about this person as being competent

3) Our “feeling” about whose background most closely matches our own. (If I see another “He/She is ONE OF US” ads, I might throw up)

4) Political affiliation without regard to record—i.e. “I always vote Republican”

5) Disdain for whomever holds the office currently. There are those who would elect a BREATH MINT in place of the incumbent. Look no further than Minnesota electing wrestler Jesse Ventura as Governor or California making Arnold Schwarzenegger their Chief Executive.

Here's a humorous "tutorial" on how to put together a negative TV ad:



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

It would be funnier if it weren't so TRUE.

Party affiliation is a big factor in decision-making—since I believe the traditional IMAGES of “party” dominate the candidates perception among the public--- whether they should or not:

DEMOCRATS—These are the “tax and spenders” who are compassionate to a fault.
They love government, believing it should provide for all—and they
despise big business. They represent minorities and gays and number
among their ranks the elitist academic types. They are pro-union and
represent the lower and middle classes.

REPUBLICANS---- These are the conservative, fiscally responsible folks who hate rules
and regulations that come from government—in fact, they despise
government. They believe capitalism completely unfettered will
solve all problems---they are also intolerant, seeing themselves as
morally superior. They represent the wealthy and count major
corporations as their biggest supporters.


While there are exceptions to the above, being labeled or associated with one of the above political parties has also saddled you PERSONALLY with many of not all of the traits attributed that that party.

Overcoming the IMAGE associated with your party affiliation is almost impossible to do. Smart candidates now often leave the words “democrat” or “republican” off of their TV ads and roadside signs. Being “independent” never had more clout.

No one cares about MY choice for, say, Maine governor. All I ask is that every voter take a hard look at the PLANS that each candidate has for the state, for his or her PRIORITIES upon taking office, for their demonstrated past performance---and then make an educated choice.

We’ve all had “buyer’s remorse” after realizing someone we helped vote INTO office is a complete boob. This of course means that the whole process remains a crapshoot.

Nevertheless, it is still worth the time it takes to study the issues that matter to you, find out how each candidate speaks to those issues---and then make an educated decision.

You will be outnumbered by drones who will base their choice on the latest negative ad they were exposed to, but that doesn’t mean your vote doesn’t count.

It does.

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

Buckner Lets One By

On any other occasion, it would have been a routine error—unlikely to occur, but also inconsequential.

Not so on this date in 1986.

Red Sox first baseman Bill Buckner let a routine ground ball roll between his legs, allowing the winning run to score in Game 6 of the World Series.
You remember it.
I remember it.

Devastating.

From being within a breath away from winning the Fall Classic---to being embarrassed and having to limp into Game 7, where the Mets would close out the series---all turned on that split-second goof that defined Red Sox frustration until 2004’s breakout World Series win.

To be fair, Red Sox pitching couldn’t hold a two-run, two-out lead—couldn’t keep the Mets from scoring to tie the game, but Bill Buckner---a decent player---will forever be linked to that one fraction of a second that not only ended up defining his career—but also his life. Buckner tried to live in Boston, but the abuse from fans was so constant, so intense and so mean-spirited that he eventually moved to Idaho.

For years, he refused to be interviewed about that game and that error. Who can blame him?

Here is a short video that captures the parade of mistakes that cost the Sox Game 6:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QbGHa1Pl8b0&feature=related



Well, they say that time heals all wounds. Perhaps we should amend that to say that, at least in Boston, the only medicine that would heal THIS particular wound is a World Series title. In 2004, the “Curse of the Bambino” was erased as the Red Sox came from behind three games to none against the Yankees to win the ALCS and then swept the Cardinals in the World Series.

I’m sure that no one rooted the Sox on to victory more than Bill Buckner.

With the win—and another World Championship in 2007, the Red Sox organization decided that it was time to give fans a chance to forgive Bill Buckner. They asked him to throw out the first pitch on opening day in 2008. Still some boos, but overall, a great reception:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W12h9gNxdpo&feature=related


No matter how many rings the Red Sox win, there is no way to erase the memories of that dark day in Red Sox history. I have felt sorry for Buckner ever since. To have your entire life defined and evaluated on ONE fraction of a second mistake is more than anyone should bear.

As the Sox watch this year’s World Series on TV like we mortals will, one wonders if there will be a Texas Rangers or San Francisco Giants player whose careers may be framed forever in a fleeting moment. Unless it’s a “good” moment, let’s hope not. The Red Sox team—to a man---had nothing but kind words for Bill Buckner on that opening day in 2008.

Nevertheless, there were some superstitious players who avoided shaking hands with Buckner that afternoon (you can see some of them in the video)---apparently, they didn’t want the bad luck to rub off on them.

