Pat Boone: The Anti-Elvis Scores Another #1

The comparisons are unavoidable—it’s the mid 50’s and two young men are launching their careers. Both are white, raised in the south and influenced heavily by gospel music while growing up. One is from Tupelo, Mississippi----something of a “bad boy”—but this one, Elvis Presley—goes on to become the King of Rock and Roll.

The other guy is Pat Boone.

He’s the “good boy” from Nashville, Tennessee. Clean-cut, handsome and wholesome, he’s the dream of many a young girl—and their Moms too!
Unlike Elvis, Pat Boone’s style was strictly conservative—and mainstream.

It was on this date in 1957 that Pat would score his second chart-topper with the ballad “April Love”. He actually rivaled Elvis on the charts for a short time—and was a huge star-albeit of a different sort. A movie star too, here he is performing that hit song in the movie of the same name:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLaKFpMoRt0

Although Pat Boone played a juvenile delinquent in the film, it’s hard to imagine him pulling it off (but then again I haven’t seen the movie!) Looks like he lands the girl (Shirley Jones) in the end—and isn’t that how all mainstream 1950’s movies were supposed to end?

Completely embraced by establishment advertisers, Pat Boone was a big star for quite a few years—and oddly became enamored with the R&B music that black musicians couldn’t get radio airplay for at the time. Although perhaps best known for songs like “April Love” and “Love Letters In The Sand”, Pat Boone also covered more than a few R&B hits. In fact, his “whitewashed” versions of Little Richard’s “Tutti Fruitti” and Fats Domino’s “Ain’t That A Shame” actually charted higher and were bigger hits than the original recordings by these legendary artists.

And that IS a shame.

Nothing against Pat Boone—he was on the trailing edge of entertainers who catered to the conservative mainstream for their success. The soon-to-come parade of Elvis, the Beatles, Rolling Stones—as well as movie stars like James Dean proved that a counter-culture angle that defies the status quo also had a ready market.

Years later, Pat Boone released a CD of heavy-metal classics. Funny—and in fact a bit disturbing.

His time had passed—and his image would never withstand an effort to modify it. While not necessarily my cup of tea, he was an icon for many—and holds a unique place in music and entertainment history.

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

Philly Mayor Tells It Like It Is

Today’s blog is all about the video—maybe you’ve seen it. Mayor Michael Nutter of Philadelphia addressed a church congregation in August of this year.

The topic was originally meant to focus on the “flash mob” violence that the city was experiencing, but Mr. Nutter fanned out a bit and spoke to some larger issues. Citizens of the city were being randomly targeted for violence by groups of young people. Random is the key word here, as robbery was not a motive—nor was revenge . Rather, there seemed to be no provocation whatsoever—just a classic case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Mayor Nutter’s full speech is over a half hour (and worth watching-available on YouTube as well)—but here is an edited clip with some of the highlights:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL0QFZBLca4

It would probably be tough for anyone other than a person of color to deliver these harsh words to the audience. Things that need to be said—and an urgent need for parental follow through—the really tough part.

Only time will tell if Nutter’s words have an impact on the “City of Brotherly Love”, but I believe that he’s dead serious about tackling the city’s problems head-on.

I would be thrilled to have him as my mayor. No nonsense. No B.S. Just straight talk that needs to be said---and heard.

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

Catch-22 For The G.O.P.

It’s been amusing to see the verbal gymnastics surrounding the proposed extension of the payroll tax cut from the Republicans.

No one is buying the argument that the holdup is over an extension that lasts a year rather than the two months that could be accomplished right now.

Who knows if any of this is good fiscal policy? I won’t pretend to. What I do know is that it’s great politics (for the Democrats)—who can get away with it all and not appear to be “playing politics”

Hoisted on their own petard, the G.O.P. has successfully fended off tax increases for the wealthy on the sole premise that raise taxes on ANYONE during a recession is a bad idea. Well, now that increase falls squarely on the shoulders of 160 million Americans, many from the ever-shrinking “middle class”. A thousand bucks in extra taxes starting next year if you make $50,000—and double it if you clear $100,000. For the average working stiff, the $40 a paycheck angle drives the point home better.

Republicans who fearfully signed a “no tax increase pledge” with Grover Norquist are now about to violate it—and even Grover stumbles in his explanation on how this situation is somehow “different”.

Note to the G.O.P.: When even the Wall Street Journal takes you to task, you’ve got a problem. Jack Kennedy once quipped that the Journal criticizing a Republican was the equivalent of the Vatican newspaper taking on the Pope.

While Speaker John Boehner assails the President for a lack of leadership, it appears that he cannot even count votes in his own chamber. A Tea Party revolt over a compromise between Democrats and Republicans caused the good Speaker to trash that compromise and keep a measure that would surely have passed from even reaching the floor for a vote. For Republicans in tight re-election races, this is toxic stuff. Even Senator John McCain attacked the bickering and urged the passage of the bill.

The presidential candidates are largely keeping mum (except the ever-babbling Newt)—and yet they can see this critical moment as another nail in the coffin for their chances of taking the White House next year. In an election year where the incumbent would seemingly be vulnerable to a credible counter-campaign, the G.O.P. cannot decide which walking disaster they’ll nominate to take Obama on. With each passing day, the Democrats store up more ammo.

So, what should the G.O.P. do? Seems the choices all have costs:

1) Stick to their guns and refuse anything less than a year. President Obama would be happy to blame a tax increase on 160 million Americans on Republicans. And it WILL stick. At least the Tea Party will be satisfied. Unfortunately, this course will not only sweep Obama back into the Oval Office, but the G.O.P. could seriously risk losing the House of Representatives (again)

2) Swallow hard, extend the payroll tax break—and thus anger Grover Norquist and the Tea Party too. Republicans with elections looming could be targeted for removal with either scenario.


Good luck, G.O.P.! The public admonishment of the President’s planned holiday trip to Hawaii when there was still unfinished business in Washington backfired when he decided to stay in town. Now, it’s the Republicans who want to go home for Christmas and must face the fallout from their own words.

The American people are watching very carefully what the clowns on Capitol Hill do with their money in the coming days. Since there will be consequences whatever they decide, a smart Republican would do well to considering the following:.

An angry Tea Party/Base/Norquist----------or an angry 160 million Americans?


Do the math.


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

Happy Birthday, National Guard!

Some people have termed the National Guard the “Rodney Dangerfield” of the military---it’s the branch of the U.S. Armed Forces that “Don’t get no respect!”

Never deserving of second-class status, I nevertheless believe that pecking order no longer exists—or at least is not as prevalent—since the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the aftermath of 9-11, it was often National Guard units that deployed multiple times and bore a huge burden.

While the Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines may have good-naturedly chided the National Guard for duty on American soil (while the aforementioned branches fought on foreign shores), this distinction evaporated in the so-called “War on Terror”. Everyone went abroad.

It was on this date in 1636 that the Massachusetts Bay Colony authorized an organized militia—primarily to fend off Indian attacks. That humble beginning marked the birth of the Guard.

Today, the National Guard is unique in its role as a reserve military force. It is comprised of “citizen soldiers”, who pursue a civilian career and then serve part-time.

Enjoy this short video on the Guard—and their mission:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yE7dKlHL_5w

Whether it's fighting a war overseas---or rescuing Americans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the U.S. National Guard has been a vital part of the fabric of our country—and indispensable to safeguarding the freedoms that we enjoy.

If you are a member of the Guard—or a veteran of National Guard service, we salute you today.

Happy 375th birthday, National Guard!!!

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

Helen Reddy: Gender Icon

I must admit up front that I’ve never been a fan of Helen Reddy, but then again, I’m a guy.

Men were never the target market—and that point really hit home on this date in 1972, as Helen’s first hit song “I Am Woman” reached #1 on the pop charts. Maybe I felt threatened back then, even at the tender age of 14. The ladies were asserting themselves!

The timing couldn’t have been better, but the messenger was an unlikely one.

The women’s liberation movement had just started to gain momentum—“Ms. Magazine” had recently been launched—but Helen Reddy gave no prior clue that she would be the voice of an entire gender. The “breakthrough” for this young Australian singer came with a cover from the score of “Jesus Christ Superstar”—“I Don’t Know How To Love Him” (hardly a song of female independence!)

Even so, Helen was influenced by the growing women’s lib movement—and set out to write a song that captured its spirit.

Safe to say she succeeded.

Released in the spring of 1972, “I Am Woman” struggled to get airplay---perhaps because most radio stations were programmed by men! It dropped off the Hot 100 chart altogether, but thanks to multiple TV appearances and the subsequent avalanche of requests from women to radio stations, the song found a second life and re-emerged on the chart—a rare feat indeed!

Here’s a clip of Helen Reddy performing her first hit song on the old TV show “Midnight Special” (remember that one!?)



