On Saturday, our first born son, John, graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY (“RPI”)
Of course, we were in attendance, beaming with pride at the accomplishments of our son, who has grown from boy to confident young man before our eyes—a span of time that has seemed like a flash! Note to parents of young kids: everything “they” say about kids growing up fast is true.
As I stood there in the stadium, sweltering in the heat of a l-o-n-g ceremony, I couldn’t help but be transported back in time. Earliest memories of John as an infant coming home from the hospital to new parents who didn’t really know what we were doing, then progressing to all of the milestones associated with childhood. That first birthday. Raking leaves in the backyard with a rake twice his height. Countless Halloweens, Christmases, Easters’ and birthday parties. Little League, Boy Scouts, family vacations and precious moments on Branch Lake, swimming and fishing.
Yes, I remember the times of wrestling that little kid (when I could still “take” him—an ability that vanished after middle school)
There was even the memory when we first dropped John off at college four years ago, saying goodbye through the tears and setting John loose to fend for himself for the first time.
Through it all, we have seen him mature and grow, both physically and emotionally. Always an excellent student and hard-working athlete, we were nonetheless highly impressed at John’s ability to navigate courses at RPI that I could hardly pronounce, let alone slog through! When the tests came fast and furious, it was tempting to comfort him with a statement like: “John, it’s not rocket science!”
Unfortunately, as an aeronautical engineer, it was indeed rocket science.
Nice try, Dad.
Combining that curriculum with mechanical engineering for a dual degree and competing as an NCAA athlete on the track team, his mother and I marveled at how John somehow kept all the plates spinning.
For those not familiar with the oldest technological school in the country, here’s a short video:
http://www.youtube.com/user/rpirensselaer?blend=8&ob=5
I feel stupid.
Make that stupider.
Since Saturday’s Commencement, our friends have congratulated US—and we too have joked about not having to write yearly checks to RPI that could buy a fleet of Mercedes SUV's, but it is still hard to believe that these four college years have flown by so fast.
The college years are an opportunity for huge growth—and much of it happens outside the classroom. Unlike my tour of duty at The Ohio State University, I suspect that John studied just a TAD harder than his old man did. To ask if John “enjoyed” RPI might be the wrong question. Hard to say you’ve “enjoyed” endless studying, exams and brain-bursting classroom sessions. Perhaps better to ask if it was all worthwhile.
John will have to answer that one himself, but from a parent’s perspective, we couldn’t be more thrilled and proud that John absolutely made the most of his college years—and all jokes about the cost aside, Peggy and I are convinced that it’s the best money we could spend—to give our kids the education that will impact their lives and give them a range of choices that would be severely limited without it.
Now comes the victory lap! Some well earned time off, a trip to Vegas with his buddies-and then a terrific position at Sikorsky Helicopter in Connecticut await.
John, you’re earned every bit of it—and your Mom and I cannot convey in words how proud of you we are—and how much we love you!
Congratulations, John!
Of you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, May 31, 2011
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
People Are Awesome: Coordination Meets Insanity
It seems the more I share great videos on these blogs, the more I get via e-mail links with OTHER terrific clips from friends and family.
Such is the case today, where great feats of derring-do and some INSANE shots of courage/stupidity combine for a mini-movie that will at times leave you breathless!
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo0Cazxj_yc
Would you do ANY of the things depicted above? If yes, would you be around to tell the story afterwards?
Unlikely!
Have a SAFE and SANE day!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Such is the case today, where great feats of derring-do and some INSANE shots of courage/stupidity combine for a mini-movie that will at times leave you breathless!
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo0Cazxj_yc
Would you do ANY of the things depicted above? If yes, would you be around to tell the story afterwards?
Unlikely!
Have a SAFE and SANE day!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Hey Redskins! Get This Guy!
I’m a Washington Redskins fan.
There, I said it.
It hasn’t been easy the last two decades or so, with owner Daniel Snyder changing head coaches more often than he changes his underwear. For all the venom that is spewed in the D.C. area about the Redskins owner (much of it deserved, perhaps), you have to admit one thing:
He isn’t afraid to spend money to bring another championship to town. Yes, there is the stupid money he spent on Albert Haynesworth and the ridiculous “contract extension” signed by Donovan McNabb, but at least they can get out of that one. Yes, ol’ Danny Boy is always ready to whip out the checkbook.
For a sport that looks like it may not even have a SEASON this year, I am nonetheless wondering what the ‘Skins plan to do at Quarterback. Rex Grossman?
Not the future. He really hasn’t been anybody’s past, come to think of it.
No, the Redskins need a fresh face, a young and ACCURATE passer.
So, how about this guy: Johnny McEntee, a QB for the UConn Huskies?
Maybe not a football powerhouse, but there’s no doubt this kid can hurl a football—ACCURATELY.
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0WMd0Y6hIw
Wow.
Living in New England, I have become a New England Patriots fan—and I’ll root for them in every game (except when they play Washington). No one argues that Tom Brady is a major reason for all those Super Bowl rings. Leadership, hard work and virtually no off-the-field sideshows to distract from the mission.
The Washington Redskins need a player like that: a franchise QB who can lead this team to victory. Just as Tom Brady was largely overlooked-even in college at Michigan, the next NFL superstar quarterback may not come from the Big Ten, the Pac Ten or the SEC.
Maybe the next luminary will be from the Big East.
Hey, Snyder, Shanahan, Allen! Get this guy as soon as he gets out!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
There, I said it.
It hasn’t been easy the last two decades or so, with owner Daniel Snyder changing head coaches more often than he changes his underwear. For all the venom that is spewed in the D.C. area about the Redskins owner (much of it deserved, perhaps), you have to admit one thing:
He isn’t afraid to spend money to bring another championship to town. Yes, there is the stupid money he spent on Albert Haynesworth and the ridiculous “contract extension” signed by Donovan McNabb, but at least they can get out of that one. Yes, ol’ Danny Boy is always ready to whip out the checkbook.
For a sport that looks like it may not even have a SEASON this year, I am nonetheless wondering what the ‘Skins plan to do at Quarterback. Rex Grossman?
Not the future. He really hasn’t been anybody’s past, come to think of it.
No, the Redskins need a fresh face, a young and ACCURATE passer.
So, how about this guy: Johnny McEntee, a QB for the UConn Huskies?
Maybe not a football powerhouse, but there’s no doubt this kid can hurl a football—ACCURATELY.
Check this out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s0WMd0Y6hIw
Wow.
Living in New England, I have become a New England Patriots fan—and I’ll root for them in every game (except when they play Washington). No one argues that Tom Brady is a major reason for all those Super Bowl rings. Leadership, hard work and virtually no off-the-field sideshows to distract from the mission.