Nothing personal, you understand.

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

Memories Given Away

Yesterday marked the one-year anniversary of my Mother’s passing.

I’ve been absent from the radio airwaves and blog scene owing to an overdue trip down to Washington to clean out the storage room of all my parents belongings.

It’s done.

My sister Claire and I spent an emotionally charged couple of days opening boxes and essentially dividing all of our folks earthly belongings into one of four categories: yours, mine, Goodwill and the dump.

This is a scene that is played out tens of thousands of times each year. The accumulation of a lifetime makes its way to a new destination. If you haven’t gone through it yet, you will.

When our mother suffered a massive stroke years ago, my sister and I were thrust into a hyperactive mode of focusing on the care that both Mom and Dad immediately needed. My father had Parkinson’ Disease, meaning that Mom’s stroke instantly demanded full time nursing care for both. It was a “two for one” of the worst sort.

It also meant selling their condo immediately—and rapidly packing and storing the furniture, the kitchen ware, the clothes, knick-knacks----virtually EVERYTHING they owned. Little regard for organization as time was of the essence.

Wise people who had been down this road before advised us to IMMEDIATELY sell or give away all of their possessions—warning us that if we stored the stuff, it would be there forever. While Claire and I suspected this was true, we just couldn’t bring ourselves to divest our parents of everything they owned while they were still alive. So store it we did—for five years.

With nursing care costing approximately $12,000 a MONTH, we knew that it wouldn’t be long before the entire proceeds from the sale of their home would be eaten away. That, their life’s savings and anything else of value would have to be sacrificed in order to provide them the care they needed and deserved.

Dad passed away in 2007—and with Mom gone now a year, we finally came to grips with the task of saying goodbye to much of the trappings that framed our collective childhoods.

The dining room set---neither of us could take it, so we gave it away. Never the greatest in quality furniture, it was nonetheless the scene of every single major meal we ever enjoyed as a family. The Thanksgiving turkey was carved on it, every Christmas dinner served on it—and countless birthdays, anniversaries and special occasions were celebrated around it. Storage was not kind to this family furniture heirloom—and although the Salvation Army accepted it, I wouldn’t be surprised if its next stop is the landfill.

For Claire and I, that sentiment was a recurring theme. If neither of us could accept a certain item, we would delude ourselves with the notion that it would go to a “good home” where it would be used and appreciated if not loved. Who knows how much of our parents stuff would be thrown away? Neither of us wanted to know.

What I did bring home was an amalgam of different pieces. The plastic spire from our family Christmas trees. Yes, it is gaudy, but dammit, that cheap plastic spike was OUR family tradition. Glassware, bric-a-brac, household items that were not valuable, just sentimental made their way back to Maine. My father’s personal effects from his service in the Army during WWII. Piles of photos, awards, framed pictures and other memorabilia. None of this could I throw away—and so it was packed in the van to head north. I jokingly told my sister that unless a good divorce lawyer was riding in the passenger seat, I might not get any of these items actually in the house, but Peggy was exceedingly understanding and accommodating, although I couldn’t help but notice a raised eyebrow or two at some of the “treasure” I was bringing home.

It was notable that my sister and I never vied for the same items. I was delighted with everything she took, knowing that it would be in her family and not either in a thrift shop or at the dump. She too, was thrilled when I would rescue something from the giveaway pile.

We had a few poignant moments, but fewer tears than we expected and many, many laughs as we unearthed things that we hadn’t seen in years.

If this process has taught me anything, it’s that I should start the task of thinning out MY stuff before it becomes a burden to my kids.

They are just THINGS after all.
Things that unlock precious memories, but things nevertheless.

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

The American Dream

The political warfare occurring in the days leading up to the midterm elections has appropriately focused itself on the economy, ongoing unemployment problems and such misunderstood concepts like the “deficit”, the “stimulus” and the perceived cost of what administration opponents are calling “Obamacare”.

A recurring theme seems to be that “The American Dream” is dying.

So, what exactly IS the “American Dream”?

The specifics of this nebulous concept may vary, but a commonly held belief goes something like this:

”I want more for my kids than I have had for myself”

In other words, there is an expectation of improvement in either wealth or quality of life with each succeeding generation. The notion then, is this: most Americans no longer believe that things will be better for their kids.

I contend that “The American Dream” as defined in the last couple of generations is almost 100% defined by the acquisition of material things.

Stuff.

We need a more spiritual definition, I think.

The Founding Fathers, in their definition of the “American Dream”, seemed to articulate its parameters as “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”. At the time, under British rule, there was taxation without representation, search and seizure, arrest without warrant and religious oppression.

