Today’s blog is all about the video! Thanks to Lorenzo Rozzi, downstairs at the One City Center Newstand-a man whom I call the “Mayor of Portland”.
Lorenzo fired this off to me and I had to share.
Magic tricks are interesting to watch—and attempting to figure out “how it’s done” can drive you crazy!
Don’t even try with this next one---just sit, back, enjoy—and marvel at what you see—and cannot believe you are seeing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCm4r0F0tts&feature=player_embedded
Figure out how THAT happened?
Me neither.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, June 30, 2011
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
The Corvette: Macho Machine
THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:
What exactly is it about guys and cars?
We men seem to take delight in DEFINING ourselves by the car we drive, whereas women (to the best of my knowledge) have none of this in their DNA.
The very first Corvette was assembled on this date in 1953 in Flint, Michigan. Two days later, the first production ‘Vette rolled off the assembly line, one of only 300 produced that year.
Price tag? That first one would have set you back $3,490.
Check out this video, probably the VERY first TV commercial for the brand new 1953 Corvette!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC8bwEQFx6M
The Corvette was really America’s first sports car, allowing young men to drive fast and attract women-and allowing old guys to address their mid-life crisis by attempting to APPEAR young and ATTEMPTING to attract women (usually in vain). Convertibles sold to middle-age guys should have come equipped with toupee glue, just in case that hairpiece wanted to liberate itself from the head behind the wheel!
Do women have a problem driving, say, a pickup truck? I don’t think so. Their orientation is simply point A to point B (especially if Point B is a shoe store). Guys, on the other hand, feel downright UNMANLY behind the wheel of, say, a VW Bug.
“Please, God, don’t let any of my friends SEE me driving this car!”
Of course, sheer economics will drive what you drive.
As a younger man, I had not the means to purchase the macho cars of choice: Corvette, Camaro or…Firebird Trans-Am!! I drove whatever I could afford-and took the verbal abuse from my friends, whose cars may have been SLIGHTLY more testosterone-friendly.
My personal low point was the Pinto Wagon, which became my “ride” in the late 70’s. Talk about a chick magnet. As if the standard Pinto wasn’t bad enough, I had the WAGON, which ratcheted up the laugh index to new heights. At least I wasn’t so delusional to think that “tricking out” (or “pimping”, to use a more contemporary term) would make any difference to my prospects for getting girls. My friend put decals of flames and mag wheels on his VEGA! I can assure you from his many dateless nights that no one was fooled.
That said, it does appear that although women may not define THEMSELVES by their cars the way men do, it does appear that they defined their MEN by that standard. Not to say that George Clooney in a Yugo would lose out to Marty Feldman in a Maserati, but you get the idea. I have seen some homely guys with chicks WAY out of their league cruising down the boulevard in a Jaguar. That same dude in a Suburban station wagon (with genuine imitation woodgrain on the side) wouldn’t have had a chance.
Could it be that BOTH sexes are that shallow?
Yes….but at least the ladies can leave it at the curb. Men have to make monthly payments on their image enhancers, all of which eventually end up in the junkyard!
If you’d like my blog in your inbox, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
What exactly is it about guys and cars?
We men seem to take delight in DEFINING ourselves by the car we drive, whereas women (to the best of my knowledge) have none of this in their DNA.
The very first Corvette was assembled on this date in 1953 in Flint, Michigan. Two days later, the first production ‘Vette rolled off the assembly line, one of only 300 produced that year.
Price tag? That first one would have set you back $3,490.
Check out this video, probably the VERY first TV commercial for the brand new 1953 Corvette!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HC8bwEQFx6M
The Corvette was really America’s first sports car, allowing young men to drive fast and attract women-and allowing old guys to address their mid-life crisis by attempting to APPEAR young and ATTEMPTING to attract women (usually in vain). Convertibles sold to middle-age guys should have come equipped with toupee glue, just in case that hairpiece wanted to liberate itself from the head behind the wheel!
Do women have a problem driving, say, a pickup truck? I don’t think so. Their orientation is simply point A to point B (especially if Point B is a shoe store). Guys, on the other hand, feel downright UNMANLY behind the wheel of, say, a VW Bug.
“Please, God, don’t let any of my friends SEE me driving this car!”
Of course, sheer economics will drive what you drive.
As a younger man, I had not the means to purchase the macho cars of choice: Corvette, Camaro or…Firebird Trans-Am!! I drove whatever I could afford-and took the verbal abuse from my friends, whose cars may have been SLIGHTLY more testosterone-friendly.
My personal low point was the Pinto Wagon, which became my “ride” in the late 70’s. Talk about a chick magnet. As if the standard Pinto wasn’t bad enough, I had the WAGON, which ratcheted up the laugh index to new heights. At least I wasn’t so delusional to think that “tricking out” (or “pimping”, to use a more contemporary term) would make any difference to my prospects for getting girls. My friend put decals of flames and mag wheels on his VEGA! I can assure you from his many dateless nights that no one was fooled.
That said, it does appear that although women may not define THEMSELVES by their cars the way men do, it does appear that they defined their MEN by that standard. Not to say that George Clooney in a Yugo would lose out to Marty Feldman in a Maserati, but you get the idea. I have seen some homely guys with chicks WAY out of their league cruising down the boulevard in a Jaguar. That same dude in a Suburban station wagon (with genuine imitation woodgrain on the side) wouldn’t have had a chance.
Could it be that BOTH sexes are that shallow?
Yes….but at least the ladies can leave it at the curb. Men have to make monthly payments on their image enhancers, all of which eventually end up in the junkyard!
If you’d like my blog in your inbox, let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, June 27, 2011
Gone With The Wind: The Missing Alternate Ending
I looked for it, but couldn’t dig it up.
“It” is a clip of the “alternate ending” to David O. Selznick’s classic movie “Gone With The Wind”, a film that many people still consider the greatest movie ever made.
