Norwegian Roald Amundsen reached the South Pole on this date 98 years ago. The very first to do so, he was diverted from his initial expedition to the North Pole after learning that American Robert Peary had beaten him to it.
Nobody wants to be second.
So, the race to the South Pole was on---and Amundsen was not the only one to join in. British explorer Robert F. Scott also decided to be there first.
Considering the weather, I cannot fathom the desire to go there in the first place. A race to the Bahamas? Tahiti? Hawaii? Count me in.
Anywhere that requires walking across frozen tundra and temperatures that would cause body parts to fall off is not my cup of tea, to use the English vernacular.
What makes this story truly tragic is the result for Scott and his party, who all lost their lives---only after reaching their goal to find that the Norwegian explorer had gotten there first.
That stinks.
But, in a world where it’s truly the “survival of the fittest”, it’s quite plain to see in hindsight that Amundsen had the better plan. In a place as unforgiving as Antarctica, the failure to plan properly could (and would) cost you your life.
Amundsen’s superior strategy revolved around two major factors-especially when compared with Scott’s. Namely, they were:
1) Amundsen sailed his ship into Antarctica’s Bay of Whales and set up his base camp some 60 miles closer to the South Pole than did Scott.
2) The Norwegian used dogs to drive the equipment rather than horses. The Huskies were hardy in this climate. The horses, on the other hand-were not—and began dying immediately, forcing the expedition to carry and drag the equipment themselves over the many miles.
Check out this video tribute to Scott, whose tragic end is chronicled in still photos set to music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PbX-gFNbfw
When Scott’s party reached the South Pole on January 18th, 1912, they discovered that Amundsen has arrived there more than a month earlier. Ouch.
Can you IMAGINE the disappointment of seeing from afar the Norwegian flag planted after all that you had been through?
Amundsen had his own experience with being second.
After his successful South Pole expedition, he started a successful shipping business. He made several attempts to become the first to FLY OVER the North Pole. In 1926, he passed over the Pole in a dirigible---only to find out that American explorer Richard E. Byrd has apparently done so in an airplane just three DAYS earlier.
That stinks.
But, at least Amundsen didn’t lose his life in the attempt, unlike Scott.
Perhaps there are fewer frontiers to discover—and it’s likely that human physical endurance will not be put to the extreme test when they occur.
And so, while we celebrate the “winner” (Amundsen), we should not forget the tragic attempt of the guy who came in second.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, December 14, 2009
Friday, December 11, 2009
Romantic Or Traitor...Or Both?
After a week where it seems like I’M the only person who hasn’t had an affair with Tiger Woods (oh, you too?), the thought struck me that it’s becoming increasingly clear that NOBODY has a squeaky clean record, despite what their public image may be.
Woods successfully cultivated a public persona that was ideal for the buttoned-down and staid world of golf—and crafted also for the corporate universe that attracted hugely lucrative sponsorships. All of this façade vanished with a small fender-bender.
Such is the fragility of a double-life, especially from someone so much in the public eye.
While we won’t know the extent of Tiger’s indiscretions for some time to come, it is clear that he is not the exception to the rule. In fact, more serious offenses by others have gone either undetected, ignored or dismissed.
Such MAY be the case with King Edward VIII, who abdicated the British throne on this date in 1936. The prevailing sentiment is that Edward gave it all up for love—and he has since been revered by many for choosing the woman of his dreams over the trappings of royalty.
The Readers Digest version of this story is that Edward voluntarily chose to exit the throne after the British Government, the public and the Church of England condemned his decision to marry American divorcee Wallis Warfield Simpson. Edward had been King for less than a year. Popular with his subjects, his affair with the then-married Simpson was reported widely in the U.S., but kept out of English newspapers.
So, end of story, right? Romance won out over power and wealth—and lovers of love the world over have elevated Edward to the throne as Ultimate Romantic.
It seems that there may be more to the story, as evidenced on this documentary. Part 1 is below—if you are interested, you can pull up the other segments-fascinating stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-bVcRB7CF0
So, was Edward a philanderer, a traitor and a Nazi sympathizer?
We may never know, but one thing is for sure. Prevailing sentiment that Edward gave it all up for the woman he loved has dominated the public image for so long—that the truth—whatever it may be---will likely not replace the storybook version that people desire to believe.
It may be the same with Tiger. There will be those who will stubbornly cling to the image of what they WANT him to be, regardless of what the truth may eventually reveal.
What is the truth?
People are complicated—and people of wealth and power are MORE complicated, if only because those within the inner circle around the rich and influential create images that belie the facts.
It’s likely the truth about King Edward VIII and Tiger Woods lies somewhere between the sordid allegations portrayed as facts---and the crafted façade. And most of us will choose one extreme or the other.