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mmifO2sKT7g

Helen would go on to have several other hits, including: “Delta Dawn”, “You And Me Against The World”, “Ain’t No Way To Treat A Lady” and “Leave Me Alone(Ruby Red Dress)”. She stated in 2008 that she would never perform in front of another audience, saying that her voice had “deepened to another level”—and she wasn’t sure she could even pull off “Delta Dawn”.

That’s OK—her voice was heard loud and clear in the 70’s, when her gender needed it most. To steal from her lyrics, she is woman—and we definitely heard her roar---to an audience too big to ignore.


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

Pearl Harbor-70 Years Later

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATEDENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:


Most Americans had never heard of Pearl Harbor—until this fateful day 70 years ago

At around 7:55am local time, the first of some 350 Japanese aircraft appeared over the horizon of Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor, beginning the attack that would finally draw the United States into World War II.

A couple of years ago, I read a great book, “FDR” by Jean Edward Smith. This highly detailed biography (636 pages, with another 200 or so of notes and supporting facts) is fascinating on many levels-mostly personal-but it also recreates the landscape of American and Japanese relations just before the deadly attack. An attack by the Japanese was expected—just not where it occurred.

FDR got the news at around 1:30pm Washington time—in his study with advisor Harry Hopkins—when Navy Secretary Frank Knox burst in and delivered the news that Pearl Harbor had been attacked and that damage and casualties were heavy.

The U.S. had been expecting an attack any day from Japan, but most military experts were anticipating the target would be the Philippines, where the U.S. Fleet had a significant presence. Instead, a highly coordinated attack that pushed the geographic limits of the planes and ships involved caught everyone off guard. No one expected that U.S. soil could be reached from the Japanese mainland—and as such, no level of preparedness or emergency was imposed on the U.S. Naval installation in Hawaii.

Check out this compelling video clip of the attack, with some rare footage:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt13c3olXkU

Here is the NBC broadcast audio of the attack-coupled with more footage of the carnage:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePe5s0E5MeA&feature=related


FDR’s demeanor in the wake of the attack was said be very calm and measured-even though he was furious. Interestingly, it was Eleanor Roosevelt, not Franklin who addressed the nation first following the attack. In her already scheduled weekly radio broadcast, she said she was confident that “whatever is asked of [America], we shall accomplish it; we are the free and unconquerable people of the U.S.A.” Her husband that evening dictated a speech that he would deliver to Congress the next day—complete with the memorable phrase regarding December 7th, “ a date that would live in infamy”

Looking back, it seems like the height of stupidity for the Japanese to attack the United States—and for Germany to follow with a declaration of war. America’s isolationist sentiment was still strong—and it would have made sense for the Axis powers to keep the United States out of the war.

Instead, the attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized public opinion and completely squashed political infighting. America has never been more united, it is said, as the country plunged into a war effort that would affect every single person in the U.S.


Such unity, also evident after the terrorist attacks in 2001—is always desired, but never at the cost we have borne.

The times have changed—and the enemy has as well. It would do this country well to remember the lessons of Pearl Harbor-namely, that threats to our homeland could come at any time---but vigilance on OUR soil (as opposed to an amplified focus overseas) is most important to thwart the criminal plans that are being made as we speak. Whatever attack comes next will, without a doubt employ the element of surprise.

This year marked what likely will be the last major anniversary of the attack where survivors will gather to remember. The youngest of them are in their late eighties—and they are now dying at a rapid rate. My family and I were treated to a speech by a survivor this past Sunday at the Wreaths Across America ceremony at Cheverus High School. Semis loaded with wreaths bound for Arlington National Cemetery made a stop—and former Naval Chief Petty Officer Robert Coles was on hand to speak about what he experienced that day 70 years ago. Mr. Coles was as sharp mentally as any one of us in the gymnasium—and funnier than most. His short speech was remarkable.

We owe these veterans a debt we can never repay—but it is important that we never fail to say, “Thank you”.

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

No Obstacles For This Lady

Sometimes I run across a video that I feel compelled to share with my faithful blog readers, thus becoming the topic and focus of the day.

I saw the following video of Amy Purdy, who lost both legs as a young woman. Instead of defining her life in a negative way, she has managed to not only overcome the obstacles, but has succeeded beyond even her wildest dreams.

Personally, I have had a few challenging weeks at work. The natural tendency is to narrow your focus and hone in on your own mountains, climbing them and getting wrapped up in your own troubles. That’s what I did.

What a wake-up call young Amy provided to me.

The holiday season is beautiful and wonderful, but it can also be hectic, stressful and somewhat sad if you have recently lost a loved one or are going through a particularly tough time. The Christmas season can magnify the areas that may be lacking in your life.

If so, this is for you. May it be the inspiration to you that is has been for me:



http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_purdy_living_beyond_limits.html

Wow.

Wise beyond her years—and someone to think of whenever we run into seemingly insurmountable challenges. Whatever they are, Amy may have you beat—and her story will hopefully continue to inspire you.

Merry Christmas!

If you would like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Turmoil In The G.O.P.

It’s only been a couple of weeks since my last blog (sorry! Exceedingly busy at work these days..), but a lot has happened in just the past few days in the race for the Republican nomination:

1) The Herman Cain train has permanently derailed
2) Newt Gingrich has surged ahead to be the newest frontrunner
3) Rick Perry has put his foot in his mouth (again)
4) Mitt Romney has faded

The G.O.P. has never been in such disarray. It may be Old, but it is not too Grand right now and no one is Partying.

All the while, the most intelligent and most conservative candidate of the bunch can’t get arrested. John Huntsman may be the best the Republicans have to offer—and yet he cannot seem to break out of the single digits.

After a Georgia woman came out last week and admitted to a THIRTEEN YEAR affair with Herman Cain, it became increasingly clear that the pizza guy couldn’t possibly be nominated. If the personal behavior could be forgiven, certainly the denials could not be. Many Presidents have lied—and a few have strayed, but the knowledge didn’t hit the public consciousness until after the offender was in the Oval Office. We simply cannot vote for a man whose sole response to a litany of credible accusations is “I didn’t do it”—or worse…”9-9-9”

Please.

Herman Cain is not ready to assume the office. Besides an inability to tell the truth, he has exposed his complete ignorance of foreign policy. When I want extra cheese on my stuffed crust pie or an order of crazy bread, Cain is the man to call. Otherwise, he is the sideshow he has always been. Interesting and entertaining, but not credible.

Newt Gingrich?

Really? If the Obama White House is smart, they will keep their hands off him. Continue to batter the candidacy of Romney on TV—he still represents the best chance for the GOP to take the White House. Democrats are licking their chops at the prospect of facing his Newtness as the standard bearer of the Republicans in 2012. Over his long and rocky career as the ultimate Washington insider, he represents everything that Tea Party conservatives loathe. Gingrich has made millions from taxpayer dollars in “consulting fees”—there is no way he won’t be fried alive in his own juices should the GOP award him the nomination. He may be the latest “shiny new toy”, but closer look reveals a “slimy old boy”.

Rick Perry’s latest gaffe-not knowing that the voting age in America is 18, not 21—and not even knowing the date of the election—has sealed his fate. It must be embarrassing to be from Texas. This is the guy YOU voted in as your governor?


Ron Paul’s stature as the #3 guy in most polls is more of a slap in the face to the other aspirants than it is an endorsement of Paul himself. An isolationist, a libertarian and someone who is viewed as extreme on most issues, he too cannot be the nominee.

So, who will it be?

Mitt Romney will take New Hampshire, but Newt will finish second. Gingrich will likely take Iowa, South Carolina and Florida. That momentum will make him the frontrunner until he has a Rick Perry moment.

And he most assuredly will.

It won’t be a Perry “$^&*-for-brains” gaffe, but somehow Newt’s own mouth will torpedo his hopes of winning the nomination. In desperation, the party elders will have to either hold their collective noses and line up behind Romney---or maybe pluck someone from the wings.

Michael Bloomberg is the best option, but he says he doesn’t want the job. If ever there was a year in which he could win the Presidency, this is it.

All we know is that it cannot possibly be Bachman, Santoro, Paul, Perry or Huntsman (even though he most likely has earned the consideration based on his resume alone)

Romney…or….whom?

This is starting to get interesting!

If you’d like to have my blog land in your mailbox, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Golf Carts Are Safe….Right?

Sometimes, it’s all about the video.

When my kids were younger, the most appealing part of playing golf was riding in (and nagging me to let them drive) the golf cart.

“No”, I’d say. “Golf carts are dangerous—they’re like real cars!” I didn’t really even believe it as the words left my lips, but being the over cautious parent that I was, this was one little white lie told to protect my “young’ns”!

