It's been awhile since I posted, but today is a special day with a very special video I'd like to share. Thanks to good friend Geoff Hornbeck for sending this to me.
While it may seem as if we have heard all there was to hear about that dreadful day 11 years ago today, this was new to me--and maybe to you as well:
The Great Boatlift of 9/11.
Watch:
There were many heroes that day--and some were truly unsung until this clip was released.
If you'd like my blog in your inbox,(whenever I get around to writing one), please let me know:
timgrantmoore@gmail.com
Tuesday, September 11, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
Tax The Bullets
After the senseless tragedy in Aurora, Colorado, the gun
control debate is renewed. Perhaps the only distinction is that we’re highly
unlikely to see the Obama Administration jump on the traditional Democratic
bandwagon on this issue—not SOON, anyway.
A guest commentator on MSNBC’c “Morning Joe” had an interesting alternative to traditional gun control this morning, namely:
After all, it’s an election year—and the certain alienation
of a large voting block is something the President cannot withstand in what’s
expected to be a tight race.
A guest commentator on MSNBC’c “Morning Joe” had an interesting alternative to traditional gun control this morning, namely:
TAX THE AMMUNITION.
Ok, guns don’t kill people—people do. The tired old argument
of the NRA can therefore be further refined:
BULLETS KILL PEOPLE.
The deranged shooter in Colorado was able to purchase, among
other things, an assault rifle—completely legally. He also purchased over 6,000
rounds of ammo, much of it on the internet, also completely legally.
The commentator, John Heilemann of New York Magazine,
suggested that we drastically increase the tax on ammunition, especially
bullets for assault weapons.
While it stretches the bounds of rational thought to assert
that the typical American gun owner “needs” an AK-47 to protect himself, the
Second Ammendment protects ownership of this high-powered weapon of death.
So, how many bullets do you need to…uh….”protect yourself”?
Will a draconian tax on assault rifle ammo eliminate the
threat of wackos shooting at innocent victims in theatres?
No.
Could such a tax be an economic disincentive to choose that
particular method of killing?
Perhaps.
Would the perpetrator in Aurora have been able to afford
such quantity had there been a 100% (or even higher) tax applied? Who knows?
If the rapid-fire barrage of bullets were reduced to
single-action firing, there still would have been death, but were it YOUR son
or daughter spared because the danger quotient were reduced, you’d be grateful
for the difference.
Maybe a red flag on quantities ordered would…pardon the
pun...trigger an alert to the Feds to investigate. Had this safeguard been in
place, who knows what might have happened? Maybe the good guys win before the
bad guy has a chance to inflict his carnage.
The line-in-the-sand, zero-compromise stance of the National
Rifle Association will likely comeback to bite them. Cracks in the armor won’t
come from their philosophy of “give an inch, they’ll take a mile”. It’s more
likely to come from the increased isolation and irrelevance demonstrated by an
organization whose inflexibility on ANY reasonable discussion of limits will
eventually doom them.
Keep your guns, Americans, but can we not agree on SOME
limit to sheer firepower? Those protecting themselves or hunting and sporting
enthusiasts don’t NEED to own an assault rifle. Merely possessing enriched
uranium is a federal crime—and the human race is safer as a result. If a
specialized handgun could deliver an atomic bomb, would the NRA still fight to
protect its open sale to the public?
In their current posture, I think we all know the answer.
And that is pathetic.
Monday, July 16, 2012
Made In China
The bi-partisan flap over the American Olympic uniforms is
both amusing and pathetic.
In case you’ve been on vacation and righteously away from TV
news and internet exposure, it appears the uniforms that the American Olympic
team will wear to the opening and closing ceremonies were manufactured in……OMG…..China!!!
The Ralph Lauren company apparently won the bid from the
U.S. Olympic Committee to provide the threads for our team.
You are no doubt aware of the Polo brand----mostly from the
snooty ads of spoiled blue-bloods posing in their Polo gear on the decks of
their sailboats or on the grounds of their summer homes in the Hamptons. Don’t
count on any of the Polo models to be actually SMILING in these ads. No, a smug
“I deserve to be in the one percent” smirk is all you’ll get.
Since the bombshell information on uniforms took Capitol
Hill by storm, there have been few smiles from either Democrats or Republicans
too, some even going so far as to say we ought to BURN the uniforms and start
from scratch.
Please.
Is the news re: the uniforms slightly embarrassing? Yes.
Does it matter in the least? No.
With Congress facing incredibly important issues, it is
absurd that the only consensus we can get in this election year is over such a
non-starter of zero consequence. Republicans blame President Obama for making
it hard for businesses to make things in the good ‘ol USA. Democrats use the
issue to blame Republican-backed fat cats for shipping jobs overseas.
Here’s my question:
If it is UNPATRIOTIC to wear uniforms manufactured in
another country, is it somehow OK for the US Team to use ANYTHING produced
overseas?
With no specific knowledge to rely on, my bet is that it’s
highly likely that MUCH of the gear that the U.S. Team is travelling with is
made elsewhere. From the soccer balls to the athletic shoes to the spandex
suits to you-name-it, a moratorium on imported goods would likely leave our
athletes arriving in London nearly naked and without equipment.
But at least they would be patriotic.
And while we’re condemning the U.S. Olympic Committee for
this HORRENDOUS error, let’s take inventory of the personal possessions of
those who are criticizing, namely the vaulted United States Senators and
Congressmen and women who are quick to point the finger.
Again, without benefit of any specific knowledge, I’d bet my
last dime that 100% of Congress owns and wears many items produced in other
countries. If any of them own an iPhone, an iPod or iPad, they are using
devices assembled in China. Horrors!
Can you BELIEVE that a UNITED STATES ELECTED OFFICIAL would
betray their country by financially supporting a foreign one?
Enough!
We are living in a GLOBAL ECONOMY. Your Dell laptop is
comprised of hundreds of parts either manufactured or assembled in a dozen
countries. Get over it.
Jobs disappearing overseas and a shrinking U.S.
manufacturing base are real issues that need to be addressed. We need healthy debate
on this problem.
What we don’t need are hypocrite politicians posing as
patriots.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Scanning The Horizon
I guess it stands to reason that my primary activity—looking
for a job—would dominate my blog posts.
Hell, with unemployment at over eight percent and that’s not
counting those who have given up, at least there’s potentially an interested
audience, right?
In addition, there are A LOT of people who are looking to
get out of their present job—some of whom are living vicariously through me—expressing
a mixture of jealousy and pity over my present situation!
Jealous because they long for a respite from the crappy jobs
they now have ---and pity, knowing that for me, it could be a LONG time before
I see anything resembling a paycheck.
The last time I was unemployed was back in 1990. I am
astounded by the contrast that exists in looking for work between then and now:
THEN
1)
Virtually all job listings were through the
newspaper. I anxiously awaited the arrival of the daily fish wrap to scan for
openings.
2)
Application to any opportunities was a matter
between you and the post office. A resume and cover letter are prepared—TYPED—and
then carefully folded, stamped and mailed. Postage, gasoline and time expended—multiplied
by the number of trips you made.
3)
Your method of contact back then was generally
via your home telephone. Smart job-seekers usually replaced the silly voicemail
greeting on their home phone (“Hi…we’re out drinking naked in the backyard-please
leave a message!”) to one that conveyed your businesslike approach (“Hello,
this is Tim Moore—please leave a message with your number and I will
immediately return your call!”) Children were restricted from answering the
phone at all hours.
NOW
1)
Virtually job listings are online. The zillions
of websites catering to the unemployed—or those seeking to upgrade their jobs are
rife with features that sort, categorize and present the position, the link to
the company website and information on the opening. They also have bonus
features like resume writing tips, keys to successful interviewing—and will
automatically forward job listings to your smartphone.
2)
Application to these opportunities is just a few
clicks away. Write a cover letter in WORD (most of it copied and pasted from
the last one) and upload your resume and voila! You have entered the applicant
pool!
3)
Your contact back is now your cellphone—either for
a call or for e-mail!
The net result of this advance in technology is nothing
short of the complete liberation of the job seeker.
Where once afraid to leave home for fear of missing a call,
today’s jobseeker can apply to everything known to be out there within minutes---and
then be free to go about their lives, carrying the lifeline that is their
smartphone along with them!
This is huge.
Of course, none of it actually makes that phone RING or your
inbox fill up, but going about your daily activities can surely distract you
from fixating on the desert wasteland that is today’s job market.
If you’ll excuse me, I have an important tee time to make!
Monday, July 9, 2012
I’m Supposed To Be Worried, Right?
When
I left my job of 21 years as the Operations Manager and Program Director at
WHOM and WJBQ, I was the happy recipient of much advice, virtually all of it
well intentioned.
I
love you all! And believe me when I say that I appreciate any and all advice
for landing somewhere else.
My
personal approach is really a combination of Take It Easy and House on Fire. I
am REALLY enjoying the time off, but am also working simultaneously to “plant
the seeds” of future employment.
Beyond
the premise of good intentions, however, the similarities ended. Those of you
who have been unemployed in the past or who are now can attest to the sheer volume
of “tips” offered by family, friends and former co-workers. They usually fall into one of the three following categories:
1)
Death In The Family- These are the
folks who will ONLY offer advice if you bring up the subject. They are uncomfortable
around you, not knowing what to say, as if there has been a death in the
family. I suppose for some people this is an understandable approach, but not for
me. In fact, I have found that kidding about my lack of a job works wonders in
loosening everyone up. It’s OK…it really is!
2)
Take It Easy- These are the people who look at
unemployment as a vacation, advising the unfortunate slob (in this case, me) to
“relax, kick back and enjoy the time off”. Actually applying for work
doesn’t usually enter into the conversation.