The alternate end was merely the last line uttered by Clark Gable. Fearing that the original “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”, issued to Scarlett O’Hara would not make it past the censors, Selznick filmed Rhett Butler saying, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t really care”.
No teeth in that last line, so it turns out to be quite fortunate for movie history that the censors let it go—albeit not without punishment. Selznick was fined $5,000 for including that curse.
Here is a link to the version that everyone knows and loves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Pbc8SQwV8&feature=related
It was on this date in 1939 that this final scene was filmed. That pivotal line was voted as the #1 movie line of all time in 2005. Still one would think that the alternate line footage would exist somewhere. Maybe it’s in a dusty steel reel box in some Hollywood film vault. Either way, it would be amusing to see Gable deliver this hapless dialogue line to a tearful Vivian Leigh.
The movie itself was a soap opera behind the scenes, taking nearly two and a half years from the agreement to pay an unprecedented $50,000 for the rights from writer Margaret Mitchell—to the debut of the film in Atlanta. Although Selznick hired a director immediately, had writers working on a script and launched a nationwide search for a fresh talent to play the part of Scarlett O’Hara, a year passed and he still didn’t have a lead actress. In fact the famous “Atlanta burning “ scene was filmed without a decision on who would be Scarlett. Finally, MGM studios lent Clark Gable to Selznick and Vivian Leigh won the role for which she would be famous.
Here’s the original cinema movie trailer for “Gone With The Wind”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9ftIzRAgAk
Breaking all box office records and winning a ton of Academy Awards, including the first ever to an African American (Best Supporting actress Hattie McDaniel)
While it’s tough to crown any single movie as “Best Ever”, “Gone With The Wind” would almost surely be in everyone’s Top 10.
It’s in my Top 5.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
“It” is a clip of the “alternate ending” to David O. Selznick’s classic movie “Gone With The Wind”, a film that many people still consider the greatest movie ever made.
The alternate end was merely the last line uttered by Clark Gable. Fearing that the original “Frankly, my dear, I don’t give a damn”, issued to Scarlett O’Hara would not make it past the censors, Selznick filmed Rhett Butler saying, “Frankly, my dear, I don’t really care”.
No teeth in that last line, so it turns out to be quite fortunate for movie history that the censors let it go—albeit not without punishment. Selznick was fined $5,000 for including that curse.
Here is a link to the version that everyone knows and loves:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6Pbc8SQwV8&feature=related
It was on this date in 1939 that this final scene was filmed. That pivotal line was voted as the #1 movie line of all time in 2005. Still one would think that the alternate line footage would exist somewhere. Maybe it’s in a dusty steel reel box in some Hollywood film vault. Either way, it would be amusing to see Gable deliver this hapless dialogue line to a tearful Vivian Leigh.
The movie itself was a soap opera behind the scenes, taking nearly two and a half years from the agreement to pay an unprecedented $50,000 for the rights from writer Margaret Mitchell—to the debut of the film in Atlanta. Although Selznick hired a director immediately, had writers working on a script and launched a nationwide search for a fresh talent to play the part of Scarlett O’Hara, a year passed and he still didn’t have a lead actress. In fact the famous “Atlanta burning “ scene was filmed without a decision on who would be Scarlett. Finally, MGM studios lent Clark Gable to Selznick and Vivian Leigh won the role for which she would be famous.
Here’s the original cinema movie trailer for “Gone With The Wind”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9ftIzRAgAk
Breaking all box office records and winning a ton of Academy Awards, including the first ever to an African American (Best Supporting actress Hattie McDaniel)
While it’s tough to crown any single movie as “Best Ever”, “Gone With The Wind” would almost surely be in everyone’s Top 10.
It’s in my Top 5.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, June 24, 2011
Farrah Fawcett---A Real Angel
THE FOLLOWING IN AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:
Tomorrow will mark the second anniversary of the death of an American cultural icon.
Actress Farrah Fawcett, died of cancer in 2009 at the age of 62. From her starring role in the 70’s TV show “Charlie’s Angels”-to her redemption as a serious actress in “The Burning Bed”—to her very public look at coping with cancer-a show that was broadcast nationwide.
She was America’s darling, our sweetheart, the object of fantasy—and probably none of that from her own perspective. Living in the bubble of show business and the manufactured images that are portrayed, reality must be a different animal than the public persona.
It doesn’t matter in the end.
At the end, she carried herself with dignity and bore her burden for all to see, in the hopes that it would give courage to others. For that-and the joy she brought to millions—she will be missed.
Below is a clip of Farrah 40 YEARS AGO, as a contestant on The Dating Game!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ncNIVHJLo0
No one will ever rank Farrah Fawcett as one of our great actresses, but there is a lesson to be learned when we cubbyhole someone—and then the truth reveals a different reality. Because she was beautiful, it was assumed that she was either an imbecile or at the very least, not an actress to be reckoned with.
Most people were therefore—wrong.
Farrah Fawcett showed her deeper talent in her later years, after the young-girl looks receded to the point where age alone would deny her the roles for which she had previously been a shoo-in.
In many ways, she led a charmed life—beauty, fame and fortune. So what if all of it failed to dispel the image of a dumb blond—at least until her later years.
From someone who had “that poster” on his wall, even I came around to respect her for her talent—and especially the courage she displayed at the end.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tomorrow will mark the second anniversary of the death of an American cultural icon.
Actress Farrah Fawcett, died of cancer in 2009 at the age of 62. From her starring role in the 70’s TV show “Charlie’s Angels”-to her redemption as a serious actress in “The Burning Bed”—to her very public look at coping with cancer-a show that was broadcast nationwide.
She was America’s darling, our sweetheart, the object of fantasy—and probably none of that from her own perspective. Living in the bubble of show business and the manufactured images that are portrayed, reality must be a different animal than the public persona.
It doesn’t matter in the end.