However, after watching this video, I have changed my mind.

Sit back and enjoy the following idiots try to kill themselves with a Cushman:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtHe_ns7cHk


Thanks to good friend and golfing buddy Rick Cooper for forwarding this video. He may have been the one doing a little ill-advised roof surfing in the segment you just saw.

As the weather gets colder and the dark settles in earlier, there may be no more golf in New England this year. As such, the countdown to Spring begins….now.

Is winter over yet?

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

Penn State: Shame Is The Price For Protection

The tragedy of the Penn State situation is multi-faceted—and it appears that much more has yet to be revealed. The scandal-hungry media is eating it up, essentially “piling on” to the football program and the university in order to get ratings. This is red meat---and although complete exposure is warranted, I’m disturbed that at least some media networks appear to be enjoying the controversy a tad too much.

Sorting out the bad guys from those who merely “acted badly” is a scenario that clearly has been weighted against the latter because of their celebrity. Joe Paterno is being mentioned more than the alleged rapist, as if he committed the crimes in question.

Here is a PBS report on the scandal from a couple of days ago:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc7TwZq0bpU

Lost in all of this is the perspective of the victims—and of the one perpetrator (that we know of so far at least) who committed these horrible crimes. Coach Sandusky’s disgusting and morally bankrupt behavior has been overshadowed by the inaction of those who were in a position to have him arrested.

At the top of the list is Mike McQuery, who unbelievably did not ACT to stop the rape of a young boy in the Penn State showers. The world is asking how is it possible that a 6’4” former quarterback would simply walk away and merely report to his father and Coach Paterno the details of what he saw.

What we see from that point on--- crystallizes the central issue in this scandal, namely that institutional reputations are more important than the truth—or protecting children.

McQuery didn’t act more forcefully because of WHO he encountered in the shower. A coach with a solid reputation and perhaps a mentor to him as a player with the Nittany Lions. His quandary over how to respond was what propelled him to seek out Coach Paterno and his own father for advice—instead of acting to stop a rape from continuing. He placed his own future, the reputation of his coach and the university ahead of the safety of a little boy.

Paterno, while being applauded by some as having “done the right thing by going through channels”—also valued the school’s reputation—and that of one of his coaches—ahead of the safety of children. Up the chain, from the Athletic Director to the University President—it seems a decision was made to cover up, to conceal, to sweep under the rug this horrible crime and not bring Sandusky to justice.

The reasons for this appear abundantly clear. To expose the scandal and have Sandusky arrested immediately would:

1) taint the school’s reputation
2) diminish the football program’s reputation
3) hurt recruiting
4) hurt enrollment
5) open the school to legal exposure.

Is it not ironic that the failure of Penn State officials to take swift and decisive action has resulted in a scandal whose magnitude dwarfs the original scenario and makes points 1-5 far more injurious?

This is a scandal on steroids.

The full measure of punishment has yet to be meted out—and the lawsuits will cost Penn State hundreds of millions of dollars on the conservative side. The football program will be in shambles for years as those committing verbally to PSU have already started to withdraw their names. Who can possibly coach this team? A complete housecleaning is certain.

Criminal charges of perjury against University officials will cause enrollment to plummet and the once proud student body will go to Pitt or the University of Pennsylvania or ANYWHERE else. The damage is profound—and even if more dirt is not uncovered in the probe (an unlikely event), it could be decades before the school will recover.

“Joe Pa” didn’t do enough. He knows this and must be ashamed of his lack of leadership---sadly ironic when he has been praised for nearly 50 years as a inspirational leader who always put proper conduct ahead of winning.

“Victory With Honor” was the battle cry as the faithful gathered in Happy Valley on autumn Saturday afternoons.

The valley is no longer happy—and there is no longer any honor.


If you would like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Texas Toast: Put A Fork in Rick Perry

The most uncomfortable 53 seconds in Presidential debate history last night has effectively ended the stumbling, bumbling campaign of Texas governor Rick Perry.

He’ll continue for awhile, but to rip off Meatloaf’s hit song, “Two Out Of Three IS Bad”. Perry boldly declared that he would eliminate three federal agencies—then couldn’t think of the third one. Especially devastating since the omission was the Energy Department---especially curious coming from the governor whose state is the one of the largest energy producers and whose entire jobs platform revolves around energy.

Oops.

If you haven’t seen a campaign unravel before your eyes yet, check this out:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUA2rDVrmNg

“Not ready for prime time” was a label often attached to a man who was said to be weak in the debate forum, but the actual problem is much deeper.

Stripped of campaign slogans and rehearsed lines, it is abundantly clear that Perry is almost incapable of articulating specific policies or explaining complex issues without getting confused. Being a poor debater in my view relates to the repartee where candidates can spar with each other. Being slow on the uptake when challenged or unable to respond appropriately to an attack are the hallmarks of a poor debater.

Perry doesn’t need an opponent or a debate setting to look like an idiot. He can do that all on his own. His fatal flaw is an inability to communicate----a real liability for a job that requires expert communication skills above all else. (see: George W. Bush) That’s the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that he may just not have the intellectual capacity for the job.

To be fair, everyone has had a “brain freeze”. Who among us has had their train of thought get derailed?. It happens to me multiple times daily—and seems to have increased with age. With an error that is so human—and so common, perhaps we are all being too harsh on Rick Perry. I may be, but, then again, I am not running for President—and politics will expose every Achilles heel.

Mitt Romney’s failed bid in 2008 was the education he needed to look so (comparably) good in 2012’s race. He seems relaxed, has a great command of facts and specifics and has displayed both humor (self deprecating) and deference to his opponents this time around---increasing his stature as “Presidential”—that nebulous quality that no one can define, but all of us can identify when it’s either there—or missing.

In fact, the demeanor and countenance of the Republican prospects is the major factor in their standings—in my opinion.

Here’s how they stack up to me:

Mitt Romney-looks confident and competent, “presidential”

Rick Perry-good-looking, appears “presidential”-- until he opens his mouth. Check him out when the camera is on him while other candidates are speaking. There seems to me to be a mixture of envy and admiration for the way other hopefuls can articulate points that he himself cannot.


Herman Cain-looks confident and speaks well-and plainly-very appealing to the conservative base because Cain has a way of simplifying complex ideas.—his other troubles will sink him, however. His lack of knowledge on the most basic of facts (for instance that China has nukes) will make even staunch Republicans realize that he is not up to the task. He too, is now all but done.

John Huntsman-has the credentials, speaks well and conducts himself in a “presidential” manner---HOWEVER, he has a way of speaking that seems a tad patronizing. His mannerisms bother me and remind me of John Edwards-a bit “holier-than-thou”


Newt Gingrich-Probably the smartest of them all—and will be the first to tell you so. His sneering contempt for the media and combative stance makes for great theatre, but his “intellectual” image—carefully cultivated in the way he dismisses the ideas of those who don’t agree with him—is both arrogant and uncomely for the leader of the free world. He is, at his core, a grouchy old man who missed his shot years ago. His deft avoidance of the $300,000 paid to him by Fannie Mae last night as “advice by me they didn’t take” was just the tip of a corrupt iceberg that would be red meat for the media should he ever rise to the level of frontrunner. There is no one the White House would rather run against than Newt---and Republicans know it. He cannot be the nominee.

Michelle Bachman-definitely smart, but like Cain, has been left short-handed at times when facts are demanded of her. There is a wild-eyed look about her at times that makes her appear a tad crazy. Unfair, but don’t you see it too?


Rick Santorum- not one ounce of “presidential” in him, unfortunately. While he should be a front runner based on experience, conservative positions and his staunch faith, he is not. His ever-present $&^@-eating grin makes him appear more like the 4-H kid whose cow won a blue ribbon at the State Fair than a serious Presidential candidate. Most of his opportunities to speak focus on bragging about his past accomplishments than in framing a vision for the future. His numerous compliments to Newt Gingrich border on hero-worship and makes one wonder whether he secretly thinks Newt is more qualified than himself.

Ron Paul-While he has some very important things to say, his radical views on everything from the economy to the military make him unelectable. I think he was far more effective in the 2008 campaign. This year, he looks like the “Crazy Uncle” that Ross Perot referred to in his failed presidential bid years ago. Not a factor any longer.


So, Republican leaders who don’t like Romney’s conservative credentials—may need to “hold their nose” and make Mitt their standard-bearer.

No one else in the field can weather the storm. Romney has a chance to win—and to Republicans, removing President Obama from the White House is worth putting ANYONE else in there…including the former Governor of Massachusetts.


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

We Gotta Make Things!

Our current unemployment problems are largely due to the exportation of manufacturing jobs overseas.