3)
House On Fire- Related to Death In The Family, these
well-meaning folks are all about a full frontal assault on the job market in
order to get back into the game ASAP. From giving job leads to contact names to
help with resumes and the like, these people are committed to getting you off
of the beach.
One
thing certainly happens when employment ends---you assess where you are, where
you have been—and maybe where you want to go. With a job, the crazy rush of
work, family and other obligations made weeks seem like hours and months feel
like days. What did that mean? For me,
it meant that many of the important things in life were either not
appreciated---or, in some cases, not attended to at all.
This
is a mistake I vow not to make going forward. While my former job was all-demanding
in terms of being “on call” 24/7/365, I could usually work in family stuff.
This, luckily, meant being able to attend school meetings and activities (even
during the day) and sports practices and games with my children. Many dads and
moms don’t have this luxury---and I am grateful that I did.
However, there were hundreds of times where I was present in body only. There
physically, but with a brain totally preoccupied with work. Not optimal.
After
some time off, it finally hit me:
I’ve
been a damn workaholic all my life.
It
all began on Wednesday, December 1, 1971. That was the day I started my first job, delivering the Washington Post in my hometown of D.C. That job
was seven days a week, 365 days a year, Christmas, holidays, rain or shine—all starting
at about 5am. I worked every single day for nearly five years, until I went off
to college.
In
addition to school and the paper route, I also work other part-time jobs
through high school. In college, I volunteered at the campus radio station at
Ohio State, worked PT at commercial
stations in Columbus and in the cafeteria at OSU. I never went on Spring
Break to Florida, never took vacation days off---all because I always “had work
to do”.
After
college, I was working and living at home when my “big break” came—an offer to
become Program Director at a brand new radio station—WKSQ in Ellsworth, Maine.
That was in 1982. So, with essentially two all-encompassing jobs in the last 30 years, I realize that life has
been one big happy BLUR!
Since
May 18th ( my last day at WHOM and WJBQ), I have been playing
golf, doing household chores ignored for years, getting reacquainted with my
family and enjoying myself like nobody’s business.
And,
yeah, I’ve been applying for work, too.
Knowing
that the job market sucks, that radio jobs with humane and reputable employers are
far rarer and that the employment “process” is long, I am settled in for the long haul. I know that
any reasonable person should be concerned if not worried, but I am not.
Is
it conceit?
Maybe,
but I don’t think so. Knowing full well that my next job is likely to NOT be in
broadcasting, my resume with 30 years of radio may be scaring some employers
off…..that said, I know that I do have a lot to contribute and feel certain
that someone, somewhere will recognize it. Irrational, perhaps ,but as unrealistic as it may be, that’s where my head
is at.
I
also know from being on the OTHER side of hiring that no response for a week or
two can be traumatic to the applicant, but to the hiring manager, it is
literally the blink of an eye.
So….I
have some laundry and dishes to do. I need to walk the dog and clean the
basement and garage. But I will also play golf, revel in my family and take the
time to smell the roses.
And
after years of NOT doing the last couple enough, I feel it’s high time to catch up! It’s
all good—and definitely getting better.
That
said, if you hear of a good job, let me know. I AM a workaholic, remember?
:>)
If you’d like my blog in your e-mail, just let me know: timgrantmoore@gmail.com
:>)
If you’d like my blog in your e-mail, just let me know: timgrantmoore@gmail.com
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Get Government Out of Our Lives
Get Government Out
of Our Lives
The Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the so-called
“Obamacare” laws are being attacked by those on the right who claim that it’s
just another example of the government eroding your freedoms.
This is true.
It seems, however, that this righteous indignation is not
all encompassing. The same folks who deride the incessant intrusion of Uncle
Sam into your business are also the first to cry foul if their own precious
entitlements are threatened. Be it social security or oil subsidies, there are
SOME government handouts that even Republicans can love, no?
Some mandates seem quite reasonable, do they not? For
instance, states that require mandatory car insurance don’t inflame these
conservatives. Why? Is mandatory health insurance not the same?
The simple fact is that ALL of us use health care, but only
the insured are actually paying for it. If you get hit by an uninsured motorist
(and you don’t have comprehensive coverage), you are out of luck in getting
your car repaired at no cost to you. If that same accident injures a person
without health insurance, he or she is not left by the roadside to die. They
are transported to the hospital—where---you guessed it---the costs of caring
for that individual are borne by everyone who IS paying health insurance
premiums.
The healthcare law would have been stronger had there had
been a PUBLIC OPTION. This was scuttled for the sake of compromise, but without
a government option (to keep prices reasonable), the health insurance companies
can truly charge whatever they like.
But I digress.
So, let’s take the side of conservatives—and propose that
government get OUT OF OUR LIVES!!!!! The only rule of this game, though, is
that you cannot pick and choose which government programs you’d like to
survive---to do so would brand you to be the hypocrite (albeit unknowing) that
you are. Here goes:
1)
Social Security---It’s the BIG ONE folks! No
more government checks to keep Grandma from living on the street. She will now
be unable to remain independent—and will be moving in with YOU or will be
homeless. You pick.
2)
Medicare/Medicaid---here’s another big one. Who
ARE these people anyway? Someone will take care of them…right?
3)
FDA—the long and arduous process of getting SAFE
drugs to market is killing jobs. Let’s adopt the Chinese model of letting
anyone market anything. This will surely kill people, but not jobs. And with
fewer people looking for jobs (after dying from unsafe medicines), the
unemployment rate will go down.
4)
EPA—let’s forget for a moment that a Republican
(Nixon) gave us this one. Scrap the pesky requirements that companies refrain
from poisoning our air and water. The costs associated with protecting our
environment are hurting corporate profits. What more reason do we need?
5)
FAA-Forget the airplane inspections and the
excessive air traffic control. The resulting fatalities that accrue from unsafe
planes or congested skies are merely the cost of doing business.
I could go on and on forever, but you get the idea.
Someday, we will all cease to be afraid of labels and
realize that the most efficient AND ethical form of government is neither
capitalism nor socialism. It is the hybrid of both.
Social democracy.
Say it.
Social democracy.
It’s not evil.
It’s essentially what we have now—a partnership between
government and free enterprise. Each needs to keep the other in check.
No one advocates for totalitarian government----we know it
doesn’t work. From corruption to lack of incentive and sheer inefficiency,
communism or socialism has been tried—and the verdict is in. It has failed.
However, just as excessive government is a threat to our
freedom, unbridled capitalism (while arguably “efficient”)—has as its hallmark
feature the reality of: zero compassion. Its Darwinian approach surely rewards
winners, but makes no concessions for the loser—in this case, the most
vulnerable in our society. Capitalism doesn’t care about the poor, the infirm,
those out of work or in need of job training or a helping hand.
Every single government agency has appeared as the direct
result of bad behavior on the part of capitalists. Few fat cats investing their
riches would ever think to do so without the safeguards put in place by the
SEC, a government agency created in the wake of excessive fraud in the
securities and public markets—even these anti-government types know that this
is a service to investors. While not perfect by any means, the government is
merely trying to stay one step ahead of those whose primary objective is
finding loopholes---a nice term for cheating the spirit of the regulation,
whatever it is.
The interstate highway system, built in the 1950’s, may be
the best example of private/public partnerships to build something that no
private entity could or would undertake. The boost to our nation’s economy was
across all sectors—and it took a government project to make it work. Horrors!
Healthcare is another sector where government involvement is
absolutely necessary. The primary reason is because without someone watching
the store, there is no pressure to keep prices down—and the consumer’s choice
is either severely limited by geography or circumstances (sudden, expected
illness or injury). No one following a
catastrophic health episode is in a position to “shop” for the best deal.
A $100 plastic bedpan (whose true “value” may be $1) causes
no worry, because “the insurance company” is picking up the cost. Unlike shopping for, say, a new
car, people don’t generally shop around for a doctor. Thus, the physician has
little incentive to keep fees low. In fact, the insurance company’s nebulous
“ceiling” for appropriate charges for each conceivable service (ever on the
rise) is the sole consideration. A lack
of competition and inability to move from insurance company to insurance
company (due to employer’s choice of provider or pre-existing conditions or
both) means that the carriers have free reign to jack up premiums.
Which of course, they do, with impugnity.
That’s why a public option makes so much sense. Insurance
companies need to make money. It’s not in the country’s best interest to
squeeze them so hard that they exit the system. If that happens, we truly do
have socialized medicine—not optimal.
Here’s what should happen:
1)
A panel of industry experts settles on a “fair”
rate of return for insurance companies. It may be 10%, it may be 20%. A level
of ROI that would satisfy any shareholder. Add a percentage or two above
that—and we have competitive wiggle room. Incentive for staying in the game and
incentive to deliver efficiencies to the marketplace.
2)
The public option is established with costs that
would be above this level. This way, the U.S. Government makes itself
intentionally non-competitive, but serves the role of insuring against price
gouging. Private insurers cannot raise rates above the government levels
without losing their customer base. That’s why building in a fair rate of
return makes it attractive to be competitive.
3)
The public “shops” for coverage, with Uncle Sam
acting merely as a safety net and option of last resort. As the highest cost
provider, their role becomes one of “watchdog” rather than that of “provider”
Maybe someone more learned than I can shoot holes though
this, but I see no reason why it wouldn’t work. Fair prices for services,
incentives for insurers to stay in business and a mandated government threshold
that discourages participation in the federal program.
We cannot “opt out” of healthcare---our society demands it
be provided, no matter what your means. Why, then, do conservatives argue for
freedom of choice to carry or not carry health insurance?
The system described above would represent the social
democracy model at its best: providing a safety net while encouraging
competition and discouraging price gouging.