Seems like the Constitution (and all of its amendments), The Bill of Rights and the structure of our legal system have largely taken care of the “biggies” that precipitated the American Revolution. Nowadays, it’s all about stuff.

The one caveat seems to be a desire to provide education for our children—ever expanding levels of schooling, from the once-held pinnacle of a high school education, to then college—and now, graduate school. Even these goals, however, when distilled to their core and investigated---have “earning power” associated with them. Earning power to buy more stuff.

It’s no secret that poverty levels have increased in America—and I do not for a second want to minimize the plight of those who truly are destitute. I do believe, however, that those living at the poverty level in America might be considered wealthy when compared to the standard of living in other parts of the world.

Here’s an interesting—and sometimes contradictory look at a “person on the street” definition of the American Dream—done by the New York Times:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C48aGtPIuZo

The most encouraging thing about those percentages in that video—is the re-evaluation of the thresholds for “success” or achievement of the American Dream.

Using Maslov’s Hierarchy of Needs as a basis for evaluating what the “American Dream” has come to, it’s useful to look at the different levels—and where we are as a society. Remember that Maslov’s theory contends that a human being cannot aspire to higher levels until lower needs are met. Once the lower needs are satisfied, we progress to the next level of needs—and our motivations are likewise modified:

Level One: Physiological Needs: These are the most basic—air for breathing, water and food, sleep, sex and excretion. In America, most of our population has these needs met quite handsomely. In fact, the obesity problem is greater among those of lower socio-economic levels, so we are more than surviving physically as a society.

Level Two: Safety: The security of body, health, employment, property, family, etc. Many people are stuck at this level. With jobs scarce and the wealth invested in 401k’s for instance having dwindled, this is a source of genuine concern to many American families.

That said, we have redefined material goods (property) as being “necessities” when in fact they are not. Cell phones, with their “apps” and features have made us ever more connected, but somehow, we did SURVIVE without them. The same goes for cable TV, video games, the internet and so on. These toys, I would argue—HAVE enhanced our lives/quality of life---but they are now seen as basic needs when in fact they are not.

Level Three: Friendship, Family, sexual intimacy. These needs are(thankfully) not influenced by politics or politicians. Their attainment is completely independent of economic status, geography, gender or age (within reason)

Level Four: Esteem: Self esteem, confidence, achievement, respect of others, respect by others. Largely a function of education and family environment, this level is also not dependent on which party is in power.

Level Five: Self Actualization: Morality, creativity, spontaneity, lack of prejudice and acceptance of facts. This is the highest level—to which there are still different degrees of attainment. Nelson Mandela is here at this level, but the janitor from your child’s school might also be there. It is self defined and different for everyone.


We have gone from a society that came over as immigrants with literally nothing to what some nations feel is a self-absorbed and “soft” nation of citizens who demand instant gratification.

What went wrong?

Most of us have the following-in abundance:
Food
Clothing
Shelter
Transportation (many families own multiple cars)
Flat screen TV’s, computers, iPods, iPhones, video games, DVD players, gadgets if all types
Leisure time and disposable income to go to restaurants, movies, theme parks, vacations.


Will our children not have these things?
Or, as Madison Avenue demands, our car isn’t NEW enough, our house isn’t BIG enough, our clothes are not GOOD enough. We need MORE shoes, need a BETTER set of golf clubs, etc.

The list is endless—and in a consumption-driven society, creating dissatisfaction with your current state of affairs is the fuel that powers the internal struggle to acquire more and more.

As talk show host Dave Ramsey said:

“We buy things we DON’T need with money we DON’T have in order to impress people we DON’T like”

How true.

Why don’t we acknowledge that we, as a society, have largely reached a standard of living that is more than adequate? With 5% of the world’s population, America sucks up 20% of the world’s resources.

Maybe the American Dream should be redefined to advancements in fields that will improve our world. If our kids had as their motivation, say, a CURE FOR CANCER driving their desire to go to med school—instead of “DOCTORS DRIVE MERCEDES”, we might have more satisfaction in our lives.

One’s life mission—or “dharma”---has always been defined as that ONE mission that each of us is UNIQUELY suited to carry out, one whose hallmark is making a contribution.

Hoarding “stuff” will never lead to satisfaction, fulfillment or self-actualization.

We “have” enough. It’s time to “do” more.


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

Smoking On The Airwaves

I received a lot of feedback from a recent blog featuring a video with the Flintstones doing an animated TV commercial for Winston cigarettes. Watching Fred and Barney light one up is both funny and pathetic at the same time—and our reason for astonishment at what USED to be on TV and radio is related (I think) to their length of their absence.

Since 1971, American consumers have not been exposed to tobacco advertising on broadcast media. While I could make a free speech case for singling out TV and radio for a ban while allowing print, newspapers and magazines, etc, I won’t.