The Washington Redskins need a player like that: a franchise QB who can lead this team to victory. Just as Tom Brady was largely overlooked-even in college at Michigan, the next NFL superstar quarterback may not come from the Big Ten, the Pac Ten or the SEC.
Maybe the next luminary will be from the Big East.
Hey, Snyder, Shanahan, Allen! Get this guy as soon as he gets out!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, May 18, 2011
Card Tricks: This One Tops Them All
Sometimes this blog is just a vehicle for showcasing the amazing videos that populate YouTube but you may miss.
This is one of them.
Card tricks are fun—and simple ones can still amaze your audience, even if they can figure out how you did it. Some of my fondest memories as a parent are when my kids attempted to dazzle me with a card trick they learned at school or from a crazy uncle. It never mattered if they pulled it off---it was the idea of my little ones “taking the stage” and directing the action that was most amusing. If they did execute the trick successfully, it was all the more endearing.
Of course, there are real magicians, really wild card tricks and some incredible displays of sleight of hand.
Nothing in my experience can top this, however---take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHjaRbTfHmQ
Thanks to faithful blog reader Rick Cooper for sending this link along. Where do all those cards come from? The lightning speed of their appearance and the arrangement by color that occurs is nothing short of astounding.
How does he do it?
Watch it a hundred times, pause it whenever you like—and it will still blow you away!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
This is one of them.
Card tricks are fun—and simple ones can still amaze your audience, even if they can figure out how you did it. Some of my fondest memories as a parent are when my kids attempted to dazzle me with a card trick they learned at school or from a crazy uncle. It never mattered if they pulled it off---it was the idea of my little ones “taking the stage” and directing the action that was most amusing. If they did execute the trick successfully, it was all the more endearing.
Of course, there are real magicians, really wild card tricks and some incredible displays of sleight of hand.
Nothing in my experience can top this, however---take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHjaRbTfHmQ
Thanks to faithful blog reader Rick Cooper for sending this link along. Where do all those cards come from? The lightning speed of their appearance and the arrangement by color that occurs is nothing short of astounding.
How does he do it?
Watch it a hundred times, pause it whenever you like—and it will still blow you away!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, May 16, 2011
Stop Giving Money Away, Uncle Sam!
This blog is all about the video.
Rep. Ted Poe of Texas took the House floor to argue against sending billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to foreign countries, many of which hardly need it and, in the opinion of Poe, many of which don’t especially like the United States to begin with.
Just how much do we send yearly?
Estimates vary, but a couple of websites citing government figures—put the tally at $25 to $30 Billion. Could be more, could be less. Granted, it may also be a “drop in the bucket” to change our fiscal quagmire, but the question remains:
Why do we do it?
Enjoy this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ocVj6UWiDI
We’ve all made jokes about the government spending money to study the mating habits of porcupines, etc…and the $1,000 toilet seats for the military are the stuff of legend. Perhaps we can never completely erase all of the stupid expenditures that are willfully hidden from public scrutiny, but this foreign aid one seems to be a no-brainer.
Why do we do this?
Moreover, what politician (who ever expects to be re-elected) would vote AGAINST a bill that prohibits the lumping of federal foreign aid into one big messy pile? Folks, this seems to be an EASY one, right?
Is anything ever easy in Washington? We know that the opposite of pro is con and the opposite of progress is Congress, but really!
Can’t we get this one right?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Rep. Ted Poe of Texas took the House floor to argue against sending billions of dollars of U.S. taxpayer money to foreign countries, many of which hardly need it and, in the opinion of Poe, many of which don’t especially like the United States to begin with.
Just how much do we send yearly?
Estimates vary, but a couple of websites citing government figures—put the tally at $25 to $30 Billion. Could be more, could be less. Granted, it may also be a “drop in the bucket” to change our fiscal quagmire, but the question remains:
Why do we do it?
Enjoy this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ocVj6UWiDI
We’ve all made jokes about the government spending money to study the mating habits of porcupines, etc…and the $1,000 toilet seats for the military are the stuff of legend. Perhaps we can never completely erase all of the stupid expenditures that are willfully hidden from public scrutiny, but this foreign aid one seems to be a no-brainer.
Why do we do this?
Moreover, what politician (who ever expects to be re-elected) would vote AGAINST a bill that prohibits the lumping of federal foreign aid into one big messy pile? Folks, this seems to be an EASY one, right?
Is anything ever easy in Washington? We know that the opposite of pro is con and the opposite of progress is Congress, but really!
Can’t we get this one right?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, May 13, 2011
A National ID Card: It’s Time
Immigration reform is in the news as President Obama addressed the subject earlier this week.
As is the case with most topics, I tend to make a simplistic argument—and then challenge my readers to poke holes in it. It seems that Democrats and Republicans will never agree on a solution. The ongoing debate is fine, except that it postpones any action at all—and no one wants that (with the notable exception of all illegal immigrants)
There are a couple of truths that, whether you like it or not, seem evident:
1) This country will never mass deport all illegal immigrants. Just won’t happen.
2) This country cannot and will not build a wall or create conditions that will ever completely erase illegals coming into the country. Not possible.
So, it’s time to get sensible and really deal with the problem, one that will most definitely cause hardship and may at times seem too harsh.
It would appear that the most glaring negative effects of illegal aliens are the fact that these squatters take jobs from legal citizens and many live on social services that are funded by law-abiding taxpayers.
This has to stop.
I propose a National ID card that would provide a tool to not only thwart illegal immigrants from living on the public dole, but one that would also lessen identity theft, voter fraud and countless other abuses.
Please don’t take the position that requiring this type of ID is a violation of your “rights”. Whether it is a driver’s license ID, a social security card or major credit card, modern American society (and in fact every society) requires the verification of identity to access any one of thousands of services.
Why do we make all of this so hard?
A National ID, with photo, perhaps a DNA signature or other positive ID technology could be employed to identify who you are. Children under, say, 12 years of age would merely be required to have a birth certificate with guardians listed.
With this tool in hand, the following could be implemented:
1) Heavily fine any business that hires illegal aliens. I’m talking six figures fines, whatever it takes to eliminate the incentive to bring in illegal workers.
2) Definitive proof of citizenship via this ID card in order to be employed.
3) Social services like welfare and food stamps would require this documentation
4) Illegal aliens with criminal records would, upon discovery, be deported immediately.
5) Illegal aliens with children would be given a “path to citizenship” that would require compulsory work for municipal, state and local governments in projects of value to society at either minimum wage or a going rate wage with a requirement to pay taxes at a percentage exceeding U.S. Citizens earning a similar amount. In addition, the requirement to learn English, the U.S. Constitution, etc., would be imposed. After 5-7 years, these illegals would be eligible to become U.S. citizens. Refusal to do this would result in deportation. While these families would live below the poverty level (as defined for the U.S.) for a number of years, this standard of living would likely be higher than in the country they fled—and would be a limited period “price of admission” to citizenship. Hey, freedom isn’t free.