But maybe it cannot be implemented because it makes too much
sense.
It’s too rational to be embraced by politicians on either
side of the spectrum. That’s because the ends of the spectrum are all that
remains. There is no one left in the middle, where reasonable people can
compromise and “progress” isn’t a dirty word.
If you would like to receive this blog, just let me know—NEW
E-MAIL ADDRESS!!!!!
A New Beginning
Sorry to be so remiss in posting blogs…the last one being
April 19th
A lot has changed in that time, not the least of which is my
personal employment situation. After 21 years at 94.9 WHOM and WJBQ(Q97.9), I
have left what used to be for me a dream job. Over the past half year however,
it became increasingly difficult to sustain a pace that left little time for
family or what could be called “a life”. In short, it was simply time to do
something else.
I appreciate all of the calls and e-mails—incredible support
from friends, family and colleagues. I love you all!
And while I can’t promise to return to almost daily
blogging, I do plan to post from time to time. Now in my seventh week of unemployment,
it’s not because I don’t have the time!
So I will take a stab at posting, with the only differences
being the Blog title (94.9 WHOM is out!) and my new e-mail address:
Maybe I’m too dumb to be worried about the future, but the
last six weeks have been nothing short of a blast for me. Who knew that
unemployment could be so much fun? Nevertheless, I’m ready for the next
adventure, be it in broadcasting or perhaps something completely
different. If you hear of anything
job-wise, please let me know!
Onward!!!
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Dick Clark: Murderer?
The passing yesterday of American TV icon Dick Clark will spawn hundreds, if not thousands of articles and blogs about his life, his impact and his lasting legacy.
I’ll resist.
After all, the life of any person is complex—and while no one can dispute Dick Clark’s contributions to American pop culture, there is always another side. For every person who praised his business acumen, there was someone else who criticized his near control-freak obsession with being personally involved with every single aspect of Dick Clark Productions and every detail of the shows it produced.
To witness his comeback from a debilitating stroke to once again appear of “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve” was viewed as courageous (count me in that group)—but also as further evidence that Mr. Clark simply couldn’t let go (which may also be true)
The video clip I have today is also a bit of trivia about Dick Clark, it would seem.
When we saw him, we watched the quintessential “host”----the Master of Ceremonies. It was Dick Clark who introduced us to hundreds of musical stars. It was Dick Clark who MC’d Awards Shows like his Golden Globes or hosted the $25,000 Pyramid. From game shows to variety shows, Clark’s role was that of facilitator. He was subordinate to the guests and seemed to be OK with that.
But he also acted.
Check out this scene—the final one from the last Perry Mason TV show. As Raymond Burr’s character always did, he exposed the murderer.
And that murderer was none other than Dick Clark--embedding has been disabled, but click on the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=U8Ptx5XiOH8&NR=1
I had the opportunity and good fortune to meet Dick Clark back in 1989 in New Orleans. My lasting impressions were two-fold:
1) He was a lot smaller physically than I imagined and
2) He looked A LOT older—even 23 years ago.
Number one is understandable—as he was—and always has been a giant to me. As for Number two, I guess I was taken into much by the moniker, “America’s oldest Teenager”
Trust me, he didn’t look like a teenager back then. But he was larger than life….
And he will be missed.
RIP, Dick Clark
I’ll resist.
After all, the life of any person is complex—and while no one can dispute Dick Clark’s contributions to American pop culture, there is always another side. For every person who praised his business acumen, there was someone else who criticized his near control-freak obsession with being personally involved with every single aspect of Dick Clark Productions and every detail of the shows it produced.
To witness his comeback from a debilitating stroke to once again appear of “New Year’s Rockin’ Eve” was viewed as courageous (count me in that group)—but also as further evidence that Mr. Clark simply couldn’t let go (which may also be true)
The video clip I have today is also a bit of trivia about Dick Clark, it would seem.
When we saw him, we watched the quintessential “host”----the Master of Ceremonies. It was Dick Clark who introduced us to hundreds of musical stars. It was Dick Clark who MC’d Awards Shows like his Golden Globes or hosted the $25,000 Pyramid. From game shows to variety shows, Clark’s role was that of facilitator. He was subordinate to the guests and seemed to be OK with that.
But he also acted.
Check out this scene—the final one from the last Perry Mason TV show. As Raymond Burr’s character always did, he exposed the murderer.
And that murderer was none other than Dick Clark--embedding has been disabled, but click on the following link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=endscreen&v=U8Ptx5XiOH8&NR=1
I had the opportunity and good fortune to meet Dick Clark back in 1989 in New Orleans. My lasting impressions were two-fold:
1) He was a lot smaller physically than I imagined and
2) He looked A LOT older—even 23 years ago.
Number one is understandable—as he was—and always has been a giant to me. As for Number two, I guess I was taken into much by the moniker, “America’s oldest Teenager”
Trust me, he didn’t look like a teenager back then. But he was larger than life….
And he will be missed.
RIP, Dick Clark
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Trayvon Martin: Too Late For Justice
The Trayvon Martin tragedy is a stark reminder that every episode with the potential to grab headlines can be separated into two distinct categories:
1) The Act
2) The Handling of The Situation
At this point, no one is sure of exactly what happened to cause the death of Trayvon Martin. So, the “act” itself is a mystery—and the isolated outcome (in this case, the death of a young man) is irreversible.
What’s abundantly clear is that #2—the Handling of the Situation---has been completely and totally botched by law enforcement. Truly defying belief is that despite the uproar caused by the “non-arrest” of George Zimmerman, there has still been no move to take him into custody-if for nothing else than his own protection.
Fan the flames.
It may be cynical to view such tragedies through the lens of public relations, but the proper handling of this particular powder keg could avert further violence. This elevates mere “public relations” then—to an essential ingredient to keeping the peace. As long as Mr. Zimmerman remains a free man, there is real danger for him, his family and anyone connected to this incident.
The “twin towers” of ambulance chasers for racially charged situations: the Reverends’ Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton—would not be posing for the TV cameras if Mr. Zimmerman had been taken into custody. In fact, most of America wouldn’t even be aware of this tragedy at all.
The latest police video showing Zimmerman arriving at police headquarters—without any apparent injuries—seems to contradict his version of events-namely, that he was bloodied from having his head slammed against the sidewalk in a life or death struggle with Martin.
Conclusive it is not, but the seeming absence of physical injury underscores that fact that something strange indeed has occurred.
Were the alleged perpetrator a celebrity, there might be some justifiable criticism for the police’s failure to arrest him. But, a neighborhood watch guy with no political clout?
For God’s sake, take him in.
Public opinion for both the victim and his killer has swung wildly in every direction. Martin was originally portrayed as a saint—literally martyred on the way home from the store. Zimmerman was cast as a racist with a vendetta.
Another news cycle—and another viewpoint.
Suspended from school, the chinks in Martin’s armor began to show up—and friends of Zimmerman stepped forward with an alternate version of events. Charges of character assassination have been lobbed from both sides.
That the police chief originally involved decided to step down makes little difference if the situation continues to be handled in the same way.
So, how should it have been addressed? My sequence for a better—and safer outcome is as follows:
1) The Act (unfortunately, no change in outcome here)
2) Police arrest Zimmerman pending an investigation
3) Police Chief meets with the media---expresses sadness at the incident and promises the community that a complete and thorough investigation will follow
4) Zimmerman is held in protective custody and protection is extended to his family in the area. Such custody is not termed “protective” to the public
5) If attempts at bail are made, a decision would be made whether or not to charge Zimmerman with—at the least—ignoring instructions NOT to have followed Martin-delivered by the police dispatcher and captured on tape.
A police officer involved in a justifiable shooting is suspended and his weapon is surrendered until a complete investigation is conducted. This is standard procedure, so while officers may not like its parameters, at least they know it is uniformly applied in all situations. The same metric needs to be applied to ANYONE involved in a death, especially when a firearm is used.
Failure to follow the instructions of the police dispatcher to stand down is reason alone to charge this individual with SOMETHING. Unless a strict set of guidelines for neighborhood watchers to adhere to is set forth, a vigilante atmosphere is guaranteed.
What is needed now---late as it may be—is some common sense. Fewer Sharptons and Jacksons. In fact, if the TV cameras would go away, so too would those whose agendas might not be in reality what they are proposed to be.
There is no bringing back Trayvon Martin. The life of George Zimmerman has also been irretrievably altered. He may spend a good chunk of it behind bars. Maybe he deserves it and maybe he doesn’t.
Let’s arrest him and allow the process to begin.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
1) The Act
2) The Handling of The Situation
At this point, no one is sure of exactly what happened to cause the death of Trayvon Martin. So, the “act” itself is a mystery—and the isolated outcome (in this case, the death of a young man) is irreversible.
What’s abundantly clear is that #2—the Handling of the Situation---has been completely and totally botched by law enforcement. Truly defying belief is that despite the uproar caused by the “non-arrest” of George Zimmerman, there has still been no move to take him into custody-if for nothing else than his own protection.
Fan the flames.
It may be cynical to view such tragedies through the lens of public relations, but the proper handling of this particular powder keg could avert further violence. This elevates mere “public relations” then—to an essential ingredient to keeping the peace. As long as Mr. Zimmerman remains a free man, there is real danger for him, his family and anyone connected to this incident.
The “twin towers” of ambulance chasers for racially charged situations: the Reverends’ Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton—would not be posing for the TV cameras if Mr. Zimmerman had been taken into custody. In fact, most of America wouldn’t even be aware of this tragedy at all.
The latest police video showing Zimmerman arriving at police headquarters—without any apparent injuries—seems to contradict his version of events-namely, that he was bloodied from having his head slammed against the sidewalk in a life or death struggle with Martin.