At the end, she carried herself with dignity and bore her burden for all to see, in the hopes that it would give courage to others. For that-and the joy she brought to millions—she will be missed.
Below is a clip of Farrah 40 YEARS AGO, as a contestant on The Dating Game!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ncNIVHJLo0
No one will ever rank Farrah Fawcett as one of our great actresses, but there is a lesson to be learned when we cubbyhole someone—and then the truth reveals a different reality. Because she was beautiful, it was assumed that she was either an imbecile or at the very least, not an actress to be reckoned with.
Most people were therefore—wrong.
Farrah Fawcett showed her deeper talent in her later years, after the young-girl looks receded to the point where age alone would deny her the roles for which she had previously been a shoo-in.
In many ways, she led a charmed life—beauty, fame and fortune. So what if all of it failed to dispel the image of a dumb blond—at least until her later years.
From someone who had “that poster” on his wall, even I came around to respect her for her talent—and especially the courage she displayed at the end.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, June 22, 2011
The G.I. Bill: A Government Program That Worked
President Roosevelt signed the Serviceman’s Readjustment Act of 1944 on this date 67 years ago.
Better known as the G.I. Bill, it was a revolutionary way to re-integrate the millions of servicemen back into society following their return from World War II. FDR was well aware of the misery that greeted many veterans of the first World War upon their return. Many were unable to secure the jobs they left behind. Others were without the resources to attend college or start a business. Roosevelt particularly wanted to avoid a repeat of the so-called “Bonus March” of 1932, when 20,000 unemployed veterans and their families descended on Washington to protest.
The G.I. Bill did many things—unemployment compensation, the ability to acquire loans and the right to return to their previous employer, but perhaps the most profound aspect were the incentives to receive a college education.
Before the war, less than 15 percent of Americans were able to go to college—and a university education was seen as unattainable for all but the most privileged in American society. After WWII, nearly half of college enrollment consisted of veterans—and in 1950, a half million college graduates entered the work force(compared to 160,000 in 1939)
The incredible economic expansion following the war was in large part due to this legislation. Of the money set aside strictly for unemployment compensation, only 20 percent was actually used. Most servicemen found work or entered college.
The low-interest loans are credited with an explosion in home construction and the growth of American suburbs.
Here’s an informative film clip from the era, outlining the purpose of the G.I. Bill and how veterans could take advantage of it—fun to watch this glimpse of life back then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4PP2kS-fg
In a world where government programs are generally vilified, the G.I. Bill is a prime example of a government incentive program that worked. Not a handout, but rather a well thought-out system that both rewarded the service of our returning soldiers, but also jump-started our economy by placing a huge emphasis on education.
We could learn a thing or two by paying attention to the things that work. Investing in our future is never a bad gamble.
Even in a recession.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Better known as the G.I. Bill, it was a revolutionary way to re-integrate the millions of servicemen back into society following their return from World War II. FDR was well aware of the misery that greeted many veterans of the first World War upon their return. Many were unable to secure the jobs they left behind. Others were without the resources to attend college or start a business. Roosevelt particularly wanted to avoid a repeat of the so-called “Bonus March” of 1932, when 20,000 unemployed veterans and their families descended on Washington to protest.
The G.I. Bill did many things—unemployment compensation, the ability to acquire loans and the right to return to their previous employer, but perhaps the most profound aspect were the incentives to receive a college education.
Before the war, less than 15 percent of Americans were able to go to college—and a university education was seen as unattainable for all but the most privileged in American society. After WWII, nearly half of college enrollment consisted of veterans—and in 1950, a half million college graduates entered the work force(compared to 160,000 in 1939)
The incredible economic expansion following the war was in large part due to this legislation. Of the money set aside strictly for unemployment compensation, only 20 percent was actually used. Most servicemen found work or entered college.
The low-interest loans are credited with an explosion in home construction and the growth of American suburbs.
Here’s an informative film clip from the era, outlining the purpose of the G.I. Bill and how veterans could take advantage of it—fun to watch this glimpse of life back then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YL4PP2kS-fg
In a world where government programs are generally vilified, the G.I. Bill is a prime example of a government incentive program that worked. Not a handout, but rather a well thought-out system that both rewarded the service of our returning soldiers, but also jump-started our economy by placing a huge emphasis on education.
We could learn a thing or two by paying attention to the things that work. Investing in our future is never a bad gamble.
Even in a recession.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, June 20, 2011
Bruins: The Cup Comes Home
As much as the Red Sox are beloved, I had always heard that Boston was a hockey town. The Celtics brought home multiple titles, but there was always something about the game of hockey and the city of Boston.
Blue collar, tough and unforgiving, it just seemed that hockey epitomized the character of Beantown better than any other sport.
Perhaps that was borne out this past Saturday, as the triumphant Bruins were welcomed in a “Rolling Rally” that eclipsed that given to the World Champion Red Sox after their improbable comeback to win the 2004 Series—which got that darn curse buried for good.
Maybe the crowds were bigger because the weather was good—maybe because it was a weekend, allowing families to travel to Boston to witness firsthand the duck boat spectacle, with the Stanley Cup being passed from boat to boat.
Whatever the reality of sports preference, it was terrific to witness the outpouring of love towards this 2010-11 edition of the Boston Bruins, who erased last year’s embarrassing exit from the playoff after relinquishing a 3-0 lead in games. Estimates reported up to a million and a half people were along the parade route.
Wow.
Yes, it was all smiles and champagne this time around, fortified by numerous jokes that poked fun at the Vancouver Canucks and their unfortunate goalie, Roberto Luongo. A sampling:
“What time is it in Boston? A: “(Two)(Three)(Four) past Luongo!” simply insert the last game’s goal total.
Or..
This future “Jeopardy” question---or should I say, answer:
“Roberto Luongo and The Titanic.”
“Name two things that are just fine until they hit the ice”
OK.