6) Children of illegals would be given a similar “path”, without the requirement to work.
There has to be some short-term government safety net to help care for the indigent illegals and/or their children as they work out their “path”, but it needs to be distinctly different and separate from the benefits accorded to law-abiding citizens. The same for education, which should be separate-and geared towards assimilation into the U.S. culture, which is the ultimate objective, no? This segregation is not intended to be racially motivated—again, it is a temporary situation that allows foreign-born aspirants to American citizenship to have their unique education needs addressed while at the same time not disrupting public education with an influx of students who cannot speak English. Enrollment in school would be treated similarly to employment—proof of citizenship required to enter the general population.
Illegal aliens arrive because America promises economic opportunity. More than that, however, is the prime opportunity to “game” the system as it is structured right now and live far better than they did in their “home” country—all without having to work for it.
Legal immigration is the lifeblood of this country. With the exception of Native Americans, we are all the beneficiaries of a country that welcomes those from other lands. We are not, however, the welfare state for the world—and we need to set aside charges of racism, profiling or discrimination. They do not apply here. The fact that a great majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic is not a race issue. It is merely a geographic proximity issue.
If you reside in this country—you are here either legally or illegally. The latter need to be identified and dealt with. A “path” to legal citizenship may not be easy, but it is not unreasonable or inhumane. Allowing illegals to remain unchecked to siphon off the welfare system and rob legal Americans of employment is the truly unreasonable choice.
Why can’t all sides of the political spectrum sit down and hammer out a workable plan? What’s outlined above may have many flaws, but the objectives must be met—how it is accomplished could be the fruit of substantive discussions, not political grandstanding.
Will our elected officials ever make the right call here?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
As is the case with most topics, I tend to make a simplistic argument—and then challenge my readers to poke holes in it. It seems that Democrats and Republicans will never agree on a solution. The ongoing debate is fine, except that it postpones any action at all—and no one wants that (with the notable exception of all illegal immigrants)
There are a couple of truths that, whether you like it or not, seem evident:
1) This country will never mass deport all illegal immigrants. Just won’t happen.
2) This country cannot and will not build a wall or create conditions that will ever completely erase illegals coming into the country. Not possible.
So, it’s time to get sensible and really deal with the problem, one that will most definitely cause hardship and may at times seem too harsh.
It would appear that the most glaring negative effects of illegal aliens are the fact that these squatters take jobs from legal citizens and many live on social services that are funded by law-abiding taxpayers.
This has to stop.
I propose a National ID card that would provide a tool to not only thwart illegal immigrants from living on the public dole, but one that would also lessen identity theft, voter fraud and countless other abuses.
Please don’t take the position that requiring this type of ID is a violation of your “rights”. Whether it is a driver’s license ID, a social security card or major credit card, modern American society (and in fact every society) requires the verification of identity to access any one of thousands of services.
Why do we make all of this so hard?
A National ID, with photo, perhaps a DNA signature or other positive ID technology could be employed to identify who you are. Children under, say, 12 years of age would merely be required to have a birth certificate with guardians listed.
With this tool in hand, the following could be implemented:
1) Heavily fine any business that hires illegal aliens. I’m talking six figures fines, whatever it takes to eliminate the incentive to bring in illegal workers.
2) Definitive proof of citizenship via this ID card in order to be employed.
3) Social services like welfare and food stamps would require this documentation
4) Illegal aliens with criminal records would, upon discovery, be deported immediately.
5) Illegal aliens with children would be given a “path to citizenship” that would require compulsory work for municipal, state and local governments in projects of value to society at either minimum wage or a going rate wage with a requirement to pay taxes at a percentage exceeding U.S. Citizens earning a similar amount. In addition, the requirement to learn English, the U.S. Constitution, etc., would be imposed. After 5-7 years, these illegals would be eligible to become U.S. citizens. Refusal to do this would result in deportation. While these families would live below the poverty level (as defined for the U.S.) for a number of years, this standard of living would likely be higher than in the country they fled—and would be a limited period “price of admission” to citizenship. Hey, freedom isn’t free.
6) Children of illegals would be given a similar “path”, without the requirement to work.
There has to be some short-term government safety net to help care for the indigent illegals and/or their children as they work out their “path”, but it needs to be distinctly different and separate from the benefits accorded to law-abiding citizens. The same for education, which should be separate-and geared towards assimilation into the U.S. culture, which is the ultimate objective, no? This segregation is not intended to be racially motivated—again, it is a temporary situation that allows foreign-born aspirants to American citizenship to have their unique education needs addressed while at the same time not disrupting public education with an influx of students who cannot speak English. Enrollment in school would be treated similarly to employment—proof of citizenship required to enter the general population.
Illegal aliens arrive because America promises economic opportunity. More than that, however, is the prime opportunity to “game” the system as it is structured right now and live far better than they did in their “home” country—all without having to work for it.
Legal immigration is the lifeblood of this country. With the exception of Native Americans, we are all the beneficiaries of a country that welcomes those from other lands. We are not, however, the welfare state for the world—and we need to set aside charges of racism, profiling or discrimination. They do not apply here. The fact that a great majority of illegal immigrants are Hispanic is not a race issue. It is merely a geographic proximity issue.
If you reside in this country—you are here either legally or illegally. The latter need to be identified and dealt with. A “path” to legal citizenship may not be easy, but it is not unreasonable or inhumane. Allowing illegals to remain unchecked to siphon off the welfare system and rob legal Americans of employment is the truly unreasonable choice.
Why can’t all sides of the political spectrum sit down and hammer out a workable plan? What’s outlined above may have many flaws, but the objectives must be met—how it is accomplished could be the fruit of substantive discussions, not political grandstanding.
Will our elected officials ever make the right call here?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Radio: It's "Community", Not "Local"
Today’s blog is a bit radio industry-centric, so regular readers expecting everything from politics to stupid videos may be disappointed, but I can also presume that fans of the blog also listen to 94.9 WHOM, so radio is at least marginally a part of your life (for which I am eternally grateful, as are the colleges where my kids attend…ahem)
First of all, I greatly respect the one-man industry think tank that is Mark Ramsey. He is a radio advocate, a fan and a promoter of radio. He is also objective about radio’s challenges as an industry—and pulls no punches when he thinks we are collectively playing the fiddle while Rome burns. It’s a fact that well over 95 percent of Americans listen to radio weekly. This level of usage beats television and the internet and trounces newspapers and magazines.
This radio usage statistic has been used by the: “radio is just fine, thank you” camp to assert that new competitors are really not making inroads. On the other side is the “doom and gloom” camp, those who are already engraving radio’s tombstone.
Neither side is correct.
Radio faces huge challenges, but so does every industry in a world where the internet has completely changed the existing business model. Imagine yourself in the boardroom at Borders Books & Music, grappling with the notion of competing with Amazon—and you’ll get an idea of the scope.