As for me, I’m glad that I am not a King….and that I suck at golf.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Woods successfully cultivated a public persona that was ideal for the buttoned-down and staid world of golf—and crafted also for the corporate universe that attracted hugely lucrative sponsorships. All of this façade vanished with a small fender-bender.
Such is the fragility of a double-life, especially from someone so much in the public eye.
While we won’t know the extent of Tiger’s indiscretions for some time to come, it is clear that he is not the exception to the rule. In fact, more serious offenses by others have gone either undetected, ignored or dismissed.
Such MAY be the case with King Edward VIII, who abdicated the British throne on this date in 1936. The prevailing sentiment is that Edward gave it all up for love—and he has since been revered by many for choosing the woman of his dreams over the trappings of royalty.
The Readers Digest version of this story is that Edward voluntarily chose to exit the throne after the British Government, the public and the Church of England condemned his decision to marry American divorcee Wallis Warfield Simpson. Edward had been King for less than a year. Popular with his subjects, his affair with the then-married Simpson was reported widely in the U.S., but kept out of English newspapers.
So, end of story, right? Romance won out over power and wealth—and lovers of love the world over have elevated Edward to the throne as Ultimate Romantic.
It seems that there may be more to the story, as evidenced on this documentary. Part 1 is below—if you are interested, you can pull up the other segments-fascinating stuff:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-bVcRB7CF0
So, was Edward a philanderer, a traitor and a Nazi sympathizer?
We may never know, but one thing is for sure. Prevailing sentiment that Edward gave it all up for the woman he loved has dominated the public image for so long—that the truth—whatever it may be---will likely not replace the storybook version that people desire to believe.
It may be the same with Tiger. There will be those who will stubbornly cling to the image of what they WANT him to be, regardless of what the truth may eventually reveal.
What is the truth?
People are complicated—and people of wealth and power are MORE complicated, if only because those within the inner circle around the rich and influential create images that belie the facts.
It’s likely the truth about King Edward VIII and Tiger Woods lies somewhere between the sordid allegations portrayed as facts---and the crafted façade. And most of us will choose one extreme or the other.
As for me, I’m glad that I am not a King….and that I suck at golf.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Sinatra's Kidnapper Cashes In
It was a crime that was tailor made for the tabloids. Frank Sinatra’s 19 year old son Frank, Jr. was kidnapped on December 8, 1963.
Star power, money and both law enforcement and the mob all came together for a tale of intrigue that still has some wondering today exactly what happened.
Abducted at gunpoint from Harrah’s in Lake Tahoe, the young Sinatra, who was following in his father’s footsteps—was taken to Canoga Park, California. It was on this date 46 years ago that the victim spoke briefly to his father by phone. Afterwards, the kidnappers demanded a ransom of $240,000.
The young mastermind of the scheme, Barry Keenan, had also considered the sons of Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. He and his accomplices settled on Sinatra, however, thinking he would be tough enough to handle the ordeal. The crime was originally planned for November, but President Kennedy’s assassination delayed their scheme.
Robert Kennedy, then Attorney General offered his assistance. So too, did Sam Giancana, one of the country’s most powerful organized crime leaders. The elder Sinatra declined-and instead sought the help of the FBI.
Thankfully, the drop-off of the young victim on Mulholland Drive in Los Angeles occurred without harm to Sinatra. In an attempt to avoid a public scene, police actually stuffed Sinatra into the trunk of the squad car for the ride home!
Here’s a video of Frank, Jr. appearing with his sister Nancy on the Smothers Brothers Show some 4 years after his ordeal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqWZoL_luxo
Within a few days, one of Keenan’s partners John Irwin turned himself in to the FBI in San Diego. By December 14, all the perpetrators had been located and arrested.
Most interesting is the defense strategy at trial. Flamboyant LA attorney Gladys Root contended that Frank, Jr. has orchestrated his own abduction as a publicity stunt. To this day, there are those who believe this was true-despite the lack of evidence. Keenan was convicted-and served 4 ½ years in federal prison. After release, he became a successful real estate developer.
Instead of burying that chapter of his life, Keenan sold the rights to his story for over a million dollars. Before a movie could be made, the case ended up in court. Here’s a quick video explaining how Keenan made money from the kidnapping:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_XfxQP6he8
So, to avoid violating his “right to free speech”, Keenan indeed profited handsomely from his illegal deeds.
In a world where justice should prevent criminals from cashing in on their crimes, it seems that sometimes we are more concerned about the rights of the criminal than we are for the rights of the victim!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Star power, money and both law enforcement and the mob all came together for a tale of intrigue that still has some wondering today exactly what happened.
Abducted at gunpoint from Harrah’s in Lake Tahoe, the young Sinatra, who was following in his father’s footsteps—was taken to Canoga Park, California. It was on this date 46 years ago that the victim spoke briefly to his father by phone. Afterwards, the kidnappers demanded a ransom of $240,000.