The commemorative Bruins Champion caps and shirts are flying off the shelves—and it seems that now, everyone is a Bruins fan, which must irk the die hard partisans who know that many of these newly acquired bandwagon aficionados wouldn’t know icing from high-sticking.
A couple of videos—first, one from the OLD Bruins, winning the Stanley Cup in 1970 and 1972-embedding was disabled, so you'll have to click on the link itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVOGbfgcnoo
Now, here’s a collage of images from this year’s championship campaign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHUDCup9dJQ&feature=related
Perhaps hardest to believe is that the New England Patriots, multi-Super Bowl Champions---are the the Boston sports team with the longest DROUGHT without a world title! The Red sox, Celtics and now the Bruins have claimed their sports highest perch—and all eyes are now upon Tom Brady and company to respond!
Go Bruins!!!!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Blue collar, tough and unforgiving, it just seemed that hockey epitomized the character of Beantown better than any other sport.
Perhaps that was borne out this past Saturday, as the triumphant Bruins were welcomed in a “Rolling Rally” that eclipsed that given to the World Champion Red Sox after their improbable comeback to win the 2004 Series—which got that darn curse buried for good.
Maybe the crowds were bigger because the weather was good—maybe because it was a weekend, allowing families to travel to Boston to witness firsthand the duck boat spectacle, with the Stanley Cup being passed from boat to boat.
Whatever the reality of sports preference, it was terrific to witness the outpouring of love towards this 2010-11 edition of the Boston Bruins, who erased last year’s embarrassing exit from the playoff after relinquishing a 3-0 lead in games. Estimates reported up to a million and a half people were along the parade route.
Wow.
Yes, it was all smiles and champagne this time around, fortified by numerous jokes that poked fun at the Vancouver Canucks and their unfortunate goalie, Roberto Luongo. A sampling:
“What time is it in Boston? A: “(Two)(Three)(Four) past Luongo!” simply insert the last game’s goal total.
Or..
This future “Jeopardy” question---or should I say, answer:
“Roberto Luongo and The Titanic.”
“Name two things that are just fine until they hit the ice”
OK.
The commemorative Bruins Champion caps and shirts are flying off the shelves—and it seems that now, everyone is a Bruins fan, which must irk the die hard partisans who know that many of these newly acquired bandwagon aficionados wouldn’t know icing from high-sticking.
A couple of videos—first, one from the OLD Bruins, winning the Stanley Cup in 1970 and 1972-embedding was disabled, so you'll have to click on the link itself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVOGbfgcnoo
Now, here’s a collage of images from this year’s championship campaign:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHUDCup9dJQ&feature=related
Perhaps hardest to believe is that the New England Patriots, multi-Super Bowl Champions---are the the Boston sports team with the longest DROUGHT without a world title! The Red sox, Celtics and now the Bruins have claimed their sports highest perch—and all eyes are now upon Tom Brady and company to respond!
Go Bruins!!!!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, June 15, 2011
Hee Haw: Stupid TV’s Role Model
THE FOLLOWING IS AN ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:
Hee Haw made its debut on this date in 1969. It was country’s answer to Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In, but with an extra helping of stupidity.
Although the program only ran for two years, it was a huge hit in syndication and continued on the air until 1992. Actually, it was something of a hit in its original run—in the Top 20, but CBS decided the show’s “hick” country focus was not doing the network’s image any good.
Hosted by Roy Clark and Buck Owens, the show featured stupid humor, stupid pranks and low-brow EVERYTHING, but the musical guests on the program were surprisingly good-and the talent of even the show’s regular clowns (like Grandpa) was evident when showcased. I have yet to know what Junior Sample’s talent was-other than being a bit SLOW mentally-and having that become the essential theme of bits involving him. Junior always seemed bewildered as to why people were laughing.
There is much to be said for “escapism” with our entertainment-and TV has plenty that falls into that category. Seldom is the escape this ridiculous. Let’s take a trip down memory lane to witness both the silliness—and some of the talent—as Grandpa plays the banjo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljZQyJQwHn8
Here’s a quick clips of outtakes from Hee Haw featuring Grandpa and Junior Samples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiMFWeI3qCA&feature=related
If you have a problem with this blog, a complaint line has been set up at: BR 549 (You Hee Haw fans will “get” this one)
Seriously, if you’d like my blog in your box, send me an e-mail to : tim.moore@citcomm.com
See y’all later, ya heah?
Hee Haw made its debut on this date in 1969. It was country’s answer to Rowan & Martin’s Laugh-In, but with an extra helping of stupidity.
Although the program only ran for two years, it was a huge hit in syndication and continued on the air until 1992. Actually, it was something of a hit in its original run—in the Top 20, but CBS decided the show’s “hick” country focus was not doing the network’s image any good.
Hosted by Roy Clark and Buck Owens, the show featured stupid humor, stupid pranks and low-brow EVERYTHING, but the musical guests on the program were surprisingly good-and the talent of even the show’s regular clowns (like Grandpa) was evident when showcased. I have yet to know what Junior Sample’s talent was-other than being a bit SLOW mentally-and having that become the essential theme of bits involving him. Junior always seemed bewildered as to why people were laughing.
There is much to be said for “escapism” with our entertainment-and TV has plenty that falls into that category. Seldom is the escape this ridiculous. Let’s take a trip down memory lane to witness both the silliness—and some of the talent—as Grandpa plays the banjo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ljZQyJQwHn8
Here’s a quick clips of outtakes from Hee Haw featuring Grandpa and Junior Samples:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AiMFWeI3qCA&feature=related
If you have a problem with this blog, a complaint line has been set up at: BR 549 (You Hee Haw fans will “get” this one)
Seriously, if you’d like my blog in your box, send me an e-mail to : tim.moore@citcomm.com
See y’all later, ya heah?
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
The Beatles: Down Under
The 1960’s hysteria surrounding the Beatles explosion on the music scene has yet to be topped. It will likely never be equaled, in fact.