A simplistic conclusion perhaps, but few will argue that the American manufacturing base is merely a shadow of its former self. Economic theory holds that efficiencies are gained by allowing the least-cost producer to emerge. Prices are lower for consumers and this is good.

Unfortunately, national security doesn’t factor into the equation, but it should.

Higher American wages that produced the great American middle class for several decades provided the earning power for consumption on domestically produced goods and enhanced our standard of living. Labor unions, in their zeal to lift the lowly worker up, did just that---but didn’t stop there. Empowered by their ability to shut factories down with strikes, they saddled American business with wage and benefit packages that greatly increased the cost of production.

American companies reacted by moving their manufacturing overseas. There, lowly paid workers can crank out the same products at a fraction of the cost, even with shipping and handling added in.

The result is not only idle factories and people, but a national vulnerability should hostilities arise in the future.

At the onset of World War II, factories producing consumer goods were quickly retooled to provide the implements of war. Tanks, planes and guns rolled off the assembly lines in a never-ending stream. How equipped would we be today for such a turnaround? How many of our critical components are made elsewhere---and perhaps by people who might be our enemy?

Check out this short video for the Ford Manufacturing Exposition—in 1934—what was “cutting edge” back then is rather ho-hum today, but therein lies a lesson, I think:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91c7yNB5X3w

Remember that this exposition was held during the Great Depression. Times were much worse than they are today—and yet, investment and optimism for the future fueled the spirits of those who still very much believed in the so-called American Dream.

Just 77 years ago, but think how far we have come! What new innovations exist for the balance of THIS century?
Whatever they are, we need to create conditions that allow us to make those things right here in the good ol’ USA!

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

Verdict in Jackson Doctor’s Trial

I am starting the writing of this blog before the verdict has been announced in the trial of Michael Jackson’s doctor.

By the time you read this, we’ll all know the outcome.

Was Dr. Conrad Murray criminally negligent in the death of Michael Jackson? We’ll hear what the jury says, but in my mind, the answer is both yes and no.

Yes, because any physician who earns $150,000 a month is clearly being paid to say “yes” to his patient’s plea for drugs—whether they should be medically administered or not. While the good doctor may not have been aware of the level of the lethal drug in Jackson’s system at the time, he may not “technically” have administered the dose that took Jackson’s life. Nevertheless, he should probably be stripped of his medical license and should face a civil suit, which he will undoubtedly will. To create any hope of a deterrent to other doctors, a “guilty” verdict would make sense.

No, because Michael Jackson was a tormented star whose drug addictions ultimately land at his own doorstep. He was responsible for his own demise, as he most certainly could have “bought” any other doctor willing to trade his conscience for a hundred a fifty “G’s” a month.

Sadly, this story is all too familiar. A huge star becomes a recluse, unable to mingle in the real world due to his celebrity. The wealth that fame confers on such people is used in part to create another world……


Guilty.

Verdict of involuntary manslaughter has just been rendered against Conrad Murray. No real reaction from Murray the reading of the verdict.

As I was writing prior to the verdict, it is the famous who fabricate a secluded world, one where they can live in relative peace---away from the public who adulation created both the wealth and the prison.

For Elvis, that haven was Graceland. For Michael Jackson, it was Neverland, where accusations of child molestation mixed with the suspicions of drug abuse. A superstar who never had a childhood, let alone a normal life as an adult—spiraled into a haze of drug induced escape.

Escape was the objective—and only in death was it complete.

Now that Murray has been found guilty, maybe there is closure for some of Jackson’s misguided fans, who sought out a guilty party, a scapegoat.

As for me, Jackson took his own life over an extended period of time. Dr. Murray was Michael’s own personal Dr. Kevorkian, easing him out. It’s obvious that Murray wanted to keep Jackson alive. He had a hundred and fifty thousand reasons each month to keep Jackson alive.

He failed—and will now pay dearly. To many, that is justice.

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

Birth Of The Hockey Mask

Some things are just so commonplace nowadays that their previous absence seems hard to fathom.

Such is the case with hockey—and in particular, the goalie’s use of a mask. Protecting one’s FACE from a hockey puck travelling hundred miles an hour would appear to be common sense, no?

Well, in fact, it was never done—until this date in 1959.

Montreal Canadiens goalie Jacques Plante became the first NHL goalie to wear a mask during a game. Oftentimes, goalies would employ them in practice, but never during an actual game. Of course, these were the days when helmets were never worn either. At least that omission is more reasonable, but the goalie?

He’s the TARGET, for cryin’ out loud!

Barely three minutes into a game against the Rangers at Madison Square Garden, Plante took a close-up backhand shot to the face. It split his lip all the way up to his nostril. Blood was everywhere, but remarkably, Plante kept playing.

After a time, however, it was clear that he needed stitches—an operation performed in about 20 minutes in the locker room. When he returned, he carried with him his cream-colored mask.

Canadiens head coach Toe Blake threw a fit.

Blake never allowed Plante to wear a mask in a game, but this time, Plante dug in his heels. In an era when teams didn’t carry an extra goalie on the roster, Plante told Blake that he simply would not play without the mask. The coach backed down—and a new era of protection in hockey was born.

Plante was ridiculed for weeks—even by fellow goalies—but since he was a premier player and it was clear the mask didn’t adversely affect his game, the hockey community finally came around to the notion of protecting their goalkeeper.

Here’s a short video on Plante’s bold move:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMbXU4njAw4

When jeered by fans and reporters about the mask, he simply said, “I already had four broken noses, a broken jaw, two broken cheekbones and almost 200 stitches in my head. I don’t care how the mask looks!”

Indeed.

Maybe he should have pioneered the hockey mask a tad earlier in his career.


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

The Gateway Arch Opens

The day after the St. Louis Cardinals played one of the greatest World Series games in history, finally defeating the Texas Rangers to force a decisive 7th game tonight, I think that history will favor the Cards.

After all, today is the 46th anniversary of the completion of the Gateway Arch. This symbolical identity for the city as being the “gateway to the west” was forever immortalized on this date in 1965. The Cards play in the shadow of that Arch—and maybe the magic is rubbing off.

If last night’s game wasn’t a miracle (the Cards were down to their last strike TWICE, each time coming back), then certainly the Arch itself is a wonder to behold.

A miracle of engineering, one of willpower and one of spirit.

The brainchild of local businessman Luther Ely Smith, original grants were made in the 1930’s---but construction didn’t actually begin until 1959.

At 630 feet, it is the tallest man-made monument in the United States. Check out this fascinating footage of the Arch during construction:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txQO3vxfinA

Despite an actuarial firm predicting thirteen people would die during construction, no one lost their life in the building of the Arch.

There were others who were predicting the two triangular legs would not match up when then met in the middle. Although fire hoses had to cool down the legs enough to contract a suitable amount to insert the capstone piece, everyone was amazed at the precision of the design and its implementation.

Sitting on the west bank of the Mississippi River, the Gateway Arch cost $13 million dollars, which translates loosely to about $90 million in today’s dollars. Original detractors of the plans for a monument were in favor of reviving the St. Louis waterfront, but favored more practical elements, believing the Arch was “folly” and a waste of money.

Of course, time has proven them wrong. In addition to lifting the spirits of a community and enhancing civic pride, the Gateway Arch has proven a real money maker, attracting tourists from all over the world.

It all started as dream—and now sits as a reality that is still (at least to me) a miracle!

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

Whitney Houston: Launching A Career

If the subject of singer Whitney Houston comes up nowadays, the talk will turn to how much of a mess she is. Substance abuse, a rocky relationship with her husband Bobby Brown and her largely non-existent career will dominate the conversation.

Not so on this date in 1985.

Twenty six years ago today, Whitney Houston established herself as the next big superstar, reaching the #1 spot on the charts with her hit song “Saving All My Love For You”.

There’s no doubt she had the genetic pedigree. The daughter of soul singer Cissy Houston and the niece of pop star Dionne Warwick, Whitney was blessed with an amazing voice and stunning beauty as well.

It was a “can’t miss” proposition.

The lyrical content of the “other woman” involved with a married man made the song a tough sell for some radio programmers, but the vocal performance and allure of this new talent was too much to resist.

Here’s the original video:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ewxmv2tyeRs&ob=av2e

Whitney’s first single, “You Give Good Love” peaked at #3, but the second release went all the way to the top. Over the next ten years, Houston would reach the top spot on the charts eight more times, in the process selling tens of millions of albums.

That debut album “Whitney Houston” ranks among the 40 biggest sellers of all time. Her version of “The Star Spangled Banner” was a top 20 hit not once, but TWICE—in 1991 during the Persian Gulf War—and then again in 2001 after the September 11th terrorist attacks.

It seems unlikely that Ms. Houston will ever resurrect her career—she’s had more than a couple “second chances”---but those of us who at least respect her talent—like me---are hoping that I’m wrong.