Conclusive it is not, but the seeming absence of physical injury underscores that fact that something strange indeed has occurred.
Were the alleged perpetrator a celebrity, there might be some justifiable criticism for the police’s failure to arrest him. But, a neighborhood watch guy with no political clout?
For God’s sake, take him in.
Public opinion for both the victim and his killer has swung wildly in every direction. Martin was originally portrayed as a saint—literally martyred on the way home from the store. Zimmerman was cast as a racist with a vendetta.
Another news cycle—and another viewpoint.
Suspended from school, the chinks in Martin’s armor began to show up—and friends of Zimmerman stepped forward with an alternate version of events. Charges of character assassination have been lobbed from both sides.
That the police chief originally involved decided to step down makes little difference if the situation continues to be handled in the same way.
So, how should it have been addressed? My sequence for a better—and safer outcome is as follows:
1) The Act (unfortunately, no change in outcome here)
2) Police arrest Zimmerman pending an investigation
3) Police Chief meets with the media---expresses sadness at the incident and promises the community that a complete and thorough investigation will follow
4) Zimmerman is held in protective custody and protection is extended to his family in the area. Such custody is not termed “protective” to the public
5) If attempts at bail are made, a decision would be made whether or not to charge Zimmerman with—at the least—ignoring instructions NOT to have followed Martin-delivered by the police dispatcher and captured on tape.
A police officer involved in a justifiable shooting is suspended and his weapon is surrendered until a complete investigation is conducted. This is standard procedure, so while officers may not like its parameters, at least they know it is uniformly applied in all situations. The same metric needs to be applied to ANYONE involved in a death, especially when a firearm is used.
Failure to follow the instructions of the police dispatcher to stand down is reason alone to charge this individual with SOMETHING. Unless a strict set of guidelines for neighborhood watchers to adhere to is set forth, a vigilante atmosphere is guaranteed.
What is needed now---late as it may be—is some common sense. Fewer Sharptons and Jacksons. In fact, if the TV cameras would go away, so too would those whose agendas might not be in reality what they are proposed to be.
There is no bringing back Trayvon Martin. The life of George Zimmerman has also been irretrievably altered. He may spend a good chunk of it behind bars. Maybe he deserves it and maybe he doesn’t.
Let’s arrest him and allow the process to begin.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Monday, March 26, 2012
Computer Magic In The Movies
Seems like the most popular movies these days fall into the “fantasy” category. The opening of “The Hunger Games” this past weekend is an example. $155 Million dollars for the first weekend of release is not chicken feed! Based on the book of the same name, it falls into the “fantasy” category. “Captain America” is another and so of course are all of the “Harry Potter” movies.
Reality takes a backseat to the flights of imagination that only today’s technology can deliver to the big screen. What’s interesting is that even the most mundane of scenes may be generated by a computer—and you will never know it!
Check out this fascinating video of both ordinary and extraordinary scenes that are virtually created (pardon the pun) on the computer. This is amazing stuff:
http://player.vimeo.com/video/34678075?title=0&
Thanks to good friend Rick Cooper for passing this along. All this time, I though the big epics were creating huge scenes—real sets and real crowds, like they used for movies like “Ben Hur” and “Gone With The Wind”.
Nope.
A nerd with a high-powered computer, graphics card and software can apparently “program” whatever images are needed. This, of course, begs the question:
How in the world do they decide on who wins the Oscar for special effects? It seems like the whole movie is one big running special effect. I am amazed by it all, but confess that a tiny bit of magic has been lost because now, I know.
Will I therefore spend less time getting absorbed in the story and instead try to pick apart what I see, separating the real from the unreal? Most remarkable is the technology distance we have travelled ina relatively short period of time.
Imagine plucking your average early 1930’s movie-goer from their plush seat at the Bijou watching Fred Astaire—and placing them into one of today’s stadium theatres with 3-D, surround sound and ANY one of a thousand films that defy belief. For one thing, you would NOT be looking at the screen. You’d be staring at your time-traveler, soaking in every second of their profound and ongoing amazement.
Now, try to imagine what “movies” will be like in another 50-75 years. My guess is that we will all be IN the movie---not “watching” it per se, but completely immersed-where our vantage point will allow for 360 degree action all around us. It will make 3-D look completely primitive.
I can’t wait!
If you’d like my blog in your e-mail, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Reality takes a backseat to the flights of imagination that only today’s technology can deliver to the big screen. What’s interesting is that even the most mundane of scenes may be generated by a computer—and you will never know it!
Check out this fascinating video of both ordinary and extraordinary scenes that are virtually created (pardon the pun) on the computer. This is amazing stuff:
Boardwalk Empire VFX Breakdowns of Season 2 from Brainstorm Digital on Vimeo.
http://player.vimeo.com/video/34678075?title=0&
Thanks to good friend Rick Cooper for passing this along. All this time, I though the big epics were creating huge scenes—real sets and real crowds, like they used for movies like “Ben Hur” and “Gone With The Wind”.
Nope.
A nerd with a high-powered computer, graphics card and software can apparently “program” whatever images are needed. This, of course, begs the question:
How in the world do they decide on who wins the Oscar for special effects? It seems like the whole movie is one big running special effect. I am amazed by it all, but confess that a tiny bit of magic has been lost because now, I know.
Will I therefore spend less time getting absorbed in the story and instead try to pick apart what I see, separating the real from the unreal? Most remarkable is the technology distance we have travelled ina relatively short period of time.
Imagine plucking your average early 1930’s movie-goer from their plush seat at the Bijou watching Fred Astaire—and placing them into one of today’s stadium theatres with 3-D, surround sound and ANY one of a thousand films that defy belief. For one thing, you would NOT be looking at the screen. You’d be staring at your time-traveler, soaking in every second of their profound and ongoing amazement.
Now, try to imagine what “movies” will be like in another 50-75 years. My guess is that we will all be IN the movie---not “watching” it per se, but completely immersed-where our vantage point will allow for 360 degree action all around us. It will make 3-D look completely primitive.
I can’t wait!
If you’d like my blog in your e-mail, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Wednesday, March 14, 2012
Gingrich = Selfish
I’m no fan of Newt Gingrich to begin with, but his antics in the wake of his drubbing last night in the southern primaries defy belief.
From the start, his Newtness asserted that he alone was the true conservative candidate, that he alone was able to stand up to President Obama in a general election—and that he alone was qualified to become our next President.
Please.
His boastful predictions of a “southern sweep” after his victory in Georgia (his home state) were not apparently shared by voters in Alabama and Mississippi. Rick Santorum, heavily outspent and out-organized by the Romney campaign nonetheless won both contests and is clearly the only one nipping at Mitt’s heels.
After seeing Newt on the campaign trail, his oversize ego and self-righteous attacks on both the President and his Republican rivals have revealed him to be not the patriot he claims. Instead, he is a selfish, self-centered egomaniac whose continued presence in the race confirms this truth.
It never was about America. To Newt, it is, was—and always has been--- all about Newt.
Were Gingrich to gracefully exit and endorse Santorum, it would finally be a horse race between two viable candidates. The delegate gap would narrow considerably. Moreover, voters who, while conservative have voted for Romney out of a sense of “let’s get it over with” inevitability would now have a choice they could confidently believe MIGHT actually turn out to be the nominee.
The math doesn’t favor Santorum, but it is virtually impossible for Newt. If he can’t win the South, he has no hope whatsoever—and he knows it. His rich Vegas financier---clearly endowed with more money than brains---can continue to pour money down the black hole that is Newt, but the House won’t win this bet.
From his entire senior staff quitting on him early in the race to the complete lack of organization of his “campaign” makes it clear that a vote for Newt is like one for Ron Paul—a “statement”, but one with no impact.
Here’s a man who attacks the President for dropping the ball on everything from Iran to the economy—and yet he couldn’t even muster the organization to get his own name on the ballot in his “other” home state of Virginia. If a campaign is truly a microcosm of an Administration, there’s already ample evidence that a Gingrich presidency would be a disaster.
Here’s an example. The rising price of gasoline has given ol’ Newt a political football to toss to the ignorant masses that believe he is smarter than everyone else in the room (which, of course Newt himself agrees with completely). He promises gasoline at $2.50 a gallon, with drilling as the cornerstone. Unfortunately, those in the know say that Mr. Gingrich is full of it.
Experts maintain that the price of gasoline is largely driven by oil speculators—and that these Wall Street traders are largely to blame. Speculation used to be a mechanism utilized by end users to mitigate volatility in the price of commodities. The ratio was about 80-20, with the larger percentage being end users. United Airlines, for instance, might be a speculator for jet fuel to hedge their bets against rising prices. The other twenty percent would be traders.
That percentage has flipped, with about 80 percent of speculators now the traders who make money off this volatility. It’s a profit center.
Of course, the Dodd-Frank legislation that would attempt to regulate this rampant profit-taking on as vital resource as oil is also the same legislation that Gingrich vows to repeal on Day One should he become President.
Alrighty then.
All of the Republicans are accusing the President of “not doing enough”, but tend to go mute when asked exactly what THEY would do. Because the price of oil is, after all, an example of the FREE MARKET AT WORK— anything a President could or would do would represent more “government intrusion” into our lives. No Republican wants to climb into that box.
The industry analysts assert that supply is quite high and demand is relatively low. In fact this year, we have exported more oil than we imported (for the first time in how many years?) So…….DRILLING is not the answer.
Deregulation is not the answer. It is, actually, part of the problem.
But don’t tell that to Newt, because he relies almost totally on what is euphemistically referred to as the “low information voter”.