More interesting is that their emergence is often thought of as a UK to USA-confined phenomenon. The truth is that their popularity was world-wide —as was demonstrated on this date in 1964, when the Fab Four landed in Melbourne, Australia. Actually, it was the Fab Three, as Ringo Starr missed the first part of the tour due to a tonsillectomy. Jimmie Nichol filled in on the drums.
Two film clips for your enjoyment—one a newsreel feature on their tour of the country, complete with wild airport scenes and parades—and the second of their landing in Melbourne on this date 47 years ago today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgPvw3FqOyI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGHj7mTQpvM
The Beatles World Tour in 1964 included similar scenes in Sweden, New Zealand and Hong Kong,
Despite the introduction of new stars, new bands and the evolution of pop music over the years, no one can touch the Beatles for the sheer enormity of passion that was “Beatlemania”. What happened to the lads from Liverpool eclipsed the rise of Elvis Presley—and since, only Michael Jackson has come close to the stratosphere where John, Paul George and Ringo resided.
It was indeed rare air.
If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
More interesting is that their emergence is often thought of as a UK to USA-confined phenomenon. The truth is that their popularity was world-wide —as was demonstrated on this date in 1964, when the Fab Four landed in Melbourne, Australia. Actually, it was the Fab Three, as Ringo Starr missed the first part of the tour due to a tonsillectomy. Jimmie Nichol filled in on the drums.
Two film clips for your enjoyment—one a newsreel feature on their tour of the country, complete with wild airport scenes and parades—and the second of their landing in Melbourne on this date 47 years ago today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CgPvw3FqOyI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mGHj7mTQpvM
The Beatles World Tour in 1964 included similar scenes in Sweden, New Zealand and Hong Kong,
Despite the introduction of new stars, new bands and the evolution of pop music over the years, no one can touch the Beatles for the sheer enormity of passion that was “Beatlemania”. What happened to the lads from Liverpool eclipsed the rise of Elvis Presley—and since, only Michael Jackson has come close to the stratosphere where John, Paul George and Ringo resided.
It was indeed rare air.
If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, June 10, 2011
Joe Nuxhall: 15 Year Old Major Leaguer
THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG
It happened to Joe Nuxhall on this date in 1944-the youngest player to appear in a Major League Baseball game. Joe was a pitcher-and still in high school when he joined the Cincinnati Reds.
His debut was a bit shaky, giving up five runs on five walks and two hits in an 18-0 loss to St. Louis. The game was played during World War II, where it became common for young people to fill in for the stars, many of whom enlisted in the war effort. There were several players who would never have had a chance, like Pete Gray, a one-armed outfielder who hit .218 and drove in 13 runs.
As for Nuxhall, he didn’t play again for the Reds until 1952 when he was 23 years old. He pitched 15 seasons in the majors and then joined the radio world broadcasting Reds games with Marty Brenneman. Called the “most beloved Reds fan”, Nuxhall became synonymous with the club that afforded his long career.
Below is a short video produced after his death-embedding was disabled by request, but you can click the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1doC09rj_8
Joe Nuxhall was a legend in Cincinnati-and beyond. With most baseball records falling away as the years tick by, this is one that will never be topped. It’s highly unlikely that someone younger than 15 will ever walk onto a major league baseball team.
If you’d like my blog in your e-mail in-box daily, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It happened to Joe Nuxhall on this date in 1944-the youngest player to appear in a Major League Baseball game. Joe was a pitcher-and still in high school when he joined the Cincinnati Reds.
His debut was a bit shaky, giving up five runs on five walks and two hits in an 18-0 loss to St. Louis. The game was played during World War II, where it became common for young people to fill in for the stars, many of whom enlisted in the war effort. There were several players who would never have had a chance, like Pete Gray, a one-armed outfielder who hit .218 and drove in 13 runs.
As for Nuxhall, he didn’t play again for the Reds until 1952 when he was 23 years old. He pitched 15 seasons in the majors and then joined the radio world broadcasting Reds games with Marty Brenneman. Called the “most beloved Reds fan”, Nuxhall became synonymous with the club that afforded his long career.
Below is a short video produced after his death-embedding was disabled by request, but you can click the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1doC09rj_8
Joe Nuxhall was a legend in Cincinnati-and beyond. With most baseball records falling away as the years tick by, this is one that will never be topped. It’s highly unlikely that someone younger than 15 will ever walk onto a major league baseball team.
If you’d like my blog in your e-mail in-box daily, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, June 9, 2011
Donald Duck:Propaganda Tool
If a cartoon character can have a birthday, today is it for Donald Duck, who made his debut on this date in 1934 in the Disney short film, “The Wise Little Hen”. Donald’s popularity led to the growth of the “Duck” family, from Daisy to Uncle Scrooge and nephews Huey, Dewey and Louey!
Perhaps more fascinating is the use of the lovable by cranky Donald to affect behavior during World War II. After grossing $8 million dollars with the release of their first feature length animated film, “Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs” in 1937 (quite an accomplishment during the Depression), Walt Disney devoted most of his company’s resources to the production of propaganda and training films during the war.
Donald was not spared in the effort. Below is an incredible Disney cartoon, called the “Spirit of ‘43” where Donald joins in the effort to convince Americans that taxation for the war effort is worth every penny.
It’s hard to conceive that cartoon characters of today would be employed in this manner. The image-conscious holders of trademarks for these cash cows would be hard pressed to make a cartoon that could endanger the carefully cultivated personalities or images of their creations.
But WWII occurred in an America that no longer exists. It is truly astounding to watch this short:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xphiYdfd-Tg
Imagine Scooby Doo or someone even remotely more contemporary going in THAT direction! Wow!
If you’d like my blog in your in-box daily, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Perhaps more fascinating is the use of the lovable by cranky Donald to affect behavior during World War II. After grossing $8 million dollars with the release of their first feature length animated film, “Snow White and The Seven Dwarfs” in 1937 (quite an accomplishment during the Depression), Walt Disney devoted most of his company’s resources to the production of propaganda and training films during the war.