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

Have You Been Lied To Today?

The title of this piece has an immediate answer for most people—and the answer is:

Yes.

I have been lied to today—and so have you, whether you choose to believe it or not.
In fact, the estimate of our featured speaker today is that you will be lied to between 10 and 200 times….TODAY.

Most of these fibs are of the “white lie” variety—the seemingly innocent untruths told to protect the speaker’s ego or perhaps not injure the recipient (you).

But, as Pamela Meyer, the author of “Lie-spotters” indicates, you are complicit in lies being told to you and are therefore charged with seeking out the truth yourself.

Thankfully, there are a multitude of both verbal and non-verbal clues that reveal deception. Check out this enormously entertaining video—and learn!



http://www.ted.com/talks/pamela_meyer_how_to_spot_a_liar.html

While most of the verbal and body language clues I had heard of before, there were some new ones—and I must admit that the notion of me actually PARTICIPATING in a lie by believing it is a new concept.

So it’s partly MY fault?

The only thing that I wonder is----and this is a belief---is that our sloppy patterns of language may often convey deception where there really is none. Here’s an example:

Many experts say that a person who starts a sentence off with: “Well, to tell you the truth…” invites a response such as: “what, you’re usually LYING to me?” This figure of speech is said to both alert the listener to the fraud that follows or does indeed convey the sense that everything else this person utters is suspect.

Me?

I just think it’s a verbal crutch that many people use without thinking a whit about the literal meaning it conveys. As such—and I’m sure that I am guilty myself with other phrases like, “to be completely honest”, “as a matter of fact” or “the truth of the matter is…”---and the list is long I’m sure. I’m not ready to brand myself or others with the label of “liar” just because of a lack of verbal discipline.

But if you believe Pamela, we are all liars anyway.

Really.

I mean it.

Nevermind.


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

Worst Drivers Ever!

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

Everyone knows someone who is a particularly bad driver. Maybe you’re married to that person or maybe they’re a member of your family.

The one common trait that all bad drivers share is this: they are BELIEVE that they are good drivers. Travelling 20 miles below the posted speed limit in the passing lane is seen as “careful”. Drifting in and out of one’s lane is never actually noticed and slowing a crawl to check out street addresses is someone else’s problem!

It was this month in 1966 that what could be the WORST string of traffic infractions were recorded.

A 75 year old male driver from McKinney, Texas received 10 traffic tickets, drove on the wrong side of the road FOUR times, committed four hit-and-run offenses and caused SIX accidents-----all within 20 MINUTES!

Ironic in a sense, since Texans-especially residents of Houston are consistently ranked as the best drivers in the country.

Here is a video clip of some truly horrid vehicular mishaps and near misses-CAUTION-some of it is pretty hard to watch:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sqt9EMYyZwc

Ouch!

Another bad driver record was set this month in 1978 when Mrs. Fannie Turner of Little Rock, Arkansas finally passed her written test for drivers—on her 104th attempt. Hope there was a general alert issued when she finally took the wheel.

If you’d like my weekday blog in your e-mail (free), just drop me a line! Tim.moore@cumulus.com


Let’s be careful out there!

Facts Do Matter When Making Policy

Sometimes, a myth is repeated so often that it becomes a universally held “truth”.

Such is the case regarding the widely held beliefs about small business and their relative importance in the economy.

Elections hinge on and decisions rely upon our perception of what small businesses mean to the American economy. Part of the problem rests on the definition of “small”, but a generally accepted level is 20 employees or less.

President Obama says, “Small business is the backbone of our economy”
Other well-meaning, but equally false statements are:

“Most American jobs come from small business”
“Small businesses drive the economy”
“Most job growth comes from small business”

On and on.

And wrong, wrong , wrong.

So, what are the facts?

A recent article in Bloomberg illuminates the true situation. Charles Kenny wrote an excellent piece explaining the results of a University of Chicago study on American business.

Check out these facts:

1) In 2007 (most recent year of comprehensive data), there were about 6 million businesses in the U.S.

2) Of those 6 million businesses, about 90% would qualify as “small business”-20 employees or less.

3) Here’s where it gets interesting: those 90% of all businesses account for about 20% of all jobs. Yes, only 20%.

4) Said another way, 80% of all American jobs do NOT come from small business.


5) Between 2004 and 2008, only 3% of these small businesses added more than 10 employees. So, while companies like Apple and Hewlett-Packard start out as “small businesses”, only a VERY small percentage actually grow to be substantially bigger businesses.

This makes some sense, as many small business owners have no desire to grow big. They started their businesses in order to be their own boss or earn more than they could as the employee of a firm owned by someone else.

Of course, this has enormous implications on tax policy—and the politics that drive it. Republicans have fiercely protected the tax breaks of those making over $200,000 a year or more largely on the argument that these people are small business owners who are creating jobs.

False.

Fewer than one third of those self-identified small business owners even belong in the top two tax brackets.

In order to solve our unemployment issue, we need to encourage medium to large businesses to hire. Most of these behemoths are either privately held by extremely wealthy individuals and families or are publicly held companies.

The facts have borne out that the larger companies generally pay higher wages, have better benefits and attract workers of a higher education level.

Manufacturing is the true backbone of our economy—and so many of those jobs have drifted overseas that we have left ourselves in a vulnerable position. To bring jobs back, we need to do one or both of the following:

A) Impose tariffs on imported goods, thereby eliminating the competitive advantage of lower cost-to-produce that caused the exportation of jobs in the first place…or

B) Lower corporate tax rates for goods manufactured in the U.S. and/or raise them for good produced in other countries by U.S. firms and then imported.

Personally, I like option B better.

Eliminate the incentive to export labor and voila! The jobs return. While doing this, eliminate the Bush tax cuts on the wealthy and bring the ultra-wealthy in line with the vast majority of Americans who are paying a higher percentage of their income in taxes.

It’s not “class warfare” to correct an injustice. The reality is that the gulf between the wealthy and the middle class has widened because of tax policies that favored the rich---class warfare, institutionalized as an inequitable tax structure has created the conflict. Correcting the imbalance has been attacked as if it were the cause, not the effect.

Restore a balanced tax code (or better yet, start from scratch) and do the two things above to super-charge the economy. It’s really that simple. We don’t have to scrap our environmental laws to attract big businesses to expand. We just need to make it more profitable to keep jobs in the U.S. than to ship them overseas.

Americans like Herman Cain’s “9-9-9” tax proposal because it is two things to them:

1) Fair and
2) Simple

Maybe it is a bad idea-maybe it won’t work, but it is straightforward and easy to understand. Washington politicians don’t like simple solutions because they are transparent—and their violation is noticed. No, the lawmakers (most of whom are lawyers themselves) favor complex formulas and a myriad of exemptions because tax hikes can be embedded more easily.

The terrific Bloomberg article can be read online at:

http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/rethinking-the-boosterism-about-small-business-09282011.html

Send it to your favorite politician. He or she needs to operate from facts, not fantasy.

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

Playing Politics versus Real Life Problems

As the politicians snipe at each other and the media focuses on the insults and pithy barbs, the American people are paying the price.

A sluggish economy, high unemployment, a volatile stock market and rumors of a “double-dip” recession live in tandem with some seriously positive pockets of vitality in certain segments and companies. There are many firms out there doing quite well, thank you.

A recent report stated there were 3.2 million job OPENINGS across the country. How can this be, with 14 million people presumably looking for work? The CEO’s will tell you that finding QUALIFIED workers is the problem. America’s education system is churning out young people unable to hold the jobs now available.

How did we get into this mess? More importantly, how do we get out?

Following the sequence of events, tell me-------which of the following is NOT true?

1) Lack of regulation/oversight and/or enforcement of banks and financial institutions created an environment where risky mortgages, derivatives, suspect financial instruments and bundling of debt and sell-offs to other financial institutions reached a fever pitch. The deposit to loan ratios were skirted or ignored. It was a shell game---with no referee. TRUE?

2) When capacity exceeded demand and housing values started to fall, the house of cards caved in. As all bubbles must, this one burst. TRUE?


3) The “too-big-to-fail” institutions teetered on the brink of collapse—and both Democrats and Republicans supported the bailout, citing impending economic collapse as the reason to intercede. Both parties vowed that such unfettered and unregulated business practices leading to the crisis must “never happen again” Much of this was done in front of TV cameras for the folks back home. TRUE?

4) Once rescued, the large banks and financial institutions rebounded, but little “trickle-down” to the American consumer was evident, from the difficulty in acquiring a car loan to getting a mortgage. The little guy’s world was largely unchanged. Those whose homes were in foreclosure saw little or no relief, re-structuring or re-financing. TRUE?


5) Legislation designed to prevent a repeat performance—introduced by Democrats—was universally trashed by Republicans as excessive government control of private institutions. TRUE?