The young mastermind of the scheme, Barry Keenan, had also considered the sons of Bob Hope and Bing Crosby. He and his accomplices settled on Sinatra, however, thinking he would be tough enough to handle the ordeal. The crime was originally planned for November, but President Kennedy’s assassination delayed their scheme.
Robert Kennedy, then Attorney General offered his assistance. So too, did Sam Giancana, one of the country’s most powerful organized crime leaders. The elder Sinatra declined-and instead sought the help of the FBI.
Thankfully, the drop-off of the young victim on Mulholland Drive in Los Angeles occurred without harm to Sinatra. In an attempt to avoid a public scene, police actually stuffed Sinatra into the trunk of the squad car for the ride home!
Here’s a video of Frank, Jr. appearing with his sister Nancy on the Smothers Brothers Show some 4 years after his ordeal:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqWZoL_luxo
Within a few days, one of Keenan’s partners John Irwin turned himself in to the FBI in San Diego. By December 14, all the perpetrators had been located and arrested.
Most interesting is the defense strategy at trial. Flamboyant LA attorney Gladys Root contended that Frank, Jr. has orchestrated his own abduction as a publicity stunt. To this day, there are those who believe this was true-despite the lack of evidence. Keenan was convicted-and served 4 ½ years in federal prison. After release, he became a successful real estate developer.
Instead of burying that chapter of his life, Keenan sold the rights to his story for over a million dollars. Before a movie could be made, the case ended up in court. Here’s a quick video explaining how Keenan made money from the kidnapping:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_XfxQP6he8
So, to avoid violating his “right to free speech”, Keenan indeed profited handsomely from his illegal deeds.
In a world where justice should prevent criminals from cashing in on their crimes, it seems that sometimes we are more concerned about the rights of the criminal than we are for the rights of the victim!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, December 9, 2009
Mountain Dew Is Not The Enemy
I know that sugary, caffeinated soft drinks are not exactly “health food”, but I am amused and simultaneously dismayed by the efforts by some to demonize these beverages as the CAUSE of childhood obesity, tooth decay and over stimulated behavior.
Huh?
In a society where there is ever-growing abdication of responsibility by parents, it is easy to find an enemy. More and more, that enemy is the media---and commercials that supposedly “target” young people.
Soft drinks are joining so-called “junk food”, “fast food”—and other products that are claimed to be harmful to young people (and adults as well). This is rubbish-if only because the food itself is not inherently harmful or dangerous. It is merely the level of intake that causes ANY food product to potentially cause a problem.
For your amusement, I have embedded the very first commercial for Mountain Dew. Seeing the “X-Game” persona of young people living-on-the-edge image that current marketing depicts, the original ad was a tad more…well…down home! Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xd8fzk8Rlk
It is the job of the media to inform and entertain. That entertainment is funded by corporate America. Companies supporting the media with advertising are in the business of creating demand for their products. It is the nature of our system. Go ahead and shoot the messenger, but until behavior makes an about face, the problem will continue to exist.
Childhood obesity may have a genetic component, but more likely is the result of parental neglect. Moms and Dads who allow excessive TV viewing, computer usage or video game activity (and we use the word “activity” tongue-in-cheek here)—and further allow these pastimes to be combined with unrestricted snacking have only themselves to blame.
Not the media, not corporate America, not “social pressures”, not a “syndrome” to be given a label. Just plain ol’ Mom and Dad.
In my house, it’s called “screen time”—and whether it is a Gameboy, Nintendo DS or TV, the amount of sedentary time tethered to the gadget must be regulated—and restricted.
Of course, there are real issues of children with too much time on their hands while their parents are working. This may be the source—as the machines have assumed the role of electronic babysitter.
A soft drink or two won’t kill you. Neither will a Twinkie. Consuming a case of Dew and a box of Twinkies—and combining with chips, candy and unlimited inactivity---well, that’s another story!
Let’s take our kids back and show them the outdoors again! It is not the media’s issue-it is ours.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Huh?
In a society where there is ever-growing abdication of responsibility by parents, it is easy to find an enemy. More and more, that enemy is the media---and commercials that supposedly “target” young people.
Soft drinks are joining so-called “junk food”, “fast food”—and other products that are claimed to be harmful to young people (and adults as well). This is rubbish-if only because the food itself is not inherently harmful or dangerous. It is merely the level of intake that causes ANY food product to potentially cause a problem.
For your amusement, I have embedded the very first commercial for Mountain Dew. Seeing the “X-Game” persona of young people living-on-the-edge image that current marketing depicts, the original ad was a tad more…well…down home! Check it out:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xd8fzk8Rlk
It is the job of the media to inform and entertain. That entertainment is funded by corporate America. Companies supporting the media with advertising are in the business of creating demand for their products. It is the nature of our system. Go ahead and shoot the messenger, but until behavior makes an about face, the problem will continue to exist.