It’s because I am keenly aware of the fact that the electronic media is pervasive and persuasive, especially among young people. I don’t have the stats on whether this nearly 40 year ban on advertising has had much effect, but that’s the subject of another blog.
The tobacco companies are evil, their products deadly and their political influence still way too strong. Not too many advocates will come out and stand up for Philip Morris and other companies who peddle death and addiction to their customer base.

What’s funny is seeing the old commercials—knowing what we know now. Ignorance may have been bliss for a nation puffing away, never under the illusion that smoking WASN’T bad for your health, but in the absence of evidence to the contrary, the nicotine made up our minds for us.

Then again, advertising for cigarettes when the angle is “which brand would your DOCTOR choose” is a bit over the top—check out this old ad:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCMzjJjuxQI&NR=1



Or, how about this Pall Mall commercial stating that “fine tobacco is its own best filter”?



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hr4duBBcCpA&feature=related


There’s also this Lucky Strikes ad promoting “no loose ends” to get in your mouth!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js4wHFIHcS4&feature=related


I’m an ex-smoker—and I still miss the relaxation a cigarette or cigar supplies, especially after eating. It’s been years, but I still tell myself that I’m just one cigarette away from being sucked back into that vortex.

Even still, I am blown away by the crazy claims made by tobacco companies “back in the day” to sell their poison. Did people really BELIEVE all that malarkey? And, what products, foods or drugs are out there TODAY which we believe to be perfectly safe—but aren’t?

Will we be laughing and shaking our heads at TODAY’S commercials 30 or 40 years from now?

If we’re still around, that is…

If you’d like my blog in your box, just e-mail me (it’s free!) tim.moore@citcomm.com

Too Risque For Boston Radio

It was banned in Boston---but still hit the #1 position on the Billboard charts on this date in 1957.

“It” was the song “Wake Up Little Susie” by the Everly Brothers. Following their smash, “Bye Bye Love”, “Susie” was their first number one hit. Radio stations in Boston thought the lyrics a bit too suggestive (can you imagine how those same radio guys would react TODAY after hearing the radio?)

The Everly Brothers were one of the most important and influential duos in rock & roll history. Three and four-part harmonies were common—as the gospel singing that gave way to doo-wop and early rock and roll featured this type of sonic portrait.

The Everly Brothers created a whole new sound altogether. Being realted probably helped-as their extremely tight two-part harmonies were paired with acoustic guitars and a backbeat rhythm that was truly unique. Genetically similar vocal chords had to play a part, no?

Don and Phil Everly began singing together at the tender ages of 8 and 6 respectively. Their parents had a radio show in Iowa. When the family moved to Knoxville, Tennessee in 1953, the duo sought work as songwriters in Nashville.

Complete failure.

Even retooling and trying things out as a performing duo and attempting to put out a record of their own, the Everly Brothers couldn’t even crack the low end of the Country and Western charts.

The move that changed their careers forever was their migration to Cadence Records—and the tutelage of producer and session man Chet Atkins—and songwriters Felice and Boudreaux Bryant. “Bye Bye Love” made it to #2—and the rest is history!

Here’s an early TV appearance of the Everlys singing their #1 hit:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Icy84NQ9zXY&feature=related

That song wouldn’t be their last #1 however—scoring two more with “All I Have To Do Is Dream” in 1958 and “Cathy’s Clown” in 1960.

Then came their highly publicized breakup-although the details of WHY are somewhat obscured. After a stint in the Marines (where they were out of the spotlight), battles with drug addiction and the British Invasion of the Beatles and other new groups, the ability of the Everly Brothers to make hits and sell albums suffered greatly.

In 1970, Don Everly released a solo album, but it was not a success. The brothers would not speak to each other for the next TEN YEARS, only getting together once in 1975 to attend their father’s funeral.

The two got back together in 1983, appearing at the Royal Albert Hall in London. They still perform, but rarely. I got to see them at the Simon and Garfunkel reunion tour “Old Friends” in 2003 and 2004.

They were still amazing—and it was weird to see The Everly Brothers as essentially the “opening act” for a duo so infuenced by their music. I give credit to Paul Simon and Art Garfunkel, who showcased them and praised them from the stage. No strangers to feuds themselves, it was good to see both legendary duos back together again.

In all, The Everly Brothers had 26 Billboard Top 40 singles –35 in the Top 100 –which still holds the record for a duo. Only Hall & Oates have more Top 40 singles (29).

Appropriately, The Everly Brothers were among the first 10 artists inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 1986. Since then, they have received a Lifetime Achievement Grammy, been inducted into the Country Hall of Fame and the Rockabilly Hall of Fame (who knew there WAS one?) and the Vocalist Hall of Fame (ditto)

An incredible legacy—and all they had to do was dream.
And sing.

