The Gateway Arch Opens

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Whitney Houston: Launching A Career

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

Not so on this date in 1985.

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

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

It was a “can’t miss” proposition.

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

Here’s the original video:



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

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

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

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

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

Have You Been Lied To Today?

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

Yes.

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

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

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

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



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

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

So it’s partly MY fault?

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

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

Me?

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

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

Really.

I mean it.

Nevermind.


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

Worst Drivers Ever!

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG:

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

Ouch!

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

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


Let’s be careful out there!

Facts Do Matter When Making Policy

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

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

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

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

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

On and on.

And wrong, wrong , wrong.

So, what are the facts?

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

Check out these facts:

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

False.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Personally, I like option B better.

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

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

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

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

1) Fair and
2) Simple

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

The terrific Bloomberg article can be read online at:

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

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

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

Playing Politics versus Real Life Problems

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

Are any of the above statements NOT true?

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

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

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

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

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

Conversely,

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Democratic storyline goes like this:

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


The Republican storyline looks a bit different:

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

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


What do you think?

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

Occupy Wall Street: For What Reason?

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

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

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

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

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

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

I guess that’s why I am confused.

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

Check out the video below:





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

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

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

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

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

I think that’s accurate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The squeezed middle class has woken up.

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

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

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


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

The Carpenters: They Had Only Just Begun

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

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

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


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



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


Now, here are the Carpenters performing the entire song:



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


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

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

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


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

Are You Ready For Some…..Free Speech?

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

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

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

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

I disagree.

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And Now A Word From Our Sponsor….

THE FOLLOWING IS AN UPDATED ENCORE TIM MOORE BLOG


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

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

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

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

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

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





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

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

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

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

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

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

And now, back to our program!

Motorcycle Dog

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

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

Enjoy:



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


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

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

My work is done here!

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

Mathemagic: Go Ahead, Try This At Home

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

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

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

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

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

Check this out:



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

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

I didn’t.

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

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