Donald was not spared in the effort. Below is an incredible Disney cartoon, called the “Spirit of ‘43” where Donald joins in the effort to convince Americans that taxation for the war effort is worth every penny.
It’s hard to conceive that cartoon characters of today would be employed in this manner. The image-conscious holders of trademarks for these cash cows would be hard pressed to make a cartoon that could endanger the carefully cultivated personalities or images of their creations.
But WWII occurred in an America that no longer exists. It is truly astounding to watch this short:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xphiYdfd-Tg
Imagine Scooby Doo or someone even remotely more contemporary going in THAT direction! Wow!
If you’d like my blog in your in-box daily, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, June 8, 2011
Buckeyes: Tressel Turmoil
This week’s Sports Illustrated cover story was on the Ohio State Buckeyes and the scandal that led to head coach Jim Tressel’s resignation a couple of weeks ago. The cover headline: “How Deep It Went” and the ensuing article paint a picture of Tressel as a devious schemer, a dishonest man who simply got caught.
I have a different perspective. Did he lie? Apparently, he did—and he is being justly punished with his removal. Of course, the university will also bear a considerable amount of pain, as it’s all but a foregone conclusion that heavy sanctions will be coming OSU’s way soon.
Although I have been critical of Jim Tressel the coach in the past, I have never been a detractor of Jim Tressel the man. This incident does little to change that. Below is a tribute video to Tressel and the program he built in Columbus—followed by the letter I sent to Sports Illustrated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIlhP_GbBBU
To The Editor:
If the NCAA wishes to start a witch hunt for all college football players who have received something of value for free (or a great deal!), they’ll be vacating wins and national championships all the way back to Knute Rockne and the Four Horsemen.
Not to excuse Jim Tressel’s behavior, but the very fact that colleges need to hire an entire staff of full-time employees whose only job is “NCAA compliance” indicates the problem resides with the scope and complexity of the rules themselves.
The stark truth is that major college football programs generate millions by trading on the talents of young and often poor young men. The rationale is this: “Well, we’re giving them a free college education! Besides, they’ll make millions in the NFL after they exit our school!”
The reality is that most of these players won’t make the NFL. Most because of lack of talent and some because of injury. The degree? A B.S. in Physical Education may be just that-B.S. No one has any illusions about the ultimate goal of these athletes. If they choose to sell memorabilia (that supposedly is theirs, no?), why should the college, the NCAA or anyone else have anything to say about it?
Some are trading for tattoos, others for rent money. Meanwhile, over in the college bookstore, they’re selling jerseys with that kid’s name and number for north of $100, with zilch going to the player.
It’s tempting to pile on when the allegations start to roll in, but let’s try to restrain ourselves from turning poor judgment into character assassination. Jim Tressel is a good and decent man. He is an outstanding football coach and leader—and has been a father figure to many of his players. These are facts, borne out by years of demonstrated performance.
These truths shouldn’t be erased by a series of admittedly poor decisions, but ones made by a man whose scope of responsibilities and relentless duties may have rendered such attention to detail to be thought of as trivial at the time.
OK, so it wasn’t trivial, but contrast his entire body of work to the allegations levied against Tressel, ones that imply he should perhaps be following each of his players around like a watch dog in their free time, making sure that nothing they do is “breaking the rules”.
If by now you’ve concluded I’m a Buckeye fan, you’re right. However, my disdain is truly for the NCAA, which seems to have no oversight on itself. Their “investigation” of the Cam Newton situation was a joke—and their sanctions against USC were excessive. As judge and jury, the NCAA has no one to answer to but itself.
A fresh look at the Gestapo of college athletics-the NCAA-may reveal that this organization is guilty itself of breaking the same rules it imposes on others. Namely, preserving their “image” by sweeping things under the rug.
That’s the letter above—since I doubt they’ll publish it, at least YOU get a look!
I know that college sports is big business, but it’s a business built on young men and women who see none of the revenues—and often come from financial situations where there is true need. The landscape is littered with athletes who never made it to the next level—and never really shared in the prosperity that their talent afforded their schools to cash in on.
The system needs an overhaul—and perhaps it should start with the NCAA itself, a body that can vacate one school’s national championship—without awarding it to the other team in the title game. Where’s the fairness in that? Infractions may be liable for HUGE fines (thus making them undesirable), but rarely would the transgressions (in OSU’s case, some exchanged memorabilia and tattoos) have made a difference on the field. Keep the results of games and seasons intact. They are history-and should not be subject to revision based on unrelated “infractions”.
Make the punishment fit the crime. And maybe, just maybe----take a good hard look at what really qualifies as a “crime”.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
I have a different perspective. Did he lie? Apparently, he did—and he is being justly punished with his removal. Of course, the university will also bear a considerable amount of pain, as it’s all but a foregone conclusion that heavy sanctions will be coming OSU’s way soon.
Although I have been critical of Jim Tressel the coach in the past, I have never been a detractor of Jim Tressel the man. This incident does little to change that. Below is a tribute video to Tressel and the program he built in Columbus—followed by the letter I sent to Sports Illustrated:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XIlhP_GbBBU
To The Editor:
If the NCAA wishes to start a witch hunt for all college football players who have received something of value for free (or a great deal!), they’ll be vacating wins and national championships all the way back to Knute Rockne and the Four Horsemen.
Not to excuse Jim Tressel’s behavior, but the very fact that colleges need to hire an entire staff of full-time employees whose only job is “NCAA compliance” indicates the problem resides with the scope and complexity of the rules themselves.
The stark truth is that major college football programs generate millions by trading on the talents of young and often poor young men. The rationale is this: “Well, we’re giving them a free college education! Besides, they’ll make millions in the NFL after they exit our school!”