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

A Split Second Defines A Life

THIS IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG

With the Red Sox sitting at home watching baseball on TV like you and me, it’s hard to get too excited over this year’s post season run for a World Series title. The Rangers dispatched the Rays last night—and now, all of New England will speak with a Texas drawl as we root the Rangers on to victory over the Yankees!

Tomorrow marks the anniversary of a DARK DAY in Chicago Cubs history (there are many).That was the day in 2003 that a die-hard Chicago fan made a split-second decision that adversely affected his team—and probably ruined his life.

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

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

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

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

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



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


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

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

Not fair.

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

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

John Denver-Gone, But Not Forgotten

I like John Denver.

OK…… there, I said it.

There was a time that admitting you actually liked John Denver’s music was like admitting you enjoyed opera. Usually met with a “Oh…..that’s nice”, your friends and casual acquaintances would then edge slightly away.

It’s not that I don’t “get it”…..John Denver really wasn’t cool. Never was. With the big glasses and bowl haircut and down vest, he didn’t launch any fashion trends or fuel passion among the fast crowd.

But on this, the 13th anniversary of his death in an ultra light aircraft accident, you have to admit that the man could sing. A crystal clear voice—combined with considerable songwriting talents—and in spite of his persona (or perhaps because of its novelty)—a star was born.

John Denver sounds a tad more show-biz than his given name: Henry John Deutschendorf, Jr, which doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue. Contrary to popular belief, he wasn’t born in the mountains of Colorado or West Virginia, but rather, in Roswell, New Mexico (yes, THAT Roswell) Maybe he was an alien.

The song that put John Denver on the map was “Take Me Home, Country Roads” in 1971. That song made it to #2 on the Billboard charts. He was really no stranger to hits by then, though—as the songwriter for “Leaving On A Jet Plane”, a #1 smash for Peter, Paul and Mary in 1969.

Here’s a video of that first hit of John’s, set to some beautiful scenery from the state of West Virginia—which, as you know from the song is “almost heaven”---enjoy:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k49paH8plfY

The 70’s were good to Denver, who recorded more Top 10 hits, including “Sunshine On My Shoulders”, “Annie’s Song” and “Thank God I’m A Country Boy”. He released 11 albums that went platinum, making him one of the most successful artists of the 70’s.

And who knew he could act? Jumping into TV and film, his most memorable roles were opposite George Burns in the “Oh, God!” series of movies.

By the 1990’s, his commercial popularity had waned, although Denver still performed live regularly. Along the way, he also became an accomplished pilot, with more than 2,700 hours on single and multi-engine aircraft. However, on this day in 1997, he was at the helm of an ultra-light aircraft with which he was not familiar. He lost control over Monterey Bay and lost his life.

A singer, songwriter, actor and political activist, John Denver sold more than 32 MILLION albums in the United States alone.

Maybe I wasn’t the ONLY one who liked him after all.

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

Live From New York, It's Saturday Night!

Can you believe that SNL made its debut THIRTY FIVE YEARS ago?

Yep, the original cast of Saturday Night Live assaulted America from studio 8H in the GE Building at Rockefeller Center for the first time on this date in 1975. If you’ve been on a studio tour of NBC in New York as I did years ago, you were stunned at just how SMALL that studio is.

Of course, for a fledgling show that had no idea how big it would get, it was an appropriate venue. Unknown cast, unpredictable audience response and an untried idea got its initial workout.

Needless to say, things worked out OK.

The show was originally called “NBC’s Saturday Night”—as ABC had a show called “Saturday Night Live with Howard Cosell”. The naming rights were purchased by NBC in 1977.

The brainchild of producer Lorne Michaels, the original cast of John Belushi, Chevy Chase, Gilda Radnor, Dan Ackroyd, Garrett Morris, Jane Curtin and Laraine Newman were known as the “Not Ready For Prime Time Players”. Each opening sketch was concluded with one of the actors shouting, “Live from New York, it’s Saturday Night!”

A different guest host was employed each week, someone with marquee value and ability to draw in audience. As time passed as the ensemble cast of SNL each became individual huge stars, the guest host’s “star” often paled in comparison with the regular cast. Not so on that first broadcast, when comedian George Carlin became the very first guest host.