Time spent listening to radio is on the decline—and the demo using radio is aging. One of these truths is largely unavoidable. The other is completely addressable.
For any media that requires devotion of time, the introduction of a competitor will obviously impact usage of existing media. Until someone invents a 25 hour day or postulates that the population at large will collectively agree to one less hour of sleep a day, it’s a zero-sum game. When the internet appeared and people began spending time on the web, it came directly out of the hide of TV and radio. This doesn’t worry me in the least, mostly because there are no “product solutions” for radio that will compel consumers to abandon or greatly lessen their usage of another media that provides different attributes.
The demo issue could be the subject of another entire blog, but is something that radio and the advertising industry have chosen to let happen. We call it “25 to 54–itis”, the myopic devotion to one age demographic to allocate the lion’s share of radio advertising dollars to. This suicidal trend forces radio programming to become homogenous and most definitely alienates the younger demos, who HAVE to gravitate to other media to satisfy their entertainment desires.
If large radio companies with an underperforming FM in their cluster (is there not at least ONE in every market?) immediately flipped that loser to appeal to 12-24 listeners (and I don’t mean Radio Disney), they could have a real winner, provided the sales staff could convey the value of this audience to local advertisers.
But I digress….
Mark Ramsey’s latest blog asserts that the ongoing debate about whether or not Pandora is “radio” seems to me to miss the mark. Assigning a label to it makes no difference at all. If people wish to perceive Pandora as “radio”,fine. The word “radio” has consumer power---both XM and Sirius (when they were separate and competitors) chose to label their new, cutting edge product with the word “radio”. It was instantly identifiable by the target market. Their marketing challenge was therefore a “better mousetrap” approach that sought to suggest that satellite was “radio worth paying for”.
With millions of subscribers and the corner turned on finally becoming profitable, the future of XM/Sirius seems to me to be far more challenged by the notion of Pandora or Slacker than terrestrial radio is. Traditional radio is still free to the user.
Lost in all of this debate is an important distinction that I think has been overlooked or misinterpreted in making radio’s “case”:
It’s the difference between “local” and “community”. Nuance—or critical? I assert it is the latter.
Howard Stern proved years ago that “good” beats “local” as he systematically destroyed local rock morning shows around the country. But what about “good AND local”? And what about the notion of “community”?
“Community” as I use it here is the notion of “shared experience”, which I believe has value—and could be a core strength for radio going forward.
Pandora is the latest evolution of “media as isolationist”. It is so personal that it is…well, selfish. What occurred with iPods has extended to a truer radio experience (element of surprise, introduction to new music, etc)—Pandora. It is so individual that virtually no one else likes it except its sole consumer. In short, it’s a rather lonely experience.
There is something missing: Shared experience.
Satellite radio fans still listen to terrestrial radio—and the reason many of them give is along these lines: “When I listen solely to satellite (or Pandora, iPod, Slacker), I feel DISCONNECTED from where I live”.
This need to feel “connected” is what drives human interaction, all social organizations—and yes, even Facebook and Twitter.
Not hearing the local weather, not hearing about the concerts coming to town, the antics of the local politicians, the road closing that will screw up my commute, even the going-out-of-business sale at the local furniture store---all these things and more are part of a shared experience that defines a community. At its best, it is the radio station that dumps music to take listener calls after a local tragedy or emergency. It is the dominant local morning show whose stunt this morning is literally the talk of the town.
The loss of “shared experience” in media is a function of the proliferation of choices. Today, we have 300-400 channels of TV, yet complain that there is “nothing good on”. Those of us old enough to remember when TV meant 3 or maybe 4 channels had a shared experience.
The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show was a national phenomenon because EVERYONE saw it. And somehow, we never complained that there was nothing on. Our shared pop culture is defined by Top 40 hits on the radio and TV shows that defined an era. We might not especially “like” those songs—either then or now---and the TV show that “everyone watched” back then—we might not choose today, but there was a power of shared experience that gave added value to our lives and was a social touchstone for interacting with our peers.
This is largely gone now, with the exception of shows like “American Idol”, which, at its height, provided the same “shared experience” benefits:
1) “Everyone”watched it.
2) The next day, “everyone” talked about it
3) The shared experience provided a common bond between people
These programs provided a “social entry to conversation”---and the notion that others were sharing your delight as you watched (or listened) provided another element of “community”, however trivial.
There are still local morning shows on radio that command this type of attention. Just as no one can remember what TV program was on opposite “Seinfeld” (because “everyone” watched Jerry & friends), there are local radio programs that have hit a critical mass that elevates them to “must listen” status. Often, these morning shows are much bigger than the daypart in which they reside, helping to define the radio station’s brand overall.
One can argue that traditional radio was (and is) the first social media.
Perhaps still behind the curve, radio is making progress in integrating web-based social media, mobile and interactive components in keeping the medium relevant. Terrific innovations like Jelli and LDR (Listener Driven Radio) are redefining how our huge audiences are interacting with us and expanding our platforms of usage.
The biggest mistake that radio companies can make is to de-emphasize the local component that drives listener engagement. And while radio has sometimes been guilty of laziness in truly integrating themselves with their communities, most of our troubles in doing so lately have been because of depleted staffs through downsizing.
Radio is poised to capture a huge amount of former newspaper dollars and our fair share of digital revenue. This makes us a growing industry---if we choose to see ourselves as such.
A growing industry is not one that lays off people, however. Google is making investments in people and technologies to expand their empire.
Radio? We’ve been doing the exact opposite, yet expecting the smaller staffs to absorb the duties of those who exited---AND, by the way, expand into web and digital initiatives—all without people or resources. That’s just dumb.
Radio needs to take the larger view that growth requires bold investment in people and innovations, not cost-cutting through shrinkage. Satellite shows replacing local, compelling people is not the strategy of an industry that truly believes in growing.
Think “community” when you or anyone else says “local”. There is a massive difference.
It’s not WHERE you are, it’s WHAT you are. Ryan Seacrest is talented, but he is not Portland, Maine. He is Hollywood. I want my radio station to be about MY community, not someplace that’s largely unrelatable to my audience.
This is the distinction that could spell disaster—or unmitigated success for radio.
Yogi Berra said “ I came upon a fork in the road, so I took it”. He was confused, but that may be our dilemma right now as well. Radio’s at a “fork in the road”, but we’ve been there many times before. Television was supposed to do us in, but turned out to spark a new and profitable direction.
Are we confused, too?
Today’s radio industry captains have to respect the power of COMMUNITY when making decisions that will affect our future.