Childhood obesity may have a genetic component, but more likely is the result of parental neglect. Moms and Dads who allow excessive TV viewing, computer usage or video game activity (and we use the word “activity” tongue-in-cheek here)—and further allow these pastimes to be combined with unrestricted snacking have only themselves to blame.
Not the media, not corporate America, not “social pressures”, not a “syndrome” to be given a label. Just plain ol’ Mom and Dad.
In my house, it’s called “screen time”—and whether it is a Gameboy, Nintendo DS or TV, the amount of sedentary time tethered to the gadget must be regulated—and restricted.
Of course, there are real issues of children with too much time on their hands while their parents are working. This may be the source—as the machines have assumed the role of electronic babysitter.
A soft drink or two won’t kill you. Neither will a Twinkie. Consuming a case of Dew and a box of Twinkies—and combining with chips, candy and unlimited inactivity---well, that’s another story!
Let’s take our kids back and show them the outdoors again! It is not the media’s issue-it is ours.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Take Heart Redskin Fans-It Has Been Worse
Diehard Washington Redskin football fans like myself have been distraught over this season’s horrible team.
Sunday’s near-win over undefeated New Orleans has been seen by some as a sign of improvement. Maybe so, but no one can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the ‘Skins! The Saints were the third team in a row that Washington played well against, were essentially close to beating—and then the wheels came off. Philadelphia the week before and Dallas before that have made just BEING a Redskin fan a painful experience in 2009.
Some say that the team has never been lower.
Hope this will cheer you up then, as it was on this date in 1940 that the NFL record was set for lopsided victory. Yes, friends, it was the Washington Redskins who were the victim of the Chicago Bears in the NFL Championship game.
The score? 73-0
Yes, that’s right-SEVENTY-THREE to ZERO (It actually looks better written out like that). Here’s a short clip of the slaughter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XONlSb4ka8
Chicago had lost to the Redskins during the regular season. Afterwards, Washington owner George Preston Marshall told reporters that the Bears were “quitters” and “crybabies”. Chicago owner George Halas used Marshall’s words to fire up his team when it came time to play in the championship.
I think it worked.
It was 28-0 at the half—and officials actually asked the Bears to refrain from kicking extra points.
Why?
Because they were running out of FOOTBALLS, so many had been kicked into the stands!
For those cities whose teams have never tasted Super Bowl victory (Minneapolis/St. Paul, Houston, Buffalo and yes, New Orleans) it may seem greedy to complain when there have been years of gloryin 'ol D.C.. Three World Championships are nothing to scoff at.
However-and maybe it’s just me—the Daniel Snyder ownership era has been riddled with knee-jerk coaching changes, big dollars spent for marginal performers—and most recently, the threat to SUE SEASON TICKET HOLDERS who could not afford the costs of tickets due to the economy. Now, THAT’S great P.R., no?
Short of an ownership change-and a head coaching change (again), the Redskins will likely struggle for a few more years-at least until they aquire a QB who can LEAD the team. Last week’s performance notwithstanding, Jason Campbell is a horrible quarterback—and in this league, some ability beyond mere arm strength must be required.
Campbell has a good arm, but unfortunately not a good head to go with it. Head Coach Jim Zorn, himself a former QB and quarterbacks coach—has had plenty of time to turn the young man around. It hasn’t worked.
So, Redskin fans—take heart! As we wait, fill your head with visions of Riggins, Theismann, Sonny and better days! Our time will come again…someday!Hail to the Redskins!If you’d like my blog in your box, drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Sunday’s near-win over undefeated New Orleans has been seen by some as a sign of improvement. Maybe so, but no one can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory like the ‘Skins! The Saints were the third team in a row that Washington played well against, were essentially close to beating—and then the wheels came off. Philadelphia the week before and Dallas before that have made just BEING a Redskin fan a painful experience in 2009.
Some say that the team has never been lower.
Hope this will cheer you up then, as it was on this date in 1940 that the NFL record was set for lopsided victory. Yes, friends, it was the Washington Redskins who were the victim of the Chicago Bears in the NFL Championship game.
The score? 73-0
Yes, that’s right-SEVENTY-THREE to ZERO (It actually looks better written out like that). Here’s a short clip of the slaughter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8XONlSb4ka8
Chicago had lost to the Redskins during the regular season. Afterwards, Washington owner George Preston Marshall told reporters that the Bears were “quitters” and “crybabies”. Chicago owner George Halas used Marshall’s words to fire up his team when it came time to play in the championship.
I think it worked.
It was 28-0 at the half—and officials actually asked the Bears to refrain from kicking extra points.
Why?
Because they were running out of FOOTBALLS, so many had been kicked into the stands!
For those cities whose teams have never tasted Super Bowl victory (Minneapolis/St. Paul, Houston, Buffalo and yes, New Orleans) it may seem greedy to complain when there have been years of gloryin 'ol D.C.. Three World Championships are nothing to scoff at.