Here’s a clip of John Belushi’s screen test to become part of that winning team:




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


Chevy Chase left the show after the second season. He was replaced by Bill Murray. Throughout the history of the program, which has had its ups and downs, it has remained a touchstone for edgy humor and has contributed many of the memorable characters and and comedians. In addition to the original cast—and Bill Murray, other SNL alumni include:

Eddie Murphy
Dana Carvey
Phil Hartmann
Jon Lovitz
Dennis Miller
Kevin Nealon
Joe Piscopo
Al Frankin
Robert Downey, Jr.
Mike Myers
Chris Farley
Chris Rock
Adam Sandler
Rob Schneider
David Spade
Will Ferrell
Norm McDonald
Tina Fey
Amy Poehler
Seth Meyers

Am I leaving anyone out?

Probably…but the star power and talent of the above list is amazing!

Most folks who remember the original cast will say that no one can top that ensemble—and its true that the magic of those first few seasons can never be recaptured. Part of it has to do with the novelty factor. Truth is that if you watch those old episodes again, you will likely laugh only in remembrance of how you did back then.

The comedy seems tame in comparison with what is out there now…but one can appreciate the material for the times. It sure made us laugh back then, but then again, some of us weren’t sober when those shows originally aired!

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

Just The Facts, Man

We need a new format to debate the political issues of the day.

I’m all for this “free speech” stuff, but opinions presented as facts are doing damage to our country.

Why?

Because the dissemination of these lies and distortions is so pervasive that a great majority of Americans are now basing THEIR opinions on falsehoods. The truth is obscured in a haze of “us versus them” discourse which is factually flawed.

Unfortunately, political debates have been reduced to an exercise in filling the time without having to explain specifics or diversionary tactics that few moderators have the guts to challenge.

Rush Limbaugh and Ed Shultz flourish in their respectively polar environments for a couple of reasons:

1) Opinions presented as facts are NEVER challenged.
2) “Guests” on these shows are not offering opposite viewpoints. They are, in essence….”ditto-heads” (just they way the hosts like it)
3) The host has the microphone—and callers who challenge the host’s opinions are quickly dispatched.

My guess is neither of these talking heads would perform well in a format where opinions needed to be based on facts. Same deal for Glenn Beck, Keith Olbermann or anyone else whose impassioned arguments sometimes stray from the factual to the incendiary without the factual foundation to make their arguments persuasive.

In my dream forum, the setup would be as follows:

A) Time frame would be measured in HOURS, not minutes. This would be a marathon.

B) The moderator—or moderators would be equipped with copious FACTUAL data, including a timeline of events.

C) The moderator would be the ultimate judge and jury—with an on/off switch to the microphone of each combatant. Frequent interruptions by the moderator to challenge the so-called “facts” espoused by the debater would be the primary activity.

D) Getting started would be easy. Either party could start the dialogue by making a broad statement about the direction of the country and who was to blame. With the moderator’s constant insertion of facts to refute the stream of lies and distortions, it would be great theatre to watch Rush or Ed or whomever reduced to a bumbling, stammering mess.


That’s exactly what would happen. At least to some of the so-called “experts”

Fox News is almost criminal in its presentation of outright, deliberate lies (President Obama’s religion, for instance) as “news” or “facts”. At the other end of the spectrum, MSNBC is equally biased, although I believe more balanced—especially with the excellent “Morning Joe” program, hosted by a conservative Republican who is surrounded by mostly liberal colleagues, save for Pat Buchanan. Joe Scarborough takes shots at Obama---legitimate criticism of his policies—without succumbing to the dominant Republican orientation to demonize everything about our President. His is a reasonable voice of dissent, a fair man who understands the enormity of the mess that Obama inherited from the Bush Administration. This morning show features spirited debate without getting mean-spirited.

Here are a couple of different viewpoints of the bias of both MSNBC and FOX News:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QpT5EFpd6gg




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DTUpKAuyhU&feature=fvst

That’s the way Congress used to operate.

MSNBC is guilty of focusing too much attention on petty minutia, like the TV ad about Christine O’Donnell claiming she’s “not a witch”.

OK-she’s an idiot. Truly a space cadet, one who is quickly burying herself with her own words. Even Karl Rove thinks she’s a joke. MSNBC doesn’t need to play clips of her wild assertions about mice with human brains or whatever the hell she said. This is not news. It is the self-destruction of a marginally intelligent lightweight—and this cable network is taking glee in watching this train-wreck unfold. The only thing more amusing is watching conservatives like Buchanan try to defend her. Let it go.

So, would Rush, Beck, Ed, Olbermann or any of these self-described “voices of the people” ever agree to square off against their polar opposite—in a forum where factual answers, opinions based on facts and ONLY facts were allowed—all with a moderator who wouldn’t waste a second to expose their hypocrisy, their lack of knowledge, their inability to wage a war of words without distortion—all in a setting where it would last for hours and they would not be “in control”?

I doubt it---but I would love to see it.