As former Congressman Alan Grayson remarked: “Newt Gingrich is a stupid person’s idea of a smart person”
If Newt were really smart—and if he REALLY cared about this country, he would get out. To him, the only thing worse than seeing Santorum win the nomination is seeing Romney grab it. Gingrich could go a long way toward insuring that Romney is denied by making his exit.
Maybe he can make a secret deal with Santorum for V.P.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
From the start, his Newtness asserted that he alone was the true conservative candidate, that he alone was able to stand up to President Obama in a general election—and that he alone was qualified to become our next President.
Please.
His boastful predictions of a “southern sweep” after his victory in Georgia (his home state) were not apparently shared by voters in Alabama and Mississippi. Rick Santorum, heavily outspent and out-organized by the Romney campaign nonetheless won both contests and is clearly the only one nipping at Mitt’s heels.
After seeing Newt on the campaign trail, his oversize ego and self-righteous attacks on both the President and his Republican rivals have revealed him to be not the patriot he claims. Instead, he is a selfish, self-centered egomaniac whose continued presence in the race confirms this truth.
It never was about America. To Newt, it is, was—and always has been--- all about Newt.
Were Gingrich to gracefully exit and endorse Santorum, it would finally be a horse race between two viable candidates. The delegate gap would narrow considerably. Moreover, voters who, while conservative have voted for Romney out of a sense of “let’s get it over with” inevitability would now have a choice they could confidently believe MIGHT actually turn out to be the nominee.
The math doesn’t favor Santorum, but it is virtually impossible for Newt. If he can’t win the South, he has no hope whatsoever—and he knows it. His rich Vegas financier---clearly endowed with more money than brains---can continue to pour money down the black hole that is Newt, but the House won’t win this bet.
From his entire senior staff quitting on him early in the race to the complete lack of organization of his “campaign” makes it clear that a vote for Newt is like one for Ron Paul—a “statement”, but one with no impact.
Here’s a man who attacks the President for dropping the ball on everything from Iran to the economy—and yet he couldn’t even muster the organization to get his own name on the ballot in his “other” home state of Virginia. If a campaign is truly a microcosm of an Administration, there’s already ample evidence that a Gingrich presidency would be a disaster.
Here’s an example. The rising price of gasoline has given ol’ Newt a political football to toss to the ignorant masses that believe he is smarter than everyone else in the room (which, of course Newt himself agrees with completely). He promises gasoline at $2.50 a gallon, with drilling as the cornerstone. Unfortunately, those in the know say that Mr. Gingrich is full of it.
Experts maintain that the price of gasoline is largely driven by oil speculators—and that these Wall Street traders are largely to blame. Speculation used to be a mechanism utilized by end users to mitigate volatility in the price of commodities. The ratio was about 80-20, with the larger percentage being end users. United Airlines, for instance, might be a speculator for jet fuel to hedge their bets against rising prices. The other twenty percent would be traders.
That percentage has flipped, with about 80 percent of speculators now the traders who make money off this volatility. It’s a profit center.
Of course, the Dodd-Frank legislation that would attempt to regulate this rampant profit-taking on as vital resource as oil is also the same legislation that Gingrich vows to repeal on Day One should he become President.
Alrighty then.
All of the Republicans are accusing the President of “not doing enough”, but tend to go mute when asked exactly what THEY would do. Because the price of oil is, after all, an example of the FREE MARKET AT WORK— anything a President could or would do would represent more “government intrusion” into our lives. No Republican wants to climb into that box.
The industry analysts assert that supply is quite high and demand is relatively low. In fact this year, we have exported more oil than we imported (for the first time in how many years?) So…….DRILLING is not the answer.
Deregulation is not the answer. It is, actually, part of the problem.
But don’t tell that to Newt, because he relies almost totally on what is euphemistically referred to as the “low information voter”.
As former Congressman Alan Grayson remarked: “Newt Gingrich is a stupid person’s idea of a smart person”
If Newt were really smart—and if he REALLY cared about this country, he would get out. To him, the only thing worse than seeing Santorum win the nomination is seeing Romney grab it. Gingrich could go a long way toward insuring that Romney is denied by making his exit.
Maybe he can make a secret deal with Santorum for V.P.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Monday, March 5, 2012
David Copperfield Flying? Really?
One of the greatest illusions out there is that of magician David Copperfield flying. It’s not new, but time has done little to diminish its effect. There you sit, astounded that he’s floating in thin air with seemingly NOTHING there to hold him up.
Of course, that’s not the case—and if you’re one of those people who wants to see the trick WITHOUT knowing how he does it, then you should watch only the first video. It is amazing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QroJfP31hM&feature=related
If you watch carefully, you can actually see the trace of a wire about a minute and fifty four seconds in, but illusions like the rings, the box and flying an audience member around are all explained in the video below. Again, don’t watch this if you’d prefer to retain the aura of “magic”. In other words, it won’t be my fault if you choose to look behind the curtain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD2i4Mn6nio
OK, so THAT’S how he does it!
Frankly, it is still quite amazing—and the grace and apparent ease of his gliding around the stage makes this illusion still one of the best!
Thanks to Rick Cooper for sharing the original video—and sorry if my posting the second one burst your bubble!
If you’d got a video to share or a topic you’d like to see covered, don’t hesitate to let me know!
Also, if you’d like my blog arriving in your e-mail, just drop me a line: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Of course, that’s not the case—and if you’re one of those people who wants to see the trick WITHOUT knowing how he does it, then you should watch only the first video. It is amazing:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1QroJfP31hM&feature=related
If you watch carefully, you can actually see the trace of a wire about a minute and fifty four seconds in, but illusions like the rings, the box and flying an audience member around are all explained in the video below. Again, don’t watch this if you’d prefer to retain the aura of “magic”. In other words, it won’t be my fault if you choose to look behind the curtain:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WD2i4Mn6nio
OK, so THAT’S how he does it!
Frankly, it is still quite amazing—and the grace and apparent ease of his gliding around the stage makes this illusion still one of the best!
Thanks to Rick Cooper for sharing the original video—and sorry if my posting the second one burst your bubble!
If you’d got a video to share or a topic you’d like to see covered, don’t hesitate to let me know!
Also, if you’d like my blog arriving in your e-mail, just drop me a line: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
Davy Jones: Monkee Heartthrob Dies
As tributes to Davy Jones pile up today following his sudden death from an apparent heart attack, we can be certain that none of them will tout his “musical contribution” or his rank in the stratosphere of “artists”.
That said, he WAS very talented—and was a nice guy to boot.
I had the opportunity to interview Davy Jones back in the 80’s—it was a phone interview in advance of a concert tour as the Monkees reunion was underway. Having grown up with The Monkees on TV, I must admit that I was more than a bit nervous.
I needn’t have been. Davy was a true gentleman and put me at ease immediately. Maybe he sensed that I was a young DJ, no doubt asking stupid questions he’d answered a thousand times before. The interview went great, Davy was terrific and I looked like a hero.
While everyone knows that the musical group The Monkees was put together expressly for the TV show of the same name, it should be noted for fairness sake that the producers did seek out some measure of talent.
Davy Jones got noticed following his stint as the Artful Dodger in the 1960’s production of “Oliver!” , for which he was nominated for a Tony Award. Here is Davy—back in 1964, doing a song from that show--you'll have to click on the link as embedding has been disabled:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-fLLuQgIss
Young, talented, good looking and British (a definite asset considering the Monkees were modeled after The Beatles), Davy Jones immediately became the heartthrob of the group, with Peter Tork, Mickey Dolenz and Mike Nesmith filling out the foursome. The Monkees would parlay a TV show into actual chart success, with a number of Top 40 hits, including “Daydream Believer”, “Last Train To Clarksville” and “Pleasant Valley Sunday”.
Of course, the song we remember most is the opening theme to the TV show itself-“Hey, Hey, We’re the Monkees!” Check it out once again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxPppXaPonY
They were too busy singing to put anybody down. Say what you want about The Monkees---they were a huge part of pop culture and entertained millions.
Davy Jones, dead at the age of 66---Rest in Peace!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
That said, he WAS very talented—and was a nice guy to boot.
I had the opportunity to interview Davy Jones back in the 80’s—it was a phone interview in advance of a concert tour as the Monkees reunion was underway. Having grown up with The Monkees on TV, I must admit that I was more than a bit nervous.
I needn’t have been. Davy was a true gentleman and put me at ease immediately. Maybe he sensed that I was a young DJ, no doubt asking stupid questions he’d answered a thousand times before. The interview went great, Davy was terrific and I looked like a hero.
While everyone knows that the musical group The Monkees was put together expressly for the TV show of the same name, it should be noted for fairness sake that the producers did seek out some measure of talent.
Davy Jones got noticed following his stint as the Artful Dodger in the 1960’s production of “Oliver!” , for which he was nominated for a Tony Award. Here is Davy—back in 1964, doing a song from that show--you'll have to click on the link as embedding has been disabled:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-fLLuQgIss
Young, talented, good looking and British (a definite asset considering the Monkees were modeled after The Beatles), Davy Jones immediately became the heartthrob of the group, with Peter Tork, Mickey Dolenz and Mike Nesmith filling out the foursome. The Monkees would parlay a TV show into actual chart success, with a number of Top 40 hits, including “Daydream Believer”, “Last Train To Clarksville” and “Pleasant Valley Sunday”.
Of course, the song we remember most is the opening theme to the TV show itself-“Hey, Hey, We’re the Monkees!” Check it out once again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxPppXaPonY
They were too busy singing to put anybody down. Say what you want about The Monkees---they were a huge part of pop culture and entertained millions.
Davy Jones, dead at the age of 66---Rest in Peace!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Monday, February 27, 2012
Print A Kidney
It doesn’t take much to make me feel like an imbecile.
In fact, the video below will do quite nicely, thank you.