Let’s hope they have the wisdom to do so.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
First of all, I greatly respect the one-man industry think tank that is Mark Ramsey. He is a radio advocate, a fan and a promoter of radio. He is also objective about radio’s challenges as an industry—and pulls no punches when he thinks we are collectively playing the fiddle while Rome burns. It’s a fact that well over 95 percent of Americans listen to radio weekly. This level of usage beats television and the internet and trounces newspapers and magazines.
This radio usage statistic has been used by the: “radio is just fine, thank you” camp to assert that new competitors are really not making inroads. On the other side is the “doom and gloom” camp, those who are already engraving radio’s tombstone.
Neither side is correct.
Radio faces huge challenges, but so does every industry in a world where the internet has completely changed the existing business model. Imagine yourself in the boardroom at Borders Books & Music, grappling with the notion of competing with Amazon—and you’ll get an idea of the scope.
Time spent listening to radio is on the decline—and the demo using radio is aging. One of these truths is largely unavoidable. The other is completely addressable.
For any media that requires devotion of time, the introduction of a competitor will obviously impact usage of existing media. Until someone invents a 25 hour day or postulates that the population at large will collectively agree to one less hour of sleep a day, it’s a zero-sum game. When the internet appeared and people began spending time on the web, it came directly out of the hide of TV and radio. This doesn’t worry me in the least, mostly because there are no “product solutions” for radio that will compel consumers to abandon or greatly lessen their usage of another media that provides different attributes.
The demo issue could be the subject of another entire blog, but is something that radio and the advertising industry have chosen to let happen. We call it “25 to 54–itis”, the myopic devotion to one age demographic to allocate the lion’s share of radio advertising dollars to. This suicidal trend forces radio programming to become homogenous and most definitely alienates the younger demos, who HAVE to gravitate to other media to satisfy their entertainment desires.
If large radio companies with an underperforming FM in their cluster (is there not at least ONE in every market?) immediately flipped that loser to appeal to 12-24 listeners (and I don’t mean Radio Disney), they could have a real winner, provided the sales staff could convey the value of this audience to local advertisers.
But I digress….
Mark Ramsey’s latest blog asserts that the ongoing debate about whether or not Pandora is “radio” seems to me to miss the mark. Assigning a label to it makes no difference at all. If people wish to perceive Pandora as “radio”,fine. The word “radio” has consumer power---both XM and Sirius (when they were separate and competitors) chose to label their new, cutting edge product with the word “radio”. It was instantly identifiable by the target market. Their marketing challenge was therefore a “better mousetrap” approach that sought to suggest that satellite was “radio worth paying for”.
With millions of subscribers and the corner turned on finally becoming profitable, the future of XM/Sirius seems to me to be far more challenged by the notion of Pandora or Slacker than terrestrial radio is. Traditional radio is still free to the user.
Lost in all of this debate is an important distinction that I think has been overlooked or misinterpreted in making radio’s “case”:
It’s the difference between “local” and “community”. Nuance—or critical? I assert it is the latter.
Howard Stern proved years ago that “good” beats “local” as he systematically destroyed local rock morning shows around the country. But what about “good AND local”? And what about the notion of “community”?
“Community” as I use it here is the notion of “shared experience”, which I believe has value—and could be a core strength for radio going forward.
Pandora is the latest evolution of “media as isolationist”. It is so personal that it is…well, selfish. What occurred with iPods has extended to a truer radio experience (element of surprise, introduction to new music, etc)—Pandora. It is so individual that virtually no one else likes it except its sole consumer. In short, it’s a rather lonely experience.
There is something missing: Shared experience.
Satellite radio fans still listen to terrestrial radio—and the reason many of them give is along these lines: “When I listen solely to satellite (or Pandora, iPod, Slacker), I feel DISCONNECTED from where I live”.
This need to feel “connected” is what drives human interaction, all social organizations—and yes, even Facebook and Twitter.
Not hearing the local weather, not hearing about the concerts coming to town, the antics of the local politicians, the road closing that will screw up my commute, even the going-out-of-business sale at the local furniture store---all these things and more are part of a shared experience that defines a community. At its best, it is the radio station that dumps music to take listener calls after a local tragedy or emergency. It is the dominant local morning show whose stunt this morning is literally the talk of the town.
The loss of “shared experience” in media is a function of the proliferation of choices. Today, we have 300-400 channels of TV, yet complain that there is “nothing good on”. Those of us old enough to remember when TV meant 3 or maybe 4 channels had a shared experience.
The Beatles on the Ed Sullivan Show was a national phenomenon because EVERYONE saw it. And somehow, we never complained that there was nothing on. Our shared pop culture is defined by Top 40 hits on the radio and TV shows that defined an era. We might not especially “like” those songs—either then or now---and the TV show that “everyone watched” back then—we might not choose today, but there was a power of shared experience that gave added value to our lives and was a social touchstone for interacting with our peers.
This is largely gone now, with the exception of shows like “American Idol”, which, at its height, provided the same “shared experience” benefits:
1) “Everyone”watched it.
2) The next day, “everyone” talked about it
3) The shared experience provided a common bond between people
These programs provided a “social entry to conversation”---and the notion that others were sharing your delight as you watched (or listened) provided another element of “community”, however trivial.
There are still local morning shows on radio that command this type of attention. Just as no one can remember what TV program was on opposite “Seinfeld” (because “everyone” watched Jerry & friends), there are local radio programs that have hit a critical mass that elevates them to “must listen” status. Often, these morning shows are much bigger than the daypart in which they reside, helping to define the radio station’s brand overall.
One can argue that traditional radio was (and is) the first social media.
Perhaps still behind the curve, radio is making progress in integrating web-based social media, mobile and interactive components in keeping the medium relevant. Terrific innovations like Jelli and LDR (Listener Driven Radio) are redefining how our huge audiences are interacting with us and expanding our platforms of usage.
The biggest mistake that radio companies can make is to de-emphasize the local component that drives listener engagement. And while radio has sometimes been guilty of laziness in truly integrating themselves with their communities, most of our troubles in doing so lately have been because of depleted staffs through downsizing.
Radio is poised to capture a huge amount of former newspaper dollars and our fair share of digital revenue. This makes us a growing industry---if we choose to see ourselves as such.
A growing industry is not one that lays off people, however. Google is making investments in people and technologies to expand their empire.
Radio? We’ve been doing the exact opposite, yet expecting the smaller staffs to absorb the duties of those who exited---AND, by the way, expand into web and digital initiatives—all without people or resources. That’s just dumb.
Radio needs to take the larger view that growth requires bold investment in people and innovations, not cost-cutting through shrinkage. Satellite shows replacing local, compelling people is not the strategy of an industry that truly believes in growing.
Think “community” when you or anyone else says “local”. There is a massive difference.
It’s not WHERE you are, it’s WHAT you are. Ryan Seacrest is talented, but he is not Portland, Maine. He is Hollywood. I want my radio station to be about MY community, not someplace that’s largely unrelatable to my audience.