However-and maybe it’s just me—the Daniel Snyder ownership era has been riddled with knee-jerk coaching changes, big dollars spent for marginal performers—and most recently, the threat to SUE SEASON TICKET HOLDERS who could not afford the costs of tickets due to the economy. Now, THAT’S great P.R., no?
Short of an ownership change-and a head coaching change (again), the Redskins will likely struggle for a few more years-at least until they aquire a QB who can LEAD the team. Last week’s performance notwithstanding, Jason Campbell is a horrible quarterback—and in this league, some ability beyond mere arm strength must be required.
Campbell has a good arm, but unfortunately not a good head to go with it. Head Coach Jim Zorn, himself a former QB and quarterbacks coach—has had plenty of time to turn the young man around. It hasn’t worked.
So, Redskin fans—take heart! As we wait, fill your head with visions of Riggins, Theismann, Sonny and better days! Our time will come again…someday!Hail to the Redskins!If you’d like my blog in your box, drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, December 7, 2009
Pearl Harbor-68 Years Later
It was on this date in 1941—at around 7:55am local time, that the first of some 350 Japanese aircraft appeared over the horizon of Hawaii’s Pearl Harbor, beginning the attack that would finally draw the United States into World War II.
I have just finished reading a great book, “FDR” by Jean Edward Smith. This highly detailed biography (636 pages, with another 200 or so of notes and supporting facts) is fascinating on many levels-mostly personal-but it also recreates the landscape of American and Japanese relations just before the deadly attack. An attack by the Japanese was expected—just not where it occurred.
FDR got the news at around 1:30pm Washington time—in his study with advisor Harry Hopkins—when Navy Secretary Frank Knox burst in and delivered the news that Pearl Harbor had been attacked and that damage and casualties were heavy.
The U.S. had been expecting an attack any day from Japan, but most military experts were anticipating the target would be the Philippines, where the U.S. Fleet had a significant presence. Instead, a highly coordinated attack that pushed the geographic limits of the planes and ships involved caught everyone off guard. No one expected that U.S. soil could be reached from the Japanese mainland—and as such, no level of preparedness or emergency was imposed on the U.S. Naval installation in Hawaii.
Check out this compelling video clip of the attack, with some rare footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt13c3olXkU
FDR’s demeanor in the wake of the attack was said be very calm and measured-even though he was furious. Interestingly, it was Eleanor Roosevelt, not Franklin who addressed the nation first following the attack. In her already scheduled weekly radio broadcast, she said she was confident that “whatever is asked of [America], we shall accomplish it; we are the free and unconquerable people of the U.S.A.” Her husband that evening dictated a speech that he would deliver to Congress the next day—complete with the memorable phrase regarding December 7th, “ a date that would live in infamy”
Looking back, it seems like the height of stupidity for the Japanese to attack the United States—and for Germany to follow with a declaration of war. America’s isolationist sentiment was still strong—and it would have made sense for the Axis powers to keep the United States out of the war.
Instead, the attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized public opinion and completely squashed political infighting. America has never been more united, it is said, as the country plunged into a war effort that would affect every single person in the U.S.
Such unity, also evident after the terrorist attacks in 2001—is always desired, but never at the cost we have borne.
The times have changed—and the enemy has as well. It would do this country well to remember the lessons of Pearl Harbor-namely, that threats to our homeland could come at any time---but vigilance on OUR soil (as opposed to an amplified focus overseas) is most important to thwart the criminal plans that are being made as we speak. Whatever attack comes next will, without a doubt employ the element of surprise.
Our recent uncovering of a future terrorist attack was the most heartening news we have had. Where many were shocked and frightened by the exposure of this plot, I was frankly comforted in the knowledge that at least some portion of our national security team is working overtime to stop the threats BEFORE they occur.
It’s important to note that while we were looking elsewhere, the 9-11 terrorists were all HERE, living among us, taking flight lessons, assimilating into our culture. They were biding their time, leaving clues as to their plans---but clues that we collectively ignored—or worse, didn’t even see.
“They” are still here, still planning.
Let’s catch them before they surprise us again in a horrific way.
In short, REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR and 9/11!!
If you’d like my weekday blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
I have just finished reading a great book, “FDR” by Jean Edward Smith. This highly detailed biography (636 pages, with another 200 or so of notes and supporting facts) is fascinating on many levels-mostly personal-but it also recreates the landscape of American and Japanese relations just before the deadly attack. An attack by the Japanese was expected—just not where it occurred.
FDR got the news at around 1:30pm Washington time—in his study with advisor Harry Hopkins—when Navy Secretary Frank Knox burst in and delivered the news that Pearl Harbor had been attacked and that damage and casualties were heavy.
