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
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