I simply cannot believe some of the advances we are making in technology and research. It seems as though we, as a culture or society are dividing into three distinct groups:
1) The Ignorant Masses- this could unfortunately be the fastest-growing segment of our population, thanks to an educational system that, despite what politicians desire-is the direct opposite of “No Child Left Behind”. They ARE being left behind—in droves. Free to consume sugared beverages and plant themselves in front of a screen, they are well-versed on what the Kardashians are up to, but may have trouble tying their shoes. Obese, lazy and narrow of mind, their desires stray towards “fame”and “wealth” –using as their role models the characters they see on TV.
2) The Intelligent Middle—I would like to count myself into this group—am I? Who knows? These are the folks with reasonable education, intelligence and motivation. Movers and shakers, we may comprise the bulk of the population actually running businesses, government and education. Without proper supervision, however, we risk falling into Group 1 if not careful about how we spend our free time. The longer we are out of school and the more we expose ourselves to banal TV reality shows, video games and celebrity magazines, the more likely we are to lose our edge and descend into the “ignorant abyss”.
3) The Super Brains—These people are the “nerds” who have locked themselves into laboratories and universities. Perhaps socially backward, these individuals (a VERY small slice of the humanity pie) are nevertheless the BRILLIANT minds who toil in obscurity creating advances that blow our minds.
Such is the case with the following ---an advance in medicine that is just a few years away from full fruition—and clearly being used already with some success.
You may remember a previous blog I wrote about so-called “3-D Copiers”—machines that could take an object like a hammer and re-create it using a resin-type compound—down to the smallest detail.
Well, check this out---the SAME idea—applied to biomedical research and the goal of literally creating human organs using advanced materials grown from our own cells and then manipulated within a machine. A kidney that is…printed out—and then implanted in the patient. Crazy!
Watch this video is amazement:
http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_printing_a_human_kidney.html
The smallest detail of this process and or machine is profoundly advanced, intricate and sophisticated.
These are the miracles of tomorrow that will seem commonplace someday. Could it be that someone who loses a leg could regenerate a new one like a crustacean does? Not only does it seem likely, it seems almost inevitable.
The brains are taking over—and, although it may be too late for me to join their ranks, as a parent I am convinced that my kids are well on their way to Group #3.
Then they can take care of me in my old age—maybe even grow me a new brain.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
In fact, the video below will do quite nicely, thank you.
I simply cannot believe some of the advances we are making in technology and research. It seems as though we, as a culture or society are dividing into three distinct groups:
1) The Ignorant Masses- this could unfortunately be the fastest-growing segment of our population, thanks to an educational system that, despite what politicians desire-is the direct opposite of “No Child Left Behind”. They ARE being left behind—in droves. Free to consume sugared beverages and plant themselves in front of a screen, they are well-versed on what the Kardashians are up to, but may have trouble tying their shoes. Obese, lazy and narrow of mind, their desires stray towards “fame”and “wealth” –using as their role models the characters they see on TV.
2) The Intelligent Middle—I would like to count myself into this group—am I? Who knows? These are the folks with reasonable education, intelligence and motivation. Movers and shakers, we may comprise the bulk of the population actually running businesses, government and education. Without proper supervision, however, we risk falling into Group 1 if not careful about how we spend our free time. The longer we are out of school and the more we expose ourselves to banal TV reality shows, video games and celebrity magazines, the more likely we are to lose our edge and descend into the “ignorant abyss”.
3) The Super Brains—These people are the “nerds” who have locked themselves into laboratories and universities. Perhaps socially backward, these individuals (a VERY small slice of the humanity pie) are nevertheless the BRILLIANT minds who toil in obscurity creating advances that blow our minds.
Such is the case with the following ---an advance in medicine that is just a few years away from full fruition—and clearly being used already with some success.
You may remember a previous blog I wrote about so-called “3-D Copiers”—machines that could take an object like a hammer and re-create it using a resin-type compound—down to the smallest detail.
Well, check this out---the SAME idea—applied to biomedical research and the goal of literally creating human organs using advanced materials grown from our own cells and then manipulated within a machine. A kidney that is…printed out—and then implanted in the patient. Crazy!
Watch this video is amazement:
http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_printing_a_human_kidney.html
The smallest detail of this process and or machine is profoundly advanced, intricate and sophisticated.
These are the miracles of tomorrow that will seem commonplace someday. Could it be that someone who loses a leg could regenerate a new one like a crustacean does? Not only does it seem likely, it seems almost inevitable.
The brains are taking over—and, although it may be too late for me to join their ranks, as a parent I am convinced that my kids are well on their way to Group #3.
Then they can take care of me in my old age—maybe even grow me a new brain.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Friday, February 24, 2012
These Boots Were Made For Walking
It’s fun to look up which songs were #1 on the charts on particular days of the year.
Today, February 24th for instance, Nancy Sinatra’s song “These Boots Were made For Walking” was sitting at the top on this date in 1966.
While it will never go down as the greatest pop song ever written, there are few people who don’t remember the tune. Its quirky lyrics and imagery of getting’ stepped on has stuck with us for nearly a half century! We haven’t grown out of these boots!
Coming of age in the shadow of a famous father is tough enough, but making the decision to adopt the same line of work is even harder. Not once did the young Nancy even harbor fantasies of being a bigger star than her Dad, I’ll bet.
Still, it was the 60’s—and Frank Sinatra’s true heyday had passed. His time as a teen idol was long gone—and although he would continue with a string of hits—including a #1 smash with Nancy (“Something Stupid”), the world of rock and roll was squeezing out the standards that ‘ol Blue Eyes specialized in.
No, it was the world of mini-skirts and go-go boots. That, and the infancy of using video to present hit songs to the masses.
Check out Nancy—steppin’ out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww
The fashions have certainly changed—and the hairstyles too! But for some weird reason, I get the odd feeling that if that darn song were released today for the first time, it would STILL be a hit!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Today, February 24th for instance, Nancy Sinatra’s song “These Boots Were made For Walking” was sitting at the top on this date in 1966.
While it will never go down as the greatest pop song ever written, there are few people who don’t remember the tune. Its quirky lyrics and imagery of getting’ stepped on has stuck with us for nearly a half century! We haven’t grown out of these boots!
Coming of age in the shadow of a famous father is tough enough, but making the decision to adopt the same line of work is even harder. Not once did the young Nancy even harbor fantasies of being a bigger star than her Dad, I’ll bet.
Still, it was the 60’s—and Frank Sinatra’s true heyday had passed. His time as a teen idol was long gone—and although he would continue with a string of hits—including a #1 smash with Nancy (“Something Stupid”), the world of rock and roll was squeezing out the standards that ‘ol Blue Eyes specialized in.
No, it was the world of mini-skirts and go-go boots. That, and the infancy of using video to present hit songs to the masses.
Check out Nancy—steppin’ out:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbyAZQ45uww
The fashions have certainly changed—and the hairstyles too! But for some weird reason, I get the odd feeling that if that darn song were released today for the first time, it would STILL be a hit!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
Public Office for Auction
The Supreme Court’s decision which equated money with free speech is playing out exactly as expected:
Money talks.
It is, in fact, screaming.
Big money will have an unprecedented effect on the 2012 election. The ability of so-called “Super Pacs” (Political Action Committees) to exert their will has already been demonstrated. These shady groups have seemingly unlimited resources and only a thinly veiled connection to their candidate.
As the Republican primaries progress, there are a couple of facts worth noting:
1) Newt Gingrich would have dropped out long ago if not for the millions provided by billionaire casino owner and arch-Zionist Sheldon Adelson.
2) Rick Santorum would be considering his future job prospects from a Pennsylvania armchair were it not for billionaire Foster Freiss.
Suppose either one of these guys wins the nomination and then the White House. Who do you think would be calling the shots?
As for Mitt Romney, he can write checks for his own campaign, but his Super Pac has so far spent millions for mostly negative advertising. Newt was the initial target. Now, it’s Santorum’s turn.
President Obama has railed against the High Court’s decision—and in fact did so with the nine Justices front and center during last year’s State of the Union speech. Nevertheless, Mr. Obama will be taking advantage of the fat cash too.
His logic is that despite personal opposition, to refuse the money pipeline drenching the other side would be tantamount to conceding defeat.
Imagine that.
An incumbent (who presumably will run showcasing ideas and his accomplishments) is feeling uncompetitive against a barrage of negative advertising from mostly inept Republicans. He may be right.
Politics is already a high stakes game fed by gobs of cash, but now it’s the candidates themselves who increasingly need to be personally wealthy. Without his money, Donald Trump is merely a clown show with bad hair. However, his wealth buys him undeserved consideration and attention, to the point where he was actually the Republican FRONTRUNNER for a time.
Of course, with the likes of Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, etc, etc.—standing out in THAT crowd may not be so tough. Once out the race, Trump’s endorsement was courted by those remaining, even if they felt afterwards like they needed to take a shower.
The most insidious aspect of this unrestricted spigot of cash is the likelihood it will be manipulated by our enemies. Foreign contributions are not off limits. What’s to keep the Chinese from forming a Super Pac and drowning the U.S. airwaves with ads promoting a candidate of their choosing?
Nothing.
Everyone hates negative advertising, but the haters know it works. Ask Newt Gingrich about being unable to respond to an onslaught of negative TV—he experienced it firsthand before landing his own personal Sugar Daddy.
So, what’s the answer?
For MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan and others, it is a problem that requires a constitutional amendment that would take cash out of the elective process—and presumably rely on public funding for getting the candidate’s message out.
Purchasing access to politicians and influence in their legislation has been around since the dawn of time. However, with mass media, big corporations and the potential costs of restrictive legislation, the millions spent on :30 ads dwarfs the costs of NOT insuring government compliance.