The U.S. had been expecting an attack any day from Japan, but most military experts were anticipating the target would be the Philippines, where the U.S. Fleet had a significant presence. Instead, a highly coordinated attack that pushed the geographic limits of the planes and ships involved caught everyone off guard. No one expected that U.S. soil could be reached from the Japanese mainland—and as such, no level of preparedness or emergency was imposed on the U.S. Naval installation in Hawaii.
Check out this compelling video clip of the attack, with some rare footage:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nt13c3olXkU
FDR’s demeanor in the wake of the attack was said be very calm and measured-even though he was furious. Interestingly, it was Eleanor Roosevelt, not Franklin who addressed the nation first following the attack. In her already scheduled weekly radio broadcast, she said she was confident that “whatever is asked of [America], we shall accomplish it; we are the free and unconquerable people of the U.S.A.” Her husband that evening dictated a speech that he would deliver to Congress the next day—complete with the memorable phrase regarding December 7th, “ a date that would live in infamy”
Looking back, it seems like the height of stupidity for the Japanese to attack the United States—and for Germany to follow with a declaration of war. America’s isolationist sentiment was still strong—and it would have made sense for the Axis powers to keep the United States out of the war.
Instead, the attack on Pearl Harbor galvanized public opinion and completely squashed political infighting. America has never been more united, it is said, as the country plunged into a war effort that would affect every single person in the U.S.
Such unity, also evident after the terrorist attacks in 2001—is always desired, but never at the cost we have borne.
The times have changed—and the enemy has as well. It would do this country well to remember the lessons of Pearl Harbor-namely, that threats to our homeland could come at any time---but vigilance on OUR soil (as opposed to an amplified focus overseas) is most important to thwart the criminal plans that are being made as we speak. Whatever attack comes next will, without a doubt employ the element of surprise.
Our recent uncovering of a future terrorist attack was the most heartening news we have had. Where many were shocked and frightened by the exposure of this plot, I was frankly comforted in the knowledge that at least some portion of our national security team is working overtime to stop the threats BEFORE they occur.
It’s important to note that while we were looking elsewhere, the 9-11 terrorists were all HERE, living among us, taking flight lessons, assimilating into our culture. They were biding their time, leaving clues as to their plans---but clues that we collectively ignored—or worse, didn’t even see.
“They” are still here, still planning.
Let’s catch them before they surprise us again in a horrific way.
In short, REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR and 9/11!!
If you’d like my weekday blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, December 4, 2009
Economic Gymnastics
Part of the problem with our economic system is that it is run by a bunch of eggheads who have likely not gone out and bought a dozen eggs or a loaf of bread in years. They are living in a bubble, completely detached from the everyday people who struggle to make ends meet.
Instead, these elite intellectuals are locked up in their “think tanks”, presumably….thinking. But given the current state of affairs, they might just be playing Super Mario Brothers or Solitaire on those supercomputers of theirs.
I took Economics in college-and I still remember enough of it that terms like “M-1” (money supply) and “discount rate” make sense to me. However, when you delve into “derivatives”, “hedge funds backed by commercial paper”, etc…I start to glaze over. My guess is that most other people do too.
Yeah, let’s “fix” the economy, but what the hell do you actually DO? I haven’t the foggiest notion of what WOULD work—or worse, what could make the situation more dire. It’s my guess that Congress doesn’t know either. Aside from the shared indignation for continued multi-million dollar bonuses for managers of bailed-out companies (hey, it’s OUR money they are getting), there is little to grasp onto.
My guess is that guys like Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke rely on this collective ignorance to spin their web of excuses and reasoning for why things are not getting much better—and especially for shielding us from the specific information on exactly WHERE all that money went to. I don’t accuse him of willful malfeasance—however, there is a certain amount of arrogance and disdain born of the feelings of intellectual superiority that rise to the surface when the lowly (Congress, the media, the American people) challenges their judgment.
First of all, I have NO IDEA whether Bernanke is the man for the job. I thought he was a bright economist with a scholarly approach to the job given his supposed expertise with the historical underpinnings of why the Great Depression was made WORSE by meddling from Congress and the President.
Ben sat in a very hot seat yesterday—as he was grilled, toasted, screwed and tattooed by the Republican Senator from Kentucky, Jim Bunning. I have no idea if he knows what he is talking about, but watch this and see if what he says has merit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVwr-Nf0slQ
OK…do you have an opinion?
Bernanke did a poor job of defending himself, I think, but where would you begin to refute all of the accusations?
I don’t know if Bernanke is part of the problem, but I sure would like to hear him answer each charge definitively.
Would love to hear YOUR feedback on this---maybe your opinion will become mine, as I currently don’t have one!
If you’d like my weekday blog in your inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Instead, these elite intellectuals are locked up in their “think tanks”, presumably….thinking. But given the current state of affairs, they might just be playing Super Mario Brothers or Solitaire on those supercomputers of theirs.