This is the distinction that could spell disaster—or unmitigated success for radio.
Yogi Berra said “ I came upon a fork in the road, so I took it”. He was confused, but that may be our dilemma right now as well. Radio’s at a “fork in the road”, but we’ve been there many times before. Television was supposed to do us in, but turned out to spark a new and profitable direction.
Are we confused, too?
Today’s radio industry captains have to respect the power of COMMUNITY when making decisions that will affect our future.
Let’s hope they have the wisdom to do so.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, May 9, 2011
Thrillseekers: Hell Bent With Death Wish
In prehistoric times, danger was all around. Whether a lurking sabre tooth tiger, a snake in the grass or another caveman with a club, the risk of losing one’s life was a daily possibility.
Modern man has to create this danger. While a rational mind would believe this drive to put oneself into the path of bodily harm ON PURPOSE would be low or non-existent, that is sadly not the case.
We jump out of planes just for the hell of it. On the streets of Pamplona, we turn a herd of angry bulls loose yearly and try to outrun them. Even the more mundane pursuits of riding a rollercoaster that corkscrews around upside down at speeds that challenge our ability to keep our lunch down has a demand big enough to account for the long lines waiting for the opportunity.
With creature comforts all around and “safety” as often the first element of design, we stupid humans nevertheless feel the need to short-circuit this enlightened approach in order to put ourselves in harms way.
Case in point: the following video. If you suffer from vertigo, you may not wish to view, as the camera is mounted on the head of the thrillseeker—in this case, a man on a bike who thinks that riding a bicycle downhill, over ramps, staircases and around narrow corners seems like an intelligent thing to do.
Check this out:
http://www.gadling.com/2011/03/03/downhill-bike-race-in-chile-is-insanity-at-its-finest/?ncid=&a_dgi=aolshare_email
Thanks to friend and faithful blog reader Rick Cooper for sharing this ultimate ride of insanity. Seems evident that the rider was wearing a helmet, if only as a mounting device for the camera. Using it to protect his BRAIN is making an assumption that he has one, which, if he does, is certainly not functioning properly.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Modern man has to create this danger. While a rational mind would believe this drive to put oneself into the path of bodily harm ON PURPOSE would be low or non-existent, that is sadly not the case.
We jump out of planes just for the hell of it. On the streets of Pamplona, we turn a herd of angry bulls loose yearly and try to outrun them. Even the more mundane pursuits of riding a rollercoaster that corkscrews around upside down at speeds that challenge our ability to keep our lunch down has a demand big enough to account for the long lines waiting for the opportunity.
With creature comforts all around and “safety” as often the first element of design, we stupid humans nevertheless feel the need to short-circuit this enlightened approach in order to put ourselves in harms way.
Case in point: the following video. If you suffer from vertigo, you may not wish to view, as the camera is mounted on the head of the thrillseeker—in this case, a man on a bike who thinks that riding a bicycle downhill, over ramps, staircases and around narrow corners seems like an intelligent thing to do.
Check this out:
VCA 2010 RACE RUN from changoman on Vimeo.
http://www.gadling.com/2011/03/03/downhill-bike-race-in-chile-is-insanity-at-its-finest/?ncid=&a_dgi=aolshare_email
Thanks to friend and faithful blog reader Rick Cooper for sharing this ultimate ride of insanity. Seems evident that the rider was wearing a helmet, if only as a mounting device for the camera. Using it to protect his BRAIN is making an assumption that he has one, which, if he does, is certainly not functioning properly.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, May 6, 2011
The Chunnel: 7th Wonder of The Modern World!
Building a simple bridge or road involves complex calculations and consideration of many variables to make a reality.
Still, that’s nothing compared to the tunnel that connected Great Britain and France under the English Channel, which opened on this date just 17 years ago in 1994. The so-called “Chunnel” was—and is an engineering marvel, a construction miracle and a game changer for Europe.
First thought of by Napoleon’s engineer in 1802, there was an actual attempt in 1880 by Colonel Beaumont, who made it about a mile down before abandoning the project.
At a cost of $16 Billion dollars, it was twice the amount of the original budget and took seven years to build. It opened on this date in 1994.
Millions of tons of earth was moved, 15 thousand people were employed during the construction-and 10 people lost their lives in the making of this modern marvel.
Here’s the first segment of a great Discovery Channel program called “Super Structures”—you will be prompted (and tempted) at the end to watch the other four segments of this excellent chronicle of the project:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8-3IFEitW4&feature=related
Each day, about 30, 000 people move through the Chunnel on 6,000 cars & 3,500 trucks on trains! It is the worlds’ longest underwater tunnel (obviously), with more than 22 miles of it under the English Channel. Now, the trip takes 35 minutes!
If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Still, that’s nothing compared to the tunnel that connected Great Britain and France under the English Channel, which opened on this date just 17 years ago in 1994. The so-called “Chunnel” was—and is an engineering marvel, a construction miracle and a game changer for Europe.
First thought of by Napoleon’s engineer in 1802, there was an actual attempt in 1880 by Colonel Beaumont, who made it about a mile down before abandoning the project.
At a cost of $16 Billion dollars, it was twice the amount of the original budget and took seven years to build. It opened on this date in 1994.
Millions of tons of earth was moved, 15 thousand people were employed during the construction-and 10 people lost their lives in the making of this modern marvel.
Here’s the first segment of a great Discovery Channel program called “Super Structures”—you will be prompted (and tempted) at the end to watch the other four segments of this excellent chronicle of the project:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u8-3IFEitW4&feature=related
Each day, about 30, 000 people move through the Chunnel on 6,000 cars & 3,500 trucks on trains! It is the worlds’ longest underwater tunnel (obviously), with more than 22 miles of it under the English Channel. Now, the trip takes 35 minutes!
If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, May 5, 2011
Fishing Made Easy
I like fishing but I don’t LOVE it, you know?
The fishing video below will simply AMAZE you, so it doesn’t really matter if you are an “angler” or not---no one will find it boring. Some might even find it downright scary.
The best part about fishing is spending time with my children—the kids, of course, are all about catching the fish. When young, it was Dad who would bait the hook—and definitely the one de-hooking the unlucky fish after being yanked from the water.
Catch and release.
Put a hole in their mouths, lose a few worms and then toss the little suckers back—all to the accompaniment of squeals from fear/delight via the kids.
Naturally, there are days when the “fish are not biting”. The notion of so-and-so being a “great fisherman” is a conceptual mystery to me. What exactly is the skill set that makes one a good fisherman? Is it an intuition for where the fish are? Is it a knack for baiting the hook in a special way—or knowing what type of bait presentation is attractive to fish?
Or is it all of the above and more?
Watch this video and realize that there are some days when you can’t go wrong. Fish just seem to be jumping up and catching themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3Bf0WhvsNk
Incredible, no?
Were I in that dinghy, I think I’d be wearing a helmet.