The reality is that most of these players won’t make the NFL. Most because of lack of talent and some because of injury. The degree? A B.S. in Physical Education may be just that-B.S. No one has any illusions about the ultimate goal of these athletes. If they choose to sell memorabilia (that supposedly is theirs, no?), why should the college, the NCAA or anyone else have anything to say about it?
Some are trading for tattoos, others for rent money. Meanwhile, over in the college bookstore, they’re selling jerseys with that kid’s name and number for north of $100, with zilch going to the player.
It’s tempting to pile on when the allegations start to roll in, but let’s try to restrain ourselves from turning poor judgment into character assassination. Jim Tressel is a good and decent man. He is an outstanding football coach and leader—and has been a father figure to many of his players. These are facts, borne out by years of demonstrated performance.
These truths shouldn’t be erased by a series of admittedly poor decisions, but ones made by a man whose scope of responsibilities and relentless duties may have rendered such attention to detail to be thought of as trivial at the time.
OK, so it wasn’t trivial, but contrast his entire body of work to the allegations levied against Tressel, ones that imply he should perhaps be following each of his players around like a watch dog in their free time, making sure that nothing they do is “breaking the rules”.
If by now you’ve concluded I’m a Buckeye fan, you’re right. However, my disdain is truly for the NCAA, which seems to have no oversight on itself. Their “investigation” of the Cam Newton situation was a joke—and their sanctions against USC were excessive. As judge and jury, the NCAA has no one to answer to but itself.
A fresh look at the Gestapo of college athletics-the NCAA-may reveal that this organization is guilty itself of breaking the same rules it imposes on others. Namely, preserving their “image” by sweeping things under the rug.
That’s the letter above—since I doubt they’ll publish it, at least YOU get a look!
I know that college sports is big business, but it’s a business built on young men and women who see none of the revenues—and often come from financial situations where there is true need. The landscape is littered with athletes who never made it to the next level—and never really shared in the prosperity that their talent afforded their schools to cash in on.
The system needs an overhaul—and perhaps it should start with the NCAA itself, a body that can vacate one school’s national championship—without awarding it to the other team in the title game. Where’s the fairness in that? Infractions may be liable for HUGE fines (thus making them undesirable), but rarely would the transgressions (in OSU’s case, some exchanged memorabilia and tattoos) have made a difference on the field. Keep the results of games and seasons intact. They are history-and should not be subject to revision based on unrelated “infractions”.
Make the punishment fit the crime. And maybe, just maybe----take a good hard look at what really qualifies as a “crime”.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Weiner Is A Weenie
The urge to “pile on” is almost irresistible in the aftermath of the so-called “Weinergate” scandal.
In case you missed it all, here’s a report from ABC News:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOF8IieL-QQ
In a scenario that couldn’t have been scripted better by comedy writers for Letterman, Leno or Jon Stewart (right down to the last name of the offending politician), the cable news networks, tabloids and late-night talk show hosts have hit the mother lode. As such, everything worthy of being said or written has already been uttered or printed.
I can’t add to it, but would rather leave the yucks to the comedians and focus instead on the sheer stupidity of someone New Yorkers have elected to LEAD them.
Is there not enough evidence to suggest that “tweeting” one’s privates is NOT a good idea? First of all, the very urge to do so mystifies me, but that’s beside the point. I can’t imagine the good congressman not making a remark about how stupid it was for Brett Favre to transmit his little “sexting” masterpieces. No, it was dumb for an NFL QB to forever tarnish his rock-solid reputation, but hey, that could never happen to ME!
There was also Tiger Woods, who sliced his good-guy reputation into the heavy rough with his now well-known text messages to women who were collectively NOT HIS WIFE.
It matters little to me that what Weiner did was not illegal.
It was stupid.
Were I a New Yorker, the last person I would want representing my interests is an idiot who takes pictures of his equipment and then shares them with people he has never met before.
To do it in the first place is idiotic. When caught, to deny it all is the height of hubris. For a man who had his sights set on being mayor of New York, this little lapse in judgment is something of a setback, no?
I’m beginning to believe that the more you portray yourself as pure and virtuous, the more likely you are actually the opposite. Step aside, John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, all of you posers!
The new model for a politician will be more along the lines of Jesse Ventura. Blatant and unapologetic.
Face it. If Weiner, upon being discovered had immediately said “Yeah, that’s my weiner! So what? Mind your own business!”, New Yorkers (themselves a class of brazen individualists) might have rallied around him. He might have sent a fresh photo of his package to all the media outlets along with the message, “put THIS in your 24 hour news cycle!”
For the steady stream of indiscretions that seem to never end, it would appear that:
1) Political office seems to attract a personality type that is simply not capable of restraint when it comes to their personal appetites.
2) This combination of ego, arrogance and selfishness will manifest itself in many ways, most of them either self-destructive or contrary to the interests of their constituents (i.e. crooks “on the take”)
3) The electorate is becoming so jaded with the gulf between the image façade and the real person behind it when exposed through such misconduct, that I believe there is a solid place for an openly flawed character to emerge.
The imperfect man or woman as a viable candidate merits consideration. Instead of expending enormous amounts of energy in fabricating a false image to appeal to voters, the new model candidate lets it all hang out. Unabashed flaws and indiscretions. No excuses and no apologies.
It could work.
I believe that part of the appeal of Ronald Reagan was that he seemed like a real guy. As the first divorced President to be elected, he represented a life and career trajectory that encompassed many ups and downs----in short, he mirrored us, the electorate. Yes, I know he was a movie star (not your typical average Joe), but he was a B-level star, a guy who appeared with chimps and donkeys and sold Borax soap flakes on TV wearing a cowboy hat. In short, he at least APPEARED to be genuine.
Part of the appeal of Donald Trump (I think) is his “go to hell if you don’t like me or my opinion” stance.
Maybe we need more of that in our leaders---REALITY.
The political consultants and king-makers don’t think the American people can handle it.