I took Economics in college-and I still remember enough of it that terms like “M-1” (money supply) and “discount rate” make sense to me. However, when you delve into “derivatives”, “hedge funds backed by commercial paper”, etc…I start to glaze over. My guess is that most other people do too.
Yeah, let’s “fix” the economy, but what the hell do you actually DO? I haven’t the foggiest notion of what WOULD work—or worse, what could make the situation more dire. It’s my guess that Congress doesn’t know either. Aside from the shared indignation for continued multi-million dollar bonuses for managers of bailed-out companies (hey, it’s OUR money they are getting), there is little to grasp onto.
My guess is that guys like Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke rely on this collective ignorance to spin their web of excuses and reasoning for why things are not getting much better—and especially for shielding us from the specific information on exactly WHERE all that money went to. I don’t accuse him of willful malfeasance—however, there is a certain amount of arrogance and disdain born of the feelings of intellectual superiority that rise to the surface when the lowly (Congress, the media, the American people) challenges their judgment.
First of all, I have NO IDEA whether Bernanke is the man for the job. I thought he was a bright economist with a scholarly approach to the job given his supposed expertise with the historical underpinnings of why the Great Depression was made WORSE by meddling from Congress and the President.
Ben sat in a very hot seat yesterday—as he was grilled, toasted, screwed and tattooed by the Republican Senator from Kentucky, Jim Bunning. I have no idea if he knows what he is talking about, but watch this and see if what he says has merit:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVwr-Nf0slQ
OK…do you have an opinion?
Bernanke did a poor job of defending himself, I think, but where would you begin to refute all of the accusations?
I don’t know if Bernanke is part of the problem, but I sure would like to hear him answer each charge definitively.
Would love to hear YOUR feedback on this---maybe your opinion will become mine, as I currently don’t have one!
If you’d like my weekday blog in your inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, December 3, 2009
Practical Jokes
Everyone knows somebody whose idea of a good time is to pull “practical jokes” on unsuspecting family members, co-workers---and even strangers.
Not sure if this propensity is genetic—a recessive cruelty gene—or perhaps the effects of a warped childhood. Maybe those who partake of these often elaborate schemes were themselves the target of these jokes and now--- it’s payback time.
Where did the term “practical joke” come from? Webster’s Dictionary gives several definitions of the word “practical”, only the first of which can be STRETCHED to apply:
1) “of or obtained through practice or action” (this one has to be it)
2) “useful” (uh…..I don’t think so)
3) “concerned with the application of knowledge to useful ends” (here again the word “useful” disqualifies #3)
4) “dealing realistically and sensibly with everyday matters” ( nope)
Enjoy this video compilation of everyday people being scared out of their wits by—in most cases—people they seem to know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MOriOpcgeQ
OK, I admit that I laughed out loud at most of these, but in the case of the older people, isn’t a fatal heart attack a possible outcome here? In this case, the victim may get the last laugh as they get to watch you (from the pearly gates, of course) being sent to a federal prison for involuntary manslaughter!
We have all been guilty of participating in practical jokes at one time or another I suppose, but I’d like to think that my transgressions have not been of the severity that would cause instant death or serious injury.
A warning to those who may attempt to make ME the butt of the joke---if it’s harmless, I’ll be fine with it. However, if you do ANY of the things depicted in the video above, you’ll “crusin’ for a bruisin’”!!!
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Not sure if this propensity is genetic—a recessive cruelty gene—or perhaps the effects of a warped childhood. Maybe those who partake of these often elaborate schemes were themselves the target of these jokes and now--- it’s payback time.
Where did the term “practical joke” come from? Webster’s Dictionary gives several definitions of the word “practical”, only the first of which can be STRETCHED to apply:
1) “of or obtained through practice or action” (this one has to be it)
2) “useful” (uh…..I don’t think so)
3) “concerned with the application of knowledge to useful ends” (here again the word “useful” disqualifies #3)
4) “dealing realistically and sensibly with everyday matters” ( nope)
Enjoy this video compilation of everyday people being scared out of their wits by—in most cases—people they seem to know:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MOriOpcgeQ
OK, I admit that I laughed out loud at most of these, but in the case of the older people, isn’t a fatal heart attack a possible outcome here? In this case, the victim may get the last laugh as they get to watch you (from the pearly gates, of course) being sent to a federal prison for involuntary manslaughter!
We have all been guilty of participating in practical jokes at one time or another I suppose, but I’d like to think that my transgressions have not been of the severity that would cause instant death or serious injury.
A warning to those who may attempt to make ME the butt of the joke---if it’s harmless, I’ll be fine with it. However, if you do ANY of the things depicted in the video above, you’ll “crusin’ for a bruisin’”!!!
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
Sports Hero
After the Tiger Woods revelations today (with no doubt more to come), I’ve decided not to “pile on”. I have always admired his talent and his competitive spirit—and now that we have seen that he is merely human with all of the flaws that many of us have, I’ll respect his wishes for privacy—and will decline judging him.