Throw a couple of bombs. Bring out past lovers and mistresses and let’s have at it! The record any politician compiles is never sufficient to pass muster with voters who increasingly need to feel a personal “connection” to their candidate.
Misstatements, past conflicting opinions and bad behavior all combine to provide the fodder for slick TV ads that can reduce a complex person into an evil, bumbling criminal who should never get the keys to the White House.
It’s been said that we get the government we deserve.
If that’s true, we’re in deep doo-doo.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Money talks.
It is, in fact, screaming.
Big money will have an unprecedented effect on the 2012 election. The ability of so-called “Super Pacs” (Political Action Committees) to exert their will has already been demonstrated. These shady groups have seemingly unlimited resources and only a thinly veiled connection to their candidate.
As the Republican primaries progress, there are a couple of facts worth noting:
1) Newt Gingrich would have dropped out long ago if not for the millions provided by billionaire casino owner and arch-Zionist Sheldon Adelson.
2) Rick Santorum would be considering his future job prospects from a Pennsylvania armchair were it not for billionaire Foster Freiss.
Suppose either one of these guys wins the nomination and then the White House. Who do you think would be calling the shots?
As for Mitt Romney, he can write checks for his own campaign, but his Super Pac has so far spent millions for mostly negative advertising. Newt was the initial target. Now, it’s Santorum’s turn.
President Obama has railed against the High Court’s decision—and in fact did so with the nine Justices front and center during last year’s State of the Union speech. Nevertheless, Mr. Obama will be taking advantage of the fat cash too.
His logic is that despite personal opposition, to refuse the money pipeline drenching the other side would be tantamount to conceding defeat.
Imagine that.
An incumbent (who presumably will run showcasing ideas and his accomplishments) is feeling uncompetitive against a barrage of negative advertising from mostly inept Republicans. He may be right.
Politics is already a high stakes game fed by gobs of cash, but now it’s the candidates themselves who increasingly need to be personally wealthy. Without his money, Donald Trump is merely a clown show with bad hair. However, his wealth buys him undeserved consideration and attention, to the point where he was actually the Republican FRONTRUNNER for a time.
Of course, with the likes of Sarah Palin, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Ron Paul, etc, etc.—standing out in THAT crowd may not be so tough. Once out the race, Trump’s endorsement was courted by those remaining, even if they felt afterwards like they needed to take a shower.
The most insidious aspect of this unrestricted spigot of cash is the likelihood it will be manipulated by our enemies. Foreign contributions are not off limits. What’s to keep the Chinese from forming a Super Pac and drowning the U.S. airwaves with ads promoting a candidate of their choosing?
Nothing.
Everyone hates negative advertising, but the haters know it works. Ask Newt Gingrich about being unable to respond to an onslaught of negative TV—he experienced it firsthand before landing his own personal Sugar Daddy.
So, what’s the answer?
For MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan and others, it is a problem that requires a constitutional amendment that would take cash out of the elective process—and presumably rely on public funding for getting the candidate’s message out.
Purchasing access to politicians and influence in their legislation has been around since the dawn of time. However, with mass media, big corporations and the potential costs of restrictive legislation, the millions spent on :30 ads dwarfs the costs of NOT insuring government compliance.
Throw a couple of bombs. Bring out past lovers and mistresses and let’s have at it! The record any politician compiles is never sufficient to pass muster with voters who increasingly need to feel a personal “connection” to their candidate.
Misstatements, past conflicting opinions and bad behavior all combine to provide the fodder for slick TV ads that can reduce a complex person into an evil, bumbling criminal who should never get the keys to the White House.
It’s been said that we get the government we deserve.
If that’s true, we’re in deep doo-doo.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Monday, February 13, 2012
Whitney Houston: Talent Personified
Another superstar icon has departed us, and despite the world’s collective shock, we all saw this one coming.
Whitney Houston’s death on Saturday was the bitter end to both a majestic and tragic life. What she represented to her fans—and the truth exposed by the personal demons that haunted her must clearly have been worlds apart, but many of us felt this death more acutely than others.
Why?
Perhaps it was because we felt we knew her. She was the beautiful and talented singer of superstar lineage, one who was blessed with a voice from heaven. The deaths of tormented artists couldn’t befall HER, could they?
Here’s the video of her hit song “The Greatest Love of All”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYzlVDlE72w
Ironic that the lyrics of that song refer to “love of self” as the greatest love of all. Loving oneself, accepting oneself were the values espoused, but perhaps not actually lived out by the singer herself
Since the news, I’ve been struck by the number of people who blame her husband and co-addict Bobby Brown. That this “bad boy” of rap would appeal to Whitney was the stuff of tabloid trash back in the 80’s. Frankly, that same thought occurred to me as well.
It was all his fault.
Well, no, not really. She was a grown woman who made her own decisions, but I’ll always believe that were it not for that destructive relationship, Whitney would not only still be with us, but her career would still be going strong.
I was a DJ in Ellsworth, Maine when that first album came out in 1985. I have never seen an artist rocket from total obscurity to complete and total superstardom in such a short period of time. Even Michael Jackson-already famous from the Jackson Five—had only minor success with his solo project “Off The Wall”. When “Thriller” was released, we all heard the future hits that would define his trajectory.
With Whitney, her mother’s minor renown and her relation to Dionne Warwick were the only elements that foreshadowed the career that would follow.
NBC may own the TV rights to “The Voice”---but Whitney really was THE VOICE. Soaring, crystal clear and commanding, yet sensual and inviting, the young Ms. Houston could do it all. Straight ahead pop, dance and beautiful ballads, she handled them all with apparent ease.
As the hits piled up, the Grammys and other awards accumulated and sales records were broken, I suppose it only made sense for Whitney to segue to the big screen.
While never touted as a threat to Meryl Streep, I thought her to be a pretty good actress. Her movie, “The Preachers Wife” was filmed in part in Portland, Maine—and I recall vividly the excitement of this town as she and co-star Denzel Washington descended on the city. It seemed that everyone in town wanted to be an “extra” for the skating scene in Deering Oaks Park—and a great many of them were!
How then, is it possible that someone with so much talent, beauty, poise and wealth could degenerate into the frail and insecure woman we saw on TV in recent years? How can it be that this icon of music whose rendition of the “Star-Spangled Banner” at a Super Bowl in the 90’s still gives us goose bumps—and yet, whose voice failed her onstage when millions were watching?
The devastating effects of drugs are, of course, to blame. These substances---pills, cocaine, you name it—and the person closest to her who enabled and fed that dependency are the smoking gun.
There is perhaps no greater illustration as we teach our children to stay away from drugs than to point to Whitney Houston. That these substances could take away someone so vital and compelling is appalling—and frightening.
So, as much as she gave to the world---her contributions of music and performances both in concert and onscreen, it very well may be that her biggest contribution is yet to come----that of a deterrent to those who seek escape though the use of substances.
It’s too late for Whitney, but maybe not for some of her fans—who may now make better choices.
She had the voice of an angel.
Now, she is one.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Whitney Houston’s death on Saturday was the bitter end to both a majestic and tragic life. What she represented to her fans—and the truth exposed by the personal demons that haunted her must clearly have been worlds apart, but many of us felt this death more acutely than others.
Why?
Perhaps it was because we felt we knew her. She was the beautiful and talented singer of superstar lineage, one who was blessed with a voice from heaven. The deaths of tormented artists couldn’t befall HER, could they?
Here’s the video of her hit song “The Greatest Love of All”:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYzlVDlE72w
Ironic that the lyrics of that song refer to “love of self” as the greatest love of all. Loving oneself, accepting oneself were the values espoused, but perhaps not actually lived out by the singer herself
Since the news, I’ve been struck by the number of people who blame her husband and co-addict Bobby Brown. That this “bad boy” of rap would appeal to Whitney was the stuff of tabloid trash back in the 80’s. Frankly, that same thought occurred to me as well.
It was all his fault.
Well, no, not really. She was a grown woman who made her own decisions, but I’ll always believe that were it not for that destructive relationship, Whitney would not only still be with us, but her career would still be going strong.
I was a DJ in Ellsworth, Maine when that first album came out in 1985. I have never seen an artist rocket from total obscurity to complete and total superstardom in such a short period of time. Even Michael Jackson-already famous from the Jackson Five—had only minor success with his solo project “Off The Wall”. When “Thriller” was released, we all heard the future hits that would define his trajectory.
With Whitney, her mother’s minor renown and her relation to Dionne Warwick were the only elements that foreshadowed the career that would follow.
NBC may own the TV rights to “The Voice”---but Whitney really was THE VOICE. Soaring, crystal clear and commanding, yet sensual and inviting, the young Ms. Houston could do it all. Straight ahead pop, dance and beautiful ballads, she handled them all with apparent ease.
As the hits piled up, the Grammys and other awards accumulated and sales records were broken, I suppose it only made sense for Whitney to segue to the big screen.
While never touted as a threat to Meryl Streep, I thought her to be a pretty good actress. Her movie, “The Preachers Wife” was filmed in part in Portland, Maine—and I recall vividly the excitement of this town as she and co-star Denzel Washington descended on the city. It seemed that everyone in town wanted to be an “extra” for the skating scene in Deering Oaks Park—and a great many of them were!
How then, is it possible that someone with so much talent, beauty, poise and wealth could degenerate into the frail and insecure woman we saw on TV in recent years? How can it be that this icon of music whose rendition of the “Star-Spangled Banner” at a Super Bowl in the 90’s still gives us goose bumps—and yet, whose voice failed her onstage when millions were watching?
The devastating effects of drugs are, of course, to blame. These substances---pills, cocaine, you name it—and the person closest to her who enabled and fed that dependency are the smoking gun.