I think they can. I for one, just don’t want to see them in their underwear.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
In case you missed it all, here’s a report from ABC News:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XOF8IieL-QQ
In a scenario that couldn’t have been scripted better by comedy writers for Letterman, Leno or Jon Stewart (right down to the last name of the offending politician), the cable news networks, tabloids and late-night talk show hosts have hit the mother lode. As such, everything worthy of being said or written has already been uttered or printed.
I can’t add to it, but would rather leave the yucks to the comedians and focus instead on the sheer stupidity of someone New Yorkers have elected to LEAD them.
Is there not enough evidence to suggest that “tweeting” one’s privates is NOT a good idea? First of all, the very urge to do so mystifies me, but that’s beside the point. I can’t imagine the good congressman not making a remark about how stupid it was for Brett Favre to transmit his little “sexting” masterpieces. No, it was dumb for an NFL QB to forever tarnish his rock-solid reputation, but hey, that could never happen to ME!
There was also Tiger Woods, who sliced his good-guy reputation into the heavy rough with his now well-known text messages to women who were collectively NOT HIS WIFE.
It matters little to me that what Weiner did was not illegal.
It was stupid.
Were I a New Yorker, the last person I would want representing my interests is an idiot who takes pictures of his equipment and then shares them with people he has never met before.
To do it in the first place is idiotic. When caught, to deny it all is the height of hubris. For a man who had his sights set on being mayor of New York, this little lapse in judgment is something of a setback, no?
I’m beginning to believe that the more you portray yourself as pure and virtuous, the more likely you are actually the opposite. Step aside, John Edwards, Arnold Schwarzenegger, all of you posers!
The new model for a politician will be more along the lines of Jesse Ventura. Blatant and unapologetic.
Face it. If Weiner, upon being discovered had immediately said “Yeah, that’s my weiner! So what? Mind your own business!”, New Yorkers (themselves a class of brazen individualists) might have rallied around him. He might have sent a fresh photo of his package to all the media outlets along with the message, “put THIS in your 24 hour news cycle!”
For the steady stream of indiscretions that seem to never end, it would appear that:
1) Political office seems to attract a personality type that is simply not capable of restraint when it comes to their personal appetites.
2) This combination of ego, arrogance and selfishness will manifest itself in many ways, most of them either self-destructive or contrary to the interests of their constituents (i.e. crooks “on the take”)
3) The electorate is becoming so jaded with the gulf between the image façade and the real person behind it when exposed through such misconduct, that I believe there is a solid place for an openly flawed character to emerge.
The imperfect man or woman as a viable candidate merits consideration. Instead of expending enormous amounts of energy in fabricating a false image to appeal to voters, the new model candidate lets it all hang out. Unabashed flaws and indiscretions. No excuses and no apologies.
It could work.
I believe that part of the appeal of Ronald Reagan was that he seemed like a real guy. As the first divorced President to be elected, he represented a life and career trajectory that encompassed many ups and downs----in short, he mirrored us, the electorate. Yes, I know he was a movie star (not your typical average Joe), but he was a B-level star, a guy who appeared with chimps and donkeys and sold Borax soap flakes on TV wearing a cowboy hat. In short, he at least APPEARED to be genuine.
Part of the appeal of Donald Trump (I think) is his “go to hell if you don’t like me or my opinion” stance.
Maybe we need more of that in our leaders---REALITY.
The political consultants and king-makers don’t think the American people can handle it.
I think they can. I for one, just don’t want to see them in their underwear.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, June 2, 2011
Amazing World War II Footage
I received an e-mail request from a faithful blog reader to re-run the rare color WWII footage that I posted in an earlier blog. Off to the archives!
In searching for it, I discovered that it ran exactly one year ago-inspired by Memorial Day. As is the case often with my posts, sometimes it’s all about the video—and that is definitely true today.
What you are about to see is the most compelling glimpse of what it must have been like to be in the Pacific during World War II.
Film of the actual fighting is relatively rare—but to see it in COLOR is almost unheard of…until now. Where this came from, I don’t know.
What I do know is that it is an amazing look at the war through the eyes of those who were THERE. Maybe your father—or mine, not much older than a boy, but thrust into the most devastating conflict the world had ever known.
I won’t say “enjoy” the following. There is little to entertain in the usual sense. As an historical record, I have never seen anything like it—and hope that you will be equally impressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9dR3h2HdnBQ
So, Memorial Day is over—and our tendency to not think about the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way each day has returned.
As much as this film catapults you back into history—with a view that defies imagination, a variation on this scene plays out daily. The scene is different, the implements of destruction even more powerful and precise—and the situations they are deployed in have also changed.
What hasn’t changed is the bravery of those who serve.
And it doesn’t have to be Memorial Day to honor them.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know; tim.moore@citcomm.com
In searching for it, I discovered that it ran exactly one year ago-inspired by Memorial Day. As is the case often with my posts, sometimes it’s all about the video—and that is definitely true today.
What you are about to see is the most compelling glimpse of what it must have been like to be in the Pacific during World War II.
Film of the actual fighting is relatively rare—but to see it in COLOR is almost unheard of…until now. Where this came from, I don’t know.
What I do know is that it is an amazing look at the war through the eyes of those who were THERE. Maybe your father—or mine, not much older than a boy, but thrust into the most devastating conflict the world had ever known.
I won’t say “enjoy” the following. There is little to entertain in the usual sense. As an historical record, I have never seen anything like it—and hope that you will be equally impressed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9dR3h2HdnBQ
So, Memorial Day is over—and our tendency to not think about the men and women who put themselves in harm’s way each day has returned.
As much as this film catapults you back into history—with a view that defies imagination, a variation on this scene plays out daily. The scene is different, the implements of destruction even more powerful and precise—and the situations they are deployed in have also changed.
What hasn’t changed is the bravery of those who serve.
And it doesn’t have to be Memorial Day to honor them.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know; tim.moore@citcomm.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