6) The government bailout of General Motors—largely decried by conservative Republicans (except in Michigan) has been proven the correct move. More than 1.2 million jobs were saved—in direct and related industries. Further, the U.S. Treasury is being paid back, in much the same manner as the Chrysler bailout decades ago. TRUE?

Are any of the above statements NOT true?

Whether we like it or not, there are indeed financial entities that are too big to fail. In dealing with these institutions, one of two things must happen:

1) We must either break them up into smaller, unrelated entities—much like the Standard Oil monopoly or…

2) They must be officially designated as “too big to fail”---thereby agreeing to a tradeoff whereby they accept a higher level of government scrutiny and regulation in return for the security of a government bailout.

As the protesters gather on Wall Street—and high above them in their glass & steel cathedrals of finance, the captains of capitalism look down on these scraggly demonstrators with disdain, there is an inescapable irony:

These Wall Street-types, who are almost universally conservative and vote the straight Republican ticket-------are largely still in business BECAUSE of Democratic party efforts to bail them out—the same “big government” strategy that they condemn may be the sole reason they still exist.

Conversely,

Democratic efforts to save these institutions are done with the “little guy” in mind. Not caring a whit about the millionaires, it is the potential effect on the working man and woman that motivates these liberals to bail out the fat cats. How disappointing it must be to look back and see that your vote to save a mega-firm seems to only help those same millionaires.

The American people demand political action to reverse the economy. This plays directly into the Democratic ideology that government intervention—in the form of tax breaks, job programs and such—can have an immediate effect. The downside is that they may largely be temporary and artificial.

Republicans are left in a politically more vulnerable position. Their “hands-off” approach centers on lifting the very regulations whose absence contributed to the melt-down, cutting spending (including some of the safety net and social programs) and giving further tax breaks to corporations. Their assertion is that “Obamacare” is the root cause of the hiring drought—and that it’s repeal will “stimulate” the economy.

Not only will these moves take a lot of time to work (if they do at all), but each component exacts harm to the middle class in the short term and extends further relief to big business. The Republican’s adamant stance against increasing tax rates on the wealthiest Americans will further alienate them from a huge segment of the electorate.

For a country that demands action, anything that looks like more pain is not a saleable strategy in an election year.

Over 60% of Americans are in favor of the President’s Jobs Bill—and yet it will die at the hands of Republicans. In 2012, it will be easy to convince voters that a Congress held hostage by Republican intransigence is keeping the country from moving forward.

The Democratic storyline goes like this:

1) George Bush and the Republicans created the economic meltdown of 2008
2) President Obama saved GM and tens of thousands of other jobs, thus averting the second Great Depression
3) Republicans in Congress are defending the wealthy and obstructing Democratic efforts to create jobs and turn the economy around.


The Republican storyline looks a bit different:

1) Obama made a bad situation worse
2) Government spending and “Obamacare” are the reason why the economy has not recovered.
3) Recovery turns on drastic cuts in federal spending and retreat from excessive regulations that hinder business.

Both sides have their points to make, but I’d hate to be the Republican nominee—on the campaign trail defending a non-proactive approach. The Democrats need only refer to the failed Bush tax cuts---designed at the time to stimulate the economy—as evidence that market forces alone cannot solve the problem in a timely manner.


What do you think?

To get this blog in your e-mail, just let me know and I’ll add you to the list: tim.moore@cumulus.com

Occupy Wall Street: For What Reason?

The “Occupy-Fill-In-The-Blank” movement is curious to me.

It started on Wall Street and has spread to other cities around the country, including right here in Portland.

While I can sympathize with the frustration of many Americans over the current state of the economy and the excessive wealth of a very few—the so-called 1%--- embodied by the term “Wall Street”(in comparison to those in dire economic straits), I must admit that I am at a loss concerning their objective.

In Portland, driving down Congress Street by Monument Square, I see signs that:

1) Decry the politicians who have betrayed us
2) Express outrage at the war in Afghanistan
3) Implore the government to “create” jobs
4) Call for the prosecution of Wall Street executives
5) Complain about excessive taxes.

The list goes on. If you have a gripe, you’ll be welcome at the pity party, regardless of its nature and in absence of any solution that might be proposed.

I guess that’s why I am confused.

I know what each of them is AGAINST. I just don’t know what ANY of them are FOR!

Check out the video below:





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

Now there’s a seemingly intelligent young man who cannot for the life of him articulate one good reason why someone should pay his college tuition, other than, of course, because that’s what he wants.

While the reporter is sometimes inaccurate in castigating him over taxation, he knows that he is dealing with someone who has spent more time creating his protest sign than he did in thinking about why’s he’s there in the first place.

Worlds collide when I find myself agreeing with Newt Gingrich over ANYTHING, but I think the old sourpuss was dead-on in his assessment of the protests the other night, essentially dividing the throngs into two groups:

1) The extreme left fringe that jumps at the chance to protest against anything—and
2) Many serious and thoughtful people who have arrived without an agenda other than a need to express their frustration.

I think that’s accurate.

At some point, however, the crowds will disperse—and not because their demands have been satisfied. They’ll leave because it’s getting colder by the day and the deaf ear they’ve been shown so far will continue. Their lack of cohesion over a satisfactory outcome will do them in. In the end, they’ll be reinforced in their conviction that the system is rigged to favor those who control the vast majority of the country’s wealth.

Dejected, they will wearily go back to the unemployment line.

MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan has a petition drive that also taps into the discontent, but one that has a specific purpose—the introduction and ratification of a Constitutional Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to prohibit campaign contributions.

The premise is simple. Our politicians are bought by corporations and special interests.
Campaign contributions are the grease that slide them into office. Once elected, these politicians orient federal legislation and regulations to protect and favor these wealthy contributors. The net effect is a system where the collective good of the country’s population is subordinated to the wealth-generating goals of those few who quite literally have bought Congress. By eliminating the corrupt cash from the system, the will of the people would then prevail in the settlement of any issue.

Agree or disagree, at least there is a specific outcome targeted.

The website link is here: http://www.getmoneyout.com/

As of this writing there were nearly 200,000 signatures. Will the effort be successful? Maybe a long shot, but I have to give Ratigan credit for soliciting some bright minds to draft an amendment that is concise and would be a game changer if passed.

Of course, no one who has purchased their Congress member wants to see this---and they would undoubtedly operate the marionette strings to keep this from reaching the floor of the House.

Cynical?Maybe, but politicians everywhere had better start to realize that many Americans are starting to recoil against the corruption that’s been part of the American landscape for as long as anyone can remember.

The squeezed middle class has woken up.

Not having a job has afforded them the time to realize, perhaps for the first time just how the game is played. It’s a game they are losing.

If you are lucky to have a job, you are still losing. America itself is losing—and only a gravitational shift in the way we approach our system will correct the problem.

So, do you align more with the protesters or the status quo?
What are YOU for?


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

The Carpenters: They Had Only Just Begun

Sometimes pop songs are made into commercials---and sometimes, it’s the other way around.

On this date in 1970, The Carpenters were sitting at #2 on the U.S. charts with the song “We’ve Only Just Begun”. Not the product of divine inspiration, but rather the kind of creative spark that comes from watching late night TV.

That’s what Richard Carpenter was doing when he saw a commercial for Crocker Bank—and a snippet of songwriter Paul Williams doing the vocals for this wedding-themed spot for the bank.
Carpenter recognized Williams and called to ask if there was a full length version. Although there wasn’t, Mr. Williams decided to say “Yes!”------and began to write in earnest the rest of the song! Roger Nichols had written the melody.


Here’s the ad—and Paul Williams with the story:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dctl8x405GE


Now, here are the Carpenters performing the entire song:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__VQX2Xn7tI&feature=related


I must admit that I am something of a Carpenters fan. Cheesy, I know, but I was growing up during that time—and this Carpenters tune (along with many others) were on the radio all the time. Collectively, they became part of the soundtrack of our lives.

Not the epitome of cool, but the harmonies were good—and the voice of Karen in particular was unique and compelling.

“We’ve Only Just Begun” was named by Rolling Stone magazine as #405 on their list of the “500 Greatest Songs of All Time”


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

Are You Ready For Some…..Free Speech?

Hank Williams, Jr.’s interview on Fox News Monday morning was probably not meant to cause headlines, but the good’ol boy just couldn’t help himself.

He went off on President Obama, comparing him to Adolf Hitler and saying that his golf match with Republican Speaker John Boehner was like “Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu”. As if that didn’t go far enough, he called Obama “the enemy” along with Vice President Biden, referring to the duo as the ”Three Stooges”—apparently, math wasn’t a strong subject for this country boy. He’s no political-science whiz either, despite his introduction as such on the Fox News morning program.