Can’t truly determine if any of those guys in the boat are “good fishermen” or not, but they sure know where to go to get their catch!
If you’d like my blog in your box, drop your line in the water by e-mailing me and I’ll put you on the daily send list-free! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
The fishing video below will simply AMAZE you, so it doesn’t really matter if you are an “angler” or not---no one will find it boring. Some might even find it downright scary.
The best part about fishing is spending time with my children—the kids, of course, are all about catching the fish. When young, it was Dad who would bait the hook—and definitely the one de-hooking the unlucky fish after being yanked from the water.
Catch and release.
Put a hole in their mouths, lose a few worms and then toss the little suckers back—all to the accompaniment of squeals from fear/delight via the kids.
Naturally, there are days when the “fish are not biting”. The notion of so-and-so being a “great fisherman” is a conceptual mystery to me. What exactly is the skill set that makes one a good fisherman? Is it an intuition for where the fish are? Is it a knack for baiting the hook in a special way—or knowing what type of bait presentation is attractive to fish?
Or is it all of the above and more?
Watch this video and realize that there are some days when you can’t go wrong. Fish just seem to be jumping up and catching themselves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x3Bf0WhvsNk
Incredible, no?
Were I in that dinghy, I think I’d be wearing a helmet.
Can’t truly determine if any of those guys in the boat are “good fishermen” or not, but they sure know where to go to get their catch!
If you’d like my blog in your box, drop your line in the water by e-mailing me and I’ll put you on the daily send list-free! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, May 4, 2011
Kent State: 41 Years Later
Tom Brokaw’s book, “Boom!” about the 60’s paints an accurate picture of a period in our history that was like no other. Much like his bestseller, “The Greatest Generation” and the children of the Depression and World War 2, this book attempts the same with the turbulent 1960’s, a decade that Brokaw says really began in 1963 with the assassination of President Kennedy and culminated with the resignation of Richard Nixon in 1974.
One of the era’s darkest chapters occurred on this date in 1970-the shootings at Kent State. Although four people were killed and 9 injured, there never was justice-as all charges against the 8 National Guardsmen were eventually dropped.
“Boom!” was a terrific book-and the multitude of events of the 1960’s could never be adequately covered in a HUNDRED blogs, let alone one. I’ll no doubt return to this topic again.
As a grade school student growing up on the edge on American University during the war, I was routinely on the scene at multiple antiwar protests. Why? Well, we had no political sense or moral outrage at the time-we were too young. However, the culture to which we were exposed caused most young people to rail against the war—and the protests were simply something to do. If the police showed up, all the better. I was even tear-gassed at one of the demonstrations-unbelievably uncomfortable! (to say the least)
I sometimes think-“What would have happened if I were at American U. and the police opened fire on US?” Like those Kent State students, simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time cost them their lives.
Below is a video of CNN’s coverage of the story on it’s 30th anniversary-still chilling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo9yI-p5jqU
If we are to refrain from the mistakes of the past, we need to remember the past.
If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
One of the era’s darkest chapters occurred on this date in 1970-the shootings at Kent State. Although four people were killed and 9 injured, there never was justice-as all charges against the 8 National Guardsmen were eventually dropped.
“Boom!” was a terrific book-and the multitude of events of the 1960’s could never be adequately covered in a HUNDRED blogs, let alone one. I’ll no doubt return to this topic again.
As a grade school student growing up on the edge on American University during the war, I was routinely on the scene at multiple antiwar protests. Why? Well, we had no political sense or moral outrage at the time-we were too young. However, the culture to which we were exposed caused most young people to rail against the war—and the protests were simply something to do. If the police showed up, all the better. I was even tear-gassed at one of the demonstrations-unbelievably uncomfortable! (to say the least)
I sometimes think-“What would have happened if I were at American U. and the police opened fire on US?” Like those Kent State students, simply being in the wrong place at the wrong time cost them their lives.
Below is a video of CNN’s coverage of the story on it’s 30th anniversary-still chilling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lo9yI-p5jqU
If we are to refrain from the mistakes of the past, we need to remember the past.
If you’d like my blog in your box, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
I Feel Good
Elevating imbeciles to pop culture super-stardom is nothing new, even though America’s recent saturation with all things Charlie Sheen may have clouded our perspective.
Long before there was Sheen, Paris Hilton and Snooki, there was James Brown.
The “Godfather of Soul”, “Mr. Dynamite”, “Sex Machine” and “The Minister of the New New Heavy Funk”---James Brown was born on this date in 1933.
Instead of a normal upbringing dissolving into a haze of substance abuse, spousal abuse and general bad behavior, James Brown was a story of rags-to-riches-to-rags all over again, with the actual height of his popularity never straying from that life on the edge which made him so……uh…interesting.
Here is a TV interview with what appears to be a significantly intoxicated James Brown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tfNhL_R_rI
Nice.
The product of a broken home, the self-proclaimed “Hardest Working Man in Show Business” literally scraped and clawed his way out of poverty. Abandoned by his mother at the age of four, Brown grew up with his aunt, who ran a brothel and sold moonshine for a living.
Between jobs of picking cotton and shining shoes, little James Brown would sing and dance to attract attention—and a few coins here and there. He was sentenced to 8 to 15 years for breaking into cars at the age of 15—and it was in prison that Brown honed his musical talents. He so impressed the warden that Brown was released after only 3 years behind bars.
He went on to become one of the most influential R&B musicians in history, selling millions of records. Throughout it all, constant brushes with the law were always part of the mix—and his personal life of three marriages, five sons and the tabloid headlines of domestic troubles, gun charges and the like constantly competed with his legitimate knack for making hit records and fronting some great live shows.
The landscape is littered with artists whose bad-boy image is fake, the product of a publicist or agent. Not James Brown.
He was the real thing.
The Godfather of Soul passed away on Christmas Day of 2006.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Long before there was Sheen, Paris Hilton and Snooki, there was James Brown.
The “Godfather of Soul”, “Mr. Dynamite”, “Sex Machine” and “The Minister of the New New Heavy Funk”---James Brown was born on this date in 1933.
Instead of a normal upbringing dissolving into a haze of substance abuse, spousal abuse and general bad behavior, James Brown was a story of rags-to-riches-to-rags all over again, with the actual height of his popularity never straying from that life on the edge which made him so……uh…interesting.
Here is a TV interview with what appears to be a significantly intoxicated James Brown:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9tfNhL_R_rI
Nice.
The product of a broken home, the self-proclaimed “Hardest Working Man in Show Business” literally scraped and clawed his way out of poverty. Abandoned by his mother at the age of four, Brown grew up with his aunt, who ran a brothel and sold moonshine for a living.