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

The Curse Of Cain

Is the story of Lincoln’s assassination---and the fate of his killer incomplete?

After hearing of a book by a direct descendant of John Wilkes Booth, I am wondering if such rumors may be true.

I’m something of a history buff, particularly with regard to the murder of Abraham Lincoln. Maybe it’s my upbringing in Washington, D.C., where, as a youngster I took a class trip to Ford’s Theatre.

We walked the narrow hallway where Booth on that fateful night crept, sneaking up to the door of the President’s box. We saw the small hole he drilled in the door in order to spy into that box, biding his time and planning his attack.

We also visited the house across the street where the 16th President was carried—and where he died. We saw the bed-upon which Lincoln was laid diagonally (because of his height)—and one of the blood soaked pillows, encased in glass.

It is a sobering sight—and immediately transports you back to that awful day—and the circumstances which created a turning point in our history.

The book is called, “The Curse of Cain”, written by Theodore J. Nottingham. Nottingham makes no attempt to absolve his distant relative of the crime. He does, however, make several claims in the book, the most startling of which is his assertion that Booth did not die in a burning barn under a hail of gunfire.

Nottingham states that Booth escaped to live overseas for many years—and then returned to the United States.

Check out this video promoting the book-embedding the video was disabled by request, so you’ll have to click directly on this link:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcozhIHMq3U&feature=grec_index


Here is a two-part ,well done amateur video of the events of April 14, 1865:



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




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VqPVrd9qzIw&feature=related

The revelation of a conspiracy is really nothing of the sort---that much is historical fact. Nottingham’s assertion that it was internationally influenced IS something new. It’s also interesting to realize the level of celebrity that Booth enjoyed at the time of the killing. John Wilkes Booth was a very famous actor. He likened it to Tom Cruise assassinating a sitting U.S. President.

How much is fact, how much is fiction and how much is flawed research may never be conclusively decided.

The only thing I know for sure is that I’m going to buy and read this book!

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

Nuclear Threats--Then and Now

THIS IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG

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

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

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

And cash in they did.

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



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


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

Here is the first part in a series on how to survive in a bomb shelter. We all remember the “Fallout Shelter” signs and that black and yellow 3-triangle logo. There were a bunch on the walls of Annunciation School in Washington, D. C. when I was growing up. Check out this “how to” series:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_Zgyp4HgNU


Pretty depressing, no?

Back then, a good percentage of the population would have never believed that we would go 50 years without some kind of nuclear attack. The Soviets were the only threat back then. Today, we have still avoided the doomsday scenario, but the players have multiplied—more countries with the Bomb.

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

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

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

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

Admittedly, a good argument.

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

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

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

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

We should do the same.

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

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

Beatles Get It Started

The Fab Four released their first single, “Love Me Do” on this date in 1962.

The fuse was lit.

The song, penned by Paul McCartney around 1958 while 16—and skipping school, it became the Beatles first single. In Great Britain, it reached #17. In the States, however, it went all the way to #1, giving the lads from Liverpool a jump-start on their phenomenal career.

Starting with John Lennon’s soaring harmonica to his harmonizing with Paul McCartney, the original version has Lennon singing lead. When producer George Martin decided that the vocal needed to overlap the harmonica, a switch was made and Paul took over the lead.

Actually, the Beatles recorded this song three times. The first was in June of 1962 when Pete Best was still the drummer. It was part of an audition for EMI at Abby Road studios in London and thought to be lost—since then, it was discovered and is part of the Beatles “Anthology I”. The second recording came in September, with Ringo Starr on drums, having replaced Best by then. The third time it was recorded with session drummer Andy White—since Martin was not happy with Ringo’s drum playing. Starr was relegated to banging the tambourine—and since the tambourine doesn’t appear on in the September recording, that’s the easiest way to distinguish between the two.

The Ringo Starr-on-drums version was the earliest released edition, however—but it was a journey for the Beatles to convince their producer to release a song penned by Lennon and McCartney in the first place.

Martin was advocating for the first single to be “How Do You Do It?” by Mitch Murray to be the first release, “in the absence of any stronger material”—as Martin phrased it. The Beatles had yet to impress Martin with their song writing ability.

That sentiment wouldn't last long.

Here’s that great first single—in video form as well!



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


The Parlophone label released the track on 45, with “P.S. I Love You” on the flip side.

Beatlemania was about to begin in the United States---and world of music hasn’t been the same since that tidal wave from Liverpool arrived on our shores.

And it all started with “Love Me Do” .

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

It’s free!

Mount Rushmore-Where Do You Start?

It was on this date in 1927 that construction began on Mount Rushmore in South Dakota.

The idea was great, the funding always an issue—and the weather and the elements both played their part in delaying the construction of this highly ambitious project. It would be another 12 years or so before the work was done.