Despite having what might be considered in advance a sympathetic network on which to spew such venom, even the Fox News crew was taken aback. It appeared as though as Mr. Williams was intoxicated or high or both. The dark glasses and wary approach to the interview itself should have been a foreshadowing that this segment would be anything but tame.

Fast forward to Monday night—and ESPN’s decision to drop the “Are You Ready For Some Football” opening segment to Monday Night Football in direct response. Reaction to that decision was mixed as well. Some say that it was censorship—or punishment to Williams for merely exercising his right to free speech.

I disagree.

Williams has the right to say whatever he likes, no matter how ignorant, insensitive or inflammatory his remarks. ESPN also has the right to broadcast what it likes. Both entities are free to spout off—or withhold material. After the interview, Williams made several attempts to explain what he meant, trying to diffuse an outcry over his remarks. Now, it appears that he has decided to stop apologizing.

On Hank Williams, Jr.’s website today, he fired the final shot, deciding not to wait for ESPN’s decision on whether or not to reinstate the popular opening to Monday Night Football. Next to his video “If The South Woulda Won” (which says a lot all by itself, no?), he posted the following statement:

"After reading hundreds of e-mails, I have made MY decision. By pulling my opening Oct 3rd, You (ESPN) stepped on the Toes of The First Amendment Freedom of Speech, so therefore Me, My Song, and All My Rowdy Friends are OUT OF HERE. It’s been a great run.”
So there.

If you missed the original FOX News segment, here it is:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eF6vCv13bw

Notice how Williams displayed his disdain at the Republican presidential field—but then backtracked a bit when reminded that he earlier supported Sarah Palin for President. He deplored the “polarization” of the country, apparently unaware that the statement he just made criticizing both sides for trying to reach compromise was an instant contradiction.

So much for Hank Williams, Jr. and his political savvy.

While not a fan of “political correctness”, there are those whose opinions should probably not be broadcast to a national audience. Were Fox to have confined the interview to area that Williams knows something about----say…..MUSIC, we might have something worth airing. Ignorant or inarticulate comments are great for “man-on-the-street” sound bites, strung together rapid-fire, but few news organizations would grab someone off the street and devote an interview segment to them without gleaning some relevance---or competence ahead of time. The Fox News crew might as well have asked Williams about nuclear fission.

For me, I’ll miss the opening segment of Monday Night Football, but were both sides able to kiss, make up and reinstate it, I would forever have a hard time watching it without thinking about what a creton the guy in the cowboy hat is.

As the old saying goes: “’Tis better to remain quiet and have people believe you are an idiot—than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.”

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

And Now A Word From Our Sponsor….

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG


Being in the radio biz, commercials are a big part of my life. The afternoon extravaganza that IS the Tim Moore show (ahem) breaks twice an hour to play the commercial messages of 94.9 WHOM’s sponsors.

While commercials sometimes get a bad rap (sometimes deserved), it is a part of American culture that broadcasting has been funded by business. In many ways, it is democracy (and capitalism) at its best!

At the dawn of broadcasting, when the AM radio spectrum—then the only thing that existed—was a virtual “wild west”, commercial interests began to see the value in communicating with a vast audience. It was at this juncture that something interesting happened. Companies like Westinghouse, General Electric and others flocked to the new medium of radio.

Instead of the government “taking over” the airwaves (a la Britain’s BBC), the newly minted FCC decided that a better model could exist. Namely, private companies would put up the capital for the studios, transmitters and equipment and pay for the costs of producing the entertainment. A variety of voices would be a better than a central, government-controlled model. All these companies needed to demonstrate were service to their communities and responsiveness to their audiences.

Commercials are the price of admission. Unlike satellite radio or cable TV, commercial radio is totally free to the user. Our advertisers pay the freight. Part of our job as broadcasters is to not only provide entertainment that attracts an audience, but also create marketing campaigns for our advertisers that make their cash registers ring!

There was a time when the “commercial” was virtually inseparable from the “entertainment”—watch the following video clip of an early (1948) TV show where the Swift Meat commercial was part of the show:





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

While claims by these old-time advertisers didn’t always square with the truth, the sponsor was often integrated into the actual name of the program (“Mutual of Omaha’s Wild Kingdom”). Then, the business gravitated away from hosts like Johnny Carson doing live ads within his show—there were merely “spots” within a show.

Now, the pendulum is starting to swing back-radio hosts are endorsing more and more products-and TV hosts are starting to do the same. If both laughs and “warm and fuzzy feelings” for the product can be achieved simultaneously, then everybody wins.

So—you may hear me endorsing a product or two in the future. I’ve done a few so far. When that is the case, it will be because I TRULY use and recommend the product or service. No DJ in this building is compelled to endorse an advertiser if they are uncomfortable with them.

While advertising has permeated every aspect of American life, we are getting better at “filtering” out those messages which do not interest us. Marketers are also getting better at creating award-winning spots that are :30 or :60 slices of entertainment. Often, it is the TV commercials that garner more chatter and excitement than the game itself during the Super Bowl!

I’d love to hear your thoughts on ads in our media—if you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox (commercial free!) just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com

And now, back to our program!

Motorcycle Dog

Sometimes this blog is about world affairs, social injustice, politics or some other important issue.

Other times, it’s just about a dog who rides a motorcycle.
This is one of those times.

Enjoy:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdj67XknFrM


Thanks to faithful blog reader and contributor Rick Cooper, who forwarded this video. Yes, it must have been a slow news day at that little TV station, but I’ll bet the most memorable story was the one above, about a hound wearing goggles and hitting the road.

If you’re a dog lover like me, there’s no way you don’t laugh out loud. Even if you don’t have an affinity for critters, my guess is that this little clip made you smile!

My work is done here!

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

Mathemagic: Go Ahead, Try This At Home

My wife Peggy is a math professor at the University of Southern Maine, so guess who my kids go to when struggling with math homework?

I can add up a golf score with the best of them (and sometimes that can be a pretty big number!) and can calculate 20% of a restaurant tab with no issue. However, get to the bigger stuff and I slow up considerably.

I did OK in calculus and statistics—and I always liked geometry (maybe because it had such concrete manifestations), but algebra always kicked my butt. Quadratic equations were my personal Waterloo, as I always screwed up the order of operations. I would do the same problem five times, come up with the same answer---and it would be WRONG.

Maybe that’s why the video you’re about to see blew me away.

Arthur Benjamin is a “mathemagician”. He makes at least part of his living demonstrating his unbelievable powers of calculation in front of live audiences.

Check this out:



http://www.ted.com/talks/arthur_benjamin_does_mathemagic.html

Amazing doesn’t begin to describe what is going on inside that guy’s head! I was looking forward to the last part where Arthur decided to verbalize his thinking process as he squares that 5-digit number. I was excited because I thought I would get some insight into his amazing process.

I didn’t.

What he verbalized confused me even more. There’s no way I can get inside that brain!

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

Terry Francona: Thanks For The Titles, Tito!

How soon we forget.

A man who can arguably lay claim to the title “best Red Sox manager ever” will likely not be back next year.

As I write this, reports are swirling that Terry Francona will be exiting stage left. Although John Henry and company met with Tito today, they are not making an announcement on whether they’ll pick up his option next year. As for Francona himself? Reports are stating that he’s already told team members that he’s going…going…gone!

Eight years at the helm—and two World Series Championships to his credit.

I think he’s getting a raw deal.

He didn’t swing a bat or throw a pitch in Boston’s horrible September. He wasn’t responsible for the injuries, the errors or the slumps. But…he’s the guy at the top—and even he admitted that his control over the players in the clubhouse was not what it should have been.

Perhaps a fresh face would inspire the players to dig deep. I would think that sheer pride would be sufficient. After all, put another guy in that situation—and ask yourself---what would anyone else have done?

Does it come down to a pep talk during a slump? I don’t think it’s that simple.
If Francona gets the blame for September and also the dreadful 2-10 season start, then he must also get the credit for the part in-between, when the Red Sox had the best record in baseball.

Here’s a TV segment from earlier today on the swirling reports of Francona’s exit:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hTBxZGB1kW4

The name most mentioned as Francona’s replacement is one Joe Torre. As Tito-haters salivate over the prospect, it should be noted that Torre is not particularly good at managing conflict (his own admission), a talent that may have been the missing managerial ingredient this year.

I should come clean and admit that I am not a huge Francona fan. It’s been said that a manager will cost his team a few games each year. God knows that Terry filled his quota. Many times, I think he left pitchers in too long---presumably because he didn’t want to “embarrass them” by yanking them mid-inning. While I don’t agree with the logic, there is a human side to it that made his excesses forgivable----because his players loved him and the team was a winner.