Between jobs of picking cotton and shining shoes, little James Brown would sing and dance to attract attention—and a few coins here and there. He was sentenced to 8 to 15 years for breaking into cars at the age of 15—and it was in prison that Brown honed his musical talents. He so impressed the warden that Brown was released after only 3 years behind bars.
He went on to become one of the most influential R&B musicians in history, selling millions of records. Throughout it all, constant brushes with the law were always part of the mix—and his personal life of three marriages, five sons and the tabloid headlines of domestic troubles, gun charges and the like constantly competed with his legitimate knack for making hit records and fronting some great live shows.
The landscape is littered with artists whose bad-boy image is fake, the product of a publicist or agent. Not James Brown.
He was the real thing.
The Godfather of Soul passed away on Christmas Day of 2006.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, May 2, 2011
Obama Nails Osama
After nearly ten years of futile searching, the U.S. military finally got its man—or should I say—MONSTER.
Osama bin Laden, mass murderer and terrorist was surprised by U.S. Special Forces, acting on intelligence that all but certainly placed him inside a compound in an affluent neighborhood not far from Pakistan’s capital.
Here’s the video of President Obama’s address last night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0ISgosTlQ
Chants of “U.S.A.!” were heard in spontaneous celebrations across the country, from just outside the White House, to the Ohio State University campus in Columbus, Ohio to ground zero in Manhattan. Stadiums erupted into celebrations as the news was relayed during sporting events. Almost overnight, the mood of the country was lifted. A break from the woes of higher gasoline prices was replaced with a euphoria that was nothing short of phenomenal!
Politically, President Obama accomplished in three years that which his predecessor could not in eight: bring to justice the true mastermind of 9-11. It was never Saddam Hussein. Distractions with Iraq had us “taking our eye off the ball”—finding the hiding place of Bin Laden.
With this victory (and it is indeed a military victory by any definition), perhaps now the President will have the political leverage he needs to draw down troops from Afghanistan and fully withdraw from Iraq. The appetite for war even amongst the most hawkish of politicians has been tempered by year after year of questionable progress, yet very measurable cost, in both human life and treasure.
The difference between the outcomes (I think) is a direct result of the mission as laid out. President Bush somehow morphed capturing Bin Laden with taking out Saddam. He failed to act on intelligence that could have gotten the job done. Only after the fact did we learn just how CLOSE we were to Osama, yet we didn’t respond.
Measure by results, not rhetoric. Obama had the rhetoric down, too, declaring during the campaign that he would not fail to act when the intel showed a reason to strike. He outwardly criticized the Iraqi war, stating that the forces really belonged in Afghanistan.
The difference is that once in office, he immediately directed CIA Leon Panetta to deliver to him a plan to find and eliminate Bin Laden.
From stepped up drone strikes to simply not trusting (and therefore not including Pakistani government representatives in sharing intelligence), the Obama-led search was focused and efficient.
The fact that Osama Bin Laden was found in a country where we are not militarily stationed (to a large degree)proves one thing very clearly:
Our ability to gather intelligence and act upon it does not require U.S. Forces occupying the country. This alone is a persuasive argument for getting the hell out.
The war against terrorism continues, but it has never been a conventional war. It will move along—and can progress—without American forces on the ground.
The question of how Pakistan could possibly have NOT known that Bin Laden was not in their country rises to the top. His heavily fortified digs just a few miles outside the capital city of Islamabad were close to a military base. I don’t, for a second believe that Pakistani officials were not aware and assisting in harboring him in their country.
This is a country that received $18 Billion dollars in federal aid from…us.
Unlike the banner that former President Bush flew aboard that aircraft carrier so many years ago that prematurely read “Mission Accomplished”---this time, President Obama has the wherewithal to make that statement with integrity---and then set forth to leave Middle East turmoil to the Middle East.
Let them kill each other. We have a country of our own that needs every resource at its disposal to re-establish our unique position as the world’s only true superpower.
Go U.S.A!!!!!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Osama bin Laden, mass murderer and terrorist was surprised by U.S. Special Forces, acting on intelligence that all but certainly placed him inside a compound in an affluent neighborhood not far from Pakistan’s capital.
Here’s the video of President Obama’s address last night:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3V0ISgosTlQ
Chants of “U.S.A.!” were heard in spontaneous celebrations across the country, from just outside the White House, to the Ohio State University campus in Columbus, Ohio to ground zero in Manhattan. Stadiums erupted into celebrations as the news was relayed during sporting events. Almost overnight, the mood of the country was lifted. A break from the woes of higher gasoline prices was replaced with a euphoria that was nothing short of phenomenal!
Politically, President Obama accomplished in three years that which his predecessor could not in eight: bring to justice the true mastermind of 9-11. It was never Saddam Hussein. Distractions with Iraq had us “taking our eye off the ball”—finding the hiding place of Bin Laden.
With this victory (and it is indeed a military victory by any definition), perhaps now the President will have the political leverage he needs to draw down troops from Afghanistan and fully withdraw from Iraq. The appetite for war even amongst the most hawkish of politicians has been tempered by year after year of questionable progress, yet very measurable cost, in both human life and treasure.
The difference between the outcomes (I think) is a direct result of the mission as laid out. President Bush somehow morphed capturing Bin Laden with taking out Saddam. He failed to act on intelligence that could have gotten the job done. Only after the fact did we learn just how CLOSE we were to Osama, yet we didn’t respond.
Measure by results, not rhetoric. Obama had the rhetoric down, too, declaring during the campaign that he would not fail to act when the intel showed a reason to strike. He outwardly criticized the Iraqi war, stating that the forces really belonged in Afghanistan.
The difference is that once in office, he immediately directed CIA Leon Panetta to deliver to him a plan to find and eliminate Bin Laden.
From stepped up drone strikes to simply not trusting (and therefore not including Pakistani government representatives in sharing intelligence), the Obama-led search was focused and efficient.
The fact that Osama Bin Laden was found in a country where we are not militarily stationed (to a large degree)proves one thing very clearly:
Our ability to gather intelligence and act upon it does not require U.S. Forces occupying the country. This alone is a persuasive argument for getting the hell out.
The war against terrorism continues, but it has never been a conventional war. It will move along—and can progress—without American forces on the ground.
The question of how Pakistan could possibly have NOT known that Bin Laden was not in their country rises to the top. His heavily fortified digs just a few miles outside the capital city of Islamabad were close to a military base. I don’t, for a second believe that Pakistani officials were not aware and assisting in harboring him in their country.
This is a country that received $18 Billion dollars in federal aid from…us.
Unlike the banner that former President Bush flew aboard that aircraft carrier so many years ago that prematurely read “Mission Accomplished”---this time, President Obama has the wherewithal to make that statement with integrity---and then set forth to leave Middle East turmoil to the Middle East.
Let them kill each other. We have a country of our own that needs every resource at its disposal to re-establish our unique position as the world’s only true superpower.
Go U.S.A!!!!!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