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt.
Each with a head 60 feet high, carved out of granite on the face of a mountain in what are now known as the Black Hills of South Dakota.

So, if you were the project manager, what would be the first thing YOU’D do?

Great wonders like this astound me, not because somebody THOUGHT of it, but that it was actually accomplished. To sculpt anything would be way beyond the average artist’s scope, but at least if you mess up, there’s always another block of marble or granite to start with.

Not so with Mount Rushmore.

When the primary means of shaping the mountain is dynamite, you’ve got to get it right the first time. Sculptor Gutzon Borglum did just that—as did his son Lincoln (coincidence? I think not), who finished the job.

One misplaced stick of TNT and George Washington looks like Howdy Doody—and there’s no going back. Actually, they did mess up Jefferson, who was supposed to be on Washington’s right. After two years, the face was badly cracked, leaving no alternative but to blast him off altogether and start over, tucking his image to George’s left. The original design also was intended to show the entire torso, but funding dried up and carving was abandoned in 1941.

Here’s a short video of someone’s trip to Rushmore—shot in 1986. Pretty decent video for the year, with part of the tour’s narration to give background:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Ow6d5cwMu4


Washington’s face was completed in 1934, Jefferson’s in 1936—with then-president Franklin Roosevelt in attendance for the dedication. Teddy Roosevelt was completed in 1939 with Lincoln.

Total cost was just under one million dollars—and although over 400 workers toiled to complete the project, not a single death was attributed to its construction. In a canyon behind the faces is a carved chamber containing 16 porcelain enamel panels, containing the text of the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the biographies of the four Presidents as well as that of the sculptor Borglum.

This marvel of art and engineering has also been an icon of pop culture, with representations of additional faces—both serious and silly---morphed into the original design over the years. A serious attempt was undertaken to carve Ronald Reagan’s face alongside the existing Presidents. Not likely to happen, but you never know….

Perhaps needless to say, Mount Rushmore is South Dakota’s #1 tourist attraction. I have yet to visit it, but a trip to the Black Hills is on my bucket list. Since it’s a given that MY face won’t be carved into the mountain, at least I can join the millions who stare in awe at four of our country’s great historical leaders.


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

Carson Takes Over "Tonight"

When old folks like me read those lists that drive home the reality of today’s young people, one of statements always made is:

“For someone 30 years old or younger, there has never been a host other than Jay Leno on “The Tonight Show””

That’ll make you feel ancient, especially if you also remember Jack Paar!

Yes, Jay Leno has been the host of “Tonight” for 18 years (except for that little Conan O’Brien interlude). Assuming you didn’t watch that show until you were at least in your mid-teens, that math holds up.

Johnny Carson took over from Jack Paar (one of 94.9 WHOM’s former owners!) on this date in 1962. Can’t say I remember it, as I was 4 years old at the time. Paar did such an amazing job with the show after taking over for Steve Allen, many thought that Carson wouldn’t last.

Well, he did last—for three DECADES!

What was his secret? Poring over hundreds of shows, many TV critics believe that it was a combination of intense planning ahead of time—and then controlled spontaneity during the broadcast itself. Carson flirted with adult humor---some pretty racy stuff for the times, but his squeaky clean cut image and “aw shucks” demeanor kept him away from real trouble with network executives and the public.

Paired with Ed McMahon and the show’s bandleader, Doc Severinsen, the model of the modern talk show was born and refined. An opening comedy monologue, sidekick conversation and guests on the couch, punctuated by skits, musical and standup performances—as well as a few out of the studio “field trips”

Here’s a clip of Carson with comedian Don Rickles-a close friend and “somewhat” regular guest:



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


While Carson was widely liked and admired by most people in show business, not everyone was a fan. Singer Wayne Newton feuded with Carson for years. According to Newton’s autobiography, he and Carson almost came to blows in Carson’s dressing room after Newton confronted him, demanding that he cease his endless stream of jokes about Newton-tinged with homosexual connotations.

He also reportedly gave the cold shoulder to former guest hosts John Davidson and Joan Rivers when they got their own talk shows. Carson reportedly blamed Jay Leno for ushering him into retirement earlier than he had planned—as the “heir apparent” to the “Tonight Show” throne.

Who knows what really happened?

A good overall glimpse into the man comes from this “60 Minutes” interview--you'll have to CLICK on the links as embedding has been disabled:

PART ONE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oR4u85LlOf4

PART TWO:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Je8SnnveQ8&feature=related


From “Carnac the Magnificent” to “Art Fern” to “Aunt Blabby” and all the other inCARnations of Johnny, there will never be anyone quite like the one and only Johnny Carson.

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