He’s forgotten more about baseball than I know, so I won’t second-guess the many decisions he made that I railed against from the comfort of my easy chair.
Keep in mind, however, that only your players can make you look good—or competent—and that baseball is a game of inches.

The manager touted for breaking “the curse” and delivering the Red Sox their first title since 1918 might not have made it past that inaugural season if a certain throw to second in the fourth game of the ALCS had nailed Dave Roberts. The Yankees would have swept the Red Sox in four straight and the “Idiots” would have cemented that nickname in the most deplorable way.

Likewise, had the Red Sox won 2 more games than they did—at ANYTIME in that 162 game season, we wouldn’t be having this conversation. There had to be hundreds, if not thousands of game situations in 2011 where one fewer out or one more foot of distance would have meant another one in the win column.

Had the Sox won another 2 games—maybe opening 4-8 instead of 2-10, we would be headed to the post-season. It’s likely that with the riddled pitching staff, the Sox would have been unable to hit their way past the first round anyway.

Many have called for Theo Epstein’s head as well. While I likewise disagree here too, at least there is a plausible argument to lay alot of blame on the GM. To quote Bill Parcell’s famous statement about his desire to be coach AND General Manager, “If I’m gonna be making dinner, I want to buy the groceries!”

Yet for every bonehead acquisition Theo paid big bucks for (John Lackey, J.D. Drew, et al), there were some terrific pickups, too.

As in all things, a man should be judged for his body of work, not the snapshot that is one season----or in this case, one MONTH.

I hope the Red Sox have the sense to retain Tito, but I fear that things have already unraveled to the point of no return.

If that’s the case, then we can at least thank Terry Francona for bringing to Boston not one but two World Championships. I think most of the fans are grateful for that—and are also distressed to think he won’t be in the dugout next season.

Thanks, Tito.


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

Google And Facebook As Big Brother?

It’s a bit pompous to say that this blog is IMPORTANT, but I think I will anyway.

The credit is not mine to take, as this one is all about the video. Thanks to Q97.9 Night-time star Rob Steele for sending me the link yesterday.

Did you think “search” was created equal? I did.
Did you think that the internet was the great leveler of the playing field? I did too.

You may be in for a rude awakening after watching the following video. Watch it before YouTube (owned by Google) takes it down:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLXa1kEMooU

The founders of Google had as their core mantra, “Don’t Be Evil”. What may have started as an earnest attempt to “personalize” the feeds for users has turned into a filter that not only can you not control---you are not even AWARE that content is being kept from you.

Scary. And, in a way....evil.

Your thoughts welcome-either as a comment or an e-mail, which you can also use to subscribe for free (and UNFILTERED!) daily: tim.moore@cumulus.com

TV’s Worst Show—Almost

It was on this date in 1967 that an American TV flop started airing in France—in the hope that maybe it would fare better in Europe.

It didn’t.

“My Mother, The Car”, starring Jerry Van Dyke (Dick’s brother) was a sitcom that had as its premise, a talking automobile that was the reincarnation of the main character’s mother.

Alrighty then.

How this idea made it past the first round of network brainstorming is beyond me. Small-town lawyer David Crabtree discovers that a 1928 Porter sitting in a used car lot is his Mom. The car starts talking to him—and the rest is TV history, infamous as it may be.

Below are the first few minutes of the debut episode—you may not be able to watch more than a minute or so!



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cix204cWnWA

Jerry Van Dyke lived in the shadow of his famous brother—and had the hard luck to prove it. The enormously successful “Dick Van Dyke Show” was still airing when “My Mother, The Car” made its debut. Further, Jerry turned down the lead role for another sitcom, this one about a small group of people stranded on a desert island----“Gilligan’s Island”.

When “My Mother, The Car” landed on American television in 1965, one critic predicted it would be an “Edsel with the critics, but a hot rod with the public”.

It lasted just one season, proving that it was a lemon with just about everyone.

In 2002, TV Guide named “My Mother, The Car” the SECOND worst show in TV history.

The absolute worst? “The Jerry Springer Show”

Who can argue with that?

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

Debates Are Overrated, But Still Important

It is only in retrospect that we know how important this day in history was.

The very first Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate took place on this date in 1960. The incredible influence of the visual medium of television was first demonstrated—and dramatically at that.

Regardless of the content of their responses, the national audience was exposed to the far more impactful NON-VERBAL communication from the candidates. What was the turning point in presidential politics may not have even been in the thought process of then Vice President Richard Nixon and his team.

Namely, that pictures-images DO matter. Consider the mistakes made:

1) Nixon refused to wear makeup. Uninitiated in the effects of the TV lights on human complexion, he was unwilling to be made up. The effect? John F. Kennedy looked tanned and healthy. Nixon looked pale, pasty and ill. Further, the hot lights caused him to sweat.

2) No apparent effort was made to address the posture of the Republican candidate. While Kennedy largely looked relaxed and comfortable, Nixon appeared nervous and ill-at-ease.

Did these things matter?

Absolutely.

What was for many the very first national exposure to the challenger Kennedy, his team was well aware that Kennedy’s mission was to appear “Presidential”, essentially refuting the charges from the Nixon campaign that the Democratic nominee was young and inexperienced.

Here is the original Kennedy-Nixon debate. Watch it and decide for yourself!



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

Fast-forward to 2011 and the recent Republican debates. Despite the huge excitement from the conservative base over the entrance of Texas Governor Rick Perry into the race, it is abundantly clear that Mr. Perry’s very candidacy is starting to crumble---due to his debate performance---or lack thereof.

Republican consultant Mike Murphy said of Perry: “Listening to Perry try to put a complicated policy sentence together…is like watching a chimp play with a locked suitcase”

Funny, but true.

Brit Hume said that Perry “threw up all over himself” in the last debate. As a result of this and other assessments, Perry’s fundraising has been hit and Herman Cain (in my view the very best performer so far in the debates)—actually won the Florida Straw Poll with 37% of the vote—compared to 15% for Perry and 14% for Romney.

While pundits call this a vote for “none of the above”, perhaps Cain shouldn’t be so roundly dismissed. So far, Cain is the only one who has spoken plainly, directly and with a genuine sense of humor. You get the feeling that (unlike the other candidates), he doesn’t have an arsenal of verbal “gotcha!” comebacks or one-liners ready for delivery. Maybe he does—I wouldn’t blame him. It just seems as if he is generating it all on the spot.

The TV age has made everyone more adept at on-camera situations, but Rick Perry had better get a lot better—and soon.

Meanwhile, Perry’s team says he is not running for “Debater-In-Chief”, but “Commander-In-Chief”. While this may be true, the ability to communicate has never been more important. That deer-in-the-headlights look we routinely got from George W. Bush cannot possibly cut it any longer. President Obama’s detractors will cite his ability to speak as his ONLY attribute.

While I dispute that notion, it is true that his ability to communicate, motivate and explain may have been the deciding factor in his win over the verbal bumbling of John McCain.

The debates do matter. The ability to think on your feet, to articulate ideas and simplify complex issues will be central to the skill set of any President. If the Republicans aren’t on their game, it may dictate the outcome in 2012, just as it did in 2008----and 1960.

Richard Nixon, were he here, would agree.


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

Songwriter Turned Performer

Ok, so it was kind of a conceited and chauvinistic tune, but it made it to #1 and propelled an obscure songwriter into stardom.

The song was “Baby, Don’t Get Hooked On Me” and the singer was Mac Davis. It was on this date in 1972 that the song topped the charts, sending this country boy from Lubbock, Texas into the winners circle as a performer in his own right.

Not that success was foreign to Mr. Davis. It’s just that the songs he wrote became hits for someone else. If you recall Elvis Presley’s hits “A Little Less Conversation”, “In The Ghetto” , “Memories” and “Don’t Cry Daddy”, you have Mac Davis to thank. How about the sappy “Watching Scotty Grow”? That Mac Davis tune was a huge hit for Bobby Goldsboro.

After starting out with Nancy Sinatra’s band, where he performed on stage with her many times, a career in songwriting—and eventually performing took over.

In a year where the Equal Rights Amendment was in the headlines—and Helen Reddy’s “I Am Woman” typified the emerging independence of women, here was a song about a guy who doesn’t want a relationship to lead into any kind of commitment! If you don’t remember the song…well….here it is:




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

Mac Davis became one of the most successful performers in the 70’s and 80’s, following this #1 hit with songs like: “One Hell Of A Woman”, “Stop And Smell The Roses” and the amusing “It’s Hard To Be Humble”.

Davis was also an actor, starring in several movies, including opposite Nick Nolte in “North Dallas Forty”. He also had his own musical variety show from 1974-1976 on NBC.

Hell, he even appeared as himself on “The Muppet Show”. You know you’ve arrived when on-camera with Miss Piggy.

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