There is perhaps no greater illustration as we teach our children to stay away from drugs than to point to Whitney Houston. That these substances could take away someone so vital and compelling is appalling—and frightening.
So, as much as she gave to the world---her contributions of music and performances both in concert and onscreen, it very well may be that her biggest contribution is yet to come----that of a deterrent to those who seek escape though the use of substances.
It’s too late for Whitney, but maybe not for some of her fans—who may now make better choices.
She had the voice of an angel.
Now, she is one.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Wednesday, February 1, 2012
Super Commercials
Since the NFL may have attorneys reading this—and I can’t afford to be sued, I’ll have to be careful in the phrasing, but dammit, this weekend will be exciting!
As you know, the football team from New England is playing one of the teams from New York in the “Big Game” this Sunday.
It will be Super. It will be a Bowl. And neither were in the same sentence.
So there.
And as riveting as the gridiron contest is in and of itself, the spectacle that IS the Super….oops…the “Big Game”---has as much to do with the TV commercials that surround it. In fact, the Monday post mortems are often about the caliber of the ads than they are about the quality of play on the field.
After all, these companies are shelling out HUGE dollars to grab our interest, make us laugh----- and eventually buy.
The Doritos “home-made” ads are great—and the audience gets to pick the winner from five finalists. This year, Jerry Seinfeld is pitching a particular Nissan sportscar.
Check out the preview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUFSHzT2xuY
Funny!
With the “New England” team involved this year, the outcome of the game itself will keep me glued to the plasma, but I too am interested in the ads. There is only one problem with this.
When the game is good and the ads are sometimes better, exactly WHEN do you go to the bathroom?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
As you know, the football team from New England is playing one of the teams from New York in the “Big Game” this Sunday.
It will be Super. It will be a Bowl. And neither were in the same sentence.
So there.
And as riveting as the gridiron contest is in and of itself, the spectacle that IS the Super….oops…the “Big Game”---has as much to do with the TV commercials that surround it. In fact, the Monday post mortems are often about the caliber of the ads than they are about the quality of play on the field.
After all, these companies are shelling out HUGE dollars to grab our interest, make us laugh----- and eventually buy.
The Doritos “home-made” ads are great—and the audience gets to pick the winner from five finalists. This year, Jerry Seinfeld is pitching a particular Nissan sportscar.
Check out the preview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUFSHzT2xuY
Funny!
With the “New England” team involved this year, the outcome of the game itself will keep me glued to the plasma, but I too am interested in the ads. There is only one problem with this.
When the game is good and the ads are sometimes better, exactly WHEN do you go to the bathroom?
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Monday, January 30, 2012
Sense of Flying
Warning: If you are afraid of heights, you may not be able to watch the video.
And today, it’s all about the video.
Hats off (little cone party hats) to birthday boy Rick Cooper, who sent this from Hawaii, where I doubt you’ll find him taking part. This little clip was shot in Norway.
Check out this amazing video of someone literally jumping off a cliff—and coming as close to flying as humanly possible (or as Buzz Lightyear would say “Falling—with style!”)
It truly is controlled falling, but with cameras mounted everywhere, you’ll feel the ride with the sensation that you are about to wet your pants.
For this alone, I am grateful.
Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER1PGYe9UZA
Wow.
Makes my life seem boring.
And I am fine with that.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
And today, it’s all about the video.
Hats off (little cone party hats) to birthday boy Rick Cooper, who sent this from Hawaii, where I doubt you’ll find him taking part. This little clip was shot in Norway.
Check out this amazing video of someone literally jumping off a cliff—and coming as close to flying as humanly possible (or as Buzz Lightyear would say “Falling—with style!”)
It truly is controlled falling, but with cameras mounted everywhere, you’ll feel the ride with the sensation that you are about to wet your pants.
For this alone, I am grateful.
Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ER1PGYe9UZA
Wow.
Makes my life seem boring.
And I am fine with that.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Tim Thomas: You Let One Through, Dude
To be a top goalie in the NHL, you have to be quick----and fearless. Pucks are flying at you rapid-fire and even with a mask and pads, a hard rubber disc hitting ANY part of your body has got to smart.
For the Bruins’ Tim Thomas, his refusal to join his team at the White House yesterday may have been fearless, but it wasn’t smart.
Here’s a quick overview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkeTAKxsCyk
By now, virtually everyone has heard of Thomas, his snubbing of the Presidential ceremony that recognized the World Champion Boston Bruins—and his “reasons” for doing so. Unfortunately, they ring hollow, revealing a self-centered, pampered athlete who has the mistaken notion that anyone cares about his views re: the government.
Talk hockey, Tim and we’ll listen. Expound on matters outside your expertise and we’ll collectively yawn.
Let me see if I got this right: Thomas declined to appear with his team because he is upset with the U.S. Government. The politicians are cheating us, the system is corrupt and the problem is independent of party or individual. In short, it didn’t matter if a Democrat or a Republican was the Chief Executive. He was not going to take part in any ceremony held by a representative of a government he holds in contempt.
He had the right to say what he said.
He had the right to avoid the ceremony.
His assessment of the situation may also be dead-on.
Unfortunately, none of that matters.
In choosing to grandstand and draw attention to himself, he cheated his teammates out of the full measure of attention and honor they earned with their Stanley Cup win.
Selfish and rude, that’s what it was.
If the problems of our government are to be solved, you can be certain that the method to do so will involve committed individuals who will work WITHIN the system. It will not be changed by those who choose to hurl verbal bombs without even the suggestion of a solution.
In the NHL, there are plenty of players who hail from Russia and other formerly (or currently) communist countries. Maybe Tim Thomas should seek these individuals out and ask them about THEIR country—and its government. This country—and its government—“awful” as it is, has treated Mr. Thomas pretty well.
In a culture where athletes are glorified—and showered with untold riches, fame and recognition, Tim Thomas has been the beneficiary of these uniquely American opportunities. The working middle class gains entertainment from sports (at no small cost, I might add)—and they collectively finance the extravagant lifestyles of these prima donnas, elevating their status and influence far beyond what would be reasonable to expect.
Scientists, teachers and social workers often toil in obscurity, barely making ends meet.
Athletes and entertainment stars are obscenely compensated—and worse, their opinions are often sought out on moral, social and political issues for which they have no expertise whatsoever.
Just to be clear: Tim Thomas’ sole job responsibility is to keep a puck from getting past him and into the goal. Without a doubt, he may be the very best in the business at this task. It’s worth a Stanley Cup—and an MVP trophy.
What it DOESN’T qualify him for (in my opinion) is the right to ruin the experience of his teammates at the White House. He knew that his “statement” would be a distraction, that it would create controversy and that it would draw attention away from the TEAM and instead, direct it to HIMSELF.
Bad form, crappy timing and exceedingly bad manners.
I’m still a Bruins fan, but no longer a Tim Thomas fan.
You let a big one through, dude.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
For the Bruins’ Tim Thomas, his refusal to join his team at the White House yesterday may have been fearless, but it wasn’t smart.
Here’s a quick overview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkeTAKxsCyk
By now, virtually everyone has heard of Thomas, his snubbing of the Presidential ceremony that recognized the World Champion Boston Bruins—and his “reasons” for doing so. Unfortunately, they ring hollow, revealing a self-centered, pampered athlete who has the mistaken notion that anyone cares about his views re: the government.
Talk hockey, Tim and we’ll listen. Expound on matters outside your expertise and we’ll collectively yawn.
Let me see if I got this right: Thomas declined to appear with his team because he is upset with the U.S. Government. The politicians are cheating us, the system is corrupt and the problem is independent of party or individual. In short, it didn’t matter if a Democrat or a Republican was the Chief Executive. He was not going to take part in any ceremony held by a representative of a government he holds in contempt.
He had the right to say what he said.
He had the right to avoid the ceremony.
His assessment of the situation may also be dead-on.
Unfortunately, none of that matters.
In choosing to grandstand and draw attention to himself, he cheated his teammates out of the full measure of attention and honor they earned with their Stanley Cup win.
Selfish and rude, that’s what it was.
If the problems of our government are to be solved, you can be certain that the method to do so will involve committed individuals who will work WITHIN the system. It will not be changed by those who choose to hurl verbal bombs without even the suggestion of a solution.
In the NHL, there are plenty of players who hail from Russia and other formerly (or currently) communist countries. Maybe Tim Thomas should seek these individuals out and ask them about THEIR country—and its government. This country—and its government—“awful” as it is, has treated Mr. Thomas pretty well.
In a culture where athletes are glorified—and showered with untold riches, fame and recognition, Tim Thomas has been the beneficiary of these uniquely American opportunities. The working middle class gains entertainment from sports (at no small cost, I might add)—and they collectively finance the extravagant lifestyles of these prima donnas, elevating their status and influence far beyond what would be reasonable to expect.
Scientists, teachers and social workers often toil in obscurity, barely making ends meet.
Athletes and entertainment stars are obscenely compensated—and worse, their opinions are often sought out on moral, social and political issues for which they have no expertise whatsoever.
Just to be clear: Tim Thomas’ sole job responsibility is to keep a puck from getting past him and into the goal. Without a doubt, he may be the very best in the business at this task. It’s worth a Stanley Cup—and an MVP trophy.
What it DOESN’T qualify him for (in my opinion) is the right to ruin the experience of his teammates at the White House. He knew that his “statement” would be a distraction, that it would create controversy and that it would draw attention away from the TEAM and instead, direct it to HIMSELF.
Bad form, crappy timing and exceedingly bad manners.
I’m still a Bruins fan, but no longer a Tim Thomas fan.
You let a big one through, dude.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@cumulus.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