There are sports heroes I do admire—and Archie Griffin of The Ohio State University is one of them. The ONLY two-time Heisman Trophy winner picked up his second statue on this date in 1975.
All of that could change a week from Saturday( the 12th), as Tim Tebow of Florida could garner his second award. In fact, Tebow was a finalist last year and the prospect of his winning three was NOT remote after scoring the first one as a sophomore.
As an OSU alum, I cannot begin to claim impartiality, but Griffin’s accomplishments are the stuff of legend. In his very first game as a freshman (the first year that true freshman could play varsity), Coach Woody Hayes was reluctant about putting Griffin in the game against North Carolina.
He shouldn’t have worried. Griffin rushed for 239 yards in his very first appearance, setting a single-game rushing record for Ohio State! Needless to say, Griffin started every other game in his career-and in 1974, became only the 5th junior to win the Heisman.
During his senior season, Griffin extended his streak of 100-plus-yard games to 31, picking up his unprecedented SECOND Heisman on this day 34 years ago.
Enjoy this Ohio State football propaganda film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZoGCFXcdJA
Griffin went on to play for the Cincinnati Bengals-a career that lasted for seven years before a serious stomach injury sidelined him for good.
He returned to his alma mater in 1984, becoming Associate Athletic Director-and later President of the OSU Alumni Association.
His number (45) was the first one ever retired at Ohio State.
GO BUCKS!!!!
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
There are sports heroes I do admire—and Archie Griffin of The Ohio State University is one of them. The ONLY two-time Heisman Trophy winner picked up his second statue on this date in 1975.
All of that could change a week from Saturday( the 12th), as Tim Tebow of Florida could garner his second award. In fact, Tebow was a finalist last year and the prospect of his winning three was NOT remote after scoring the first one as a sophomore.
As an OSU alum, I cannot begin to claim impartiality, but Griffin’s accomplishments are the stuff of legend. In his very first game as a freshman (the first year that true freshman could play varsity), Coach Woody Hayes was reluctant about putting Griffin in the game against North Carolina.
He shouldn’t have worried. Griffin rushed for 239 yards in his very first appearance, setting a single-game rushing record for Ohio State! Needless to say, Griffin started every other game in his career-and in 1974, became only the 5th junior to win the Heisman.
During his senior season, Griffin extended his streak of 100-plus-yard games to 31, picking up his unprecedented SECOND Heisman on this day 34 years ago.
Enjoy this Ohio State football propaganda film:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bZoGCFXcdJA
Griffin went on to play for the Cincinnati Bengals-a career that lasted for seven years before a serious stomach injury sidelined him for good.
He returned to his alma mater in 1984, becoming Associate Athletic Director-and later President of the OSU Alumni Association.
His number (45) was the first one ever retired at Ohio State.
GO BUCKS!!!!
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
I Can Hardly Spell Afghanistan
Well, tonight’s the night.
President Obama will use the backdrop of West Point to outline his plans for the war in Afghanistan. In a sea of horrible choices, he will make one that will likely please no one (not even the generals who requested extra troops). His challenge, without a doubt—is to define what SUCCESS means for this war and to articulate an end game.
Good luck, Mr. President.
It’s true that this is not a mess that Obama got us into. That said, the President’s campaign rhetoric focused on Afghanistan as being the true focal point for the war, not Iraq. It’s likely this was a political move to be able to simultaneously be critical of the Bush war strategy without appearing soft on terrorism. At the time, Obama proposed 8,000 to 10,000 additional troops.
Since the election, we have sent about 20,000 more troops in—and the advances on tonight’s plan indicate the President will send another 30 to 35 thousand American soldiers into the country, a nation that is led by a corrupt government.
Watch this outstanding report on Afghanistan, produced for “60 Minutes” earlier this year—and you’ll get a better sense of what we are up against:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDonqtAf-8
FDR had to fight isolationist sentiment at the start of WWII. After the first World War-and still suffering the effects of the Depression with unemployment exceedingly high (sound familiar?), the nation was in no mood to send American boys overseas-again. Roosevelt’s wildly inventive “Lend-Lease” strategy to supply Great Britain and Russia with war materiel (avoiding the restrictions of the Neutrality Act) gained American support SOLELY because assisting the British and Russians in fighting the war against Hitler was far superior to the U.S. getting involved ourselves.
At some point, we have got to realize that the United States cannot impose its will on other countries without having it bite us in the rear. We should have learned this with the Shah of Iran. We did not. Numerous examples of meddling in the affairs of other nations have done nothing but plant the seeds of hatred that have caused extremists to export their “jihad” to our shores.
We need to get out—and soon.
Is it “isolationist” to engage politically and economically, but NOT militarily? As the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” depicted, supplying the forces we support with arms and cash is a far cry from landing in their backyard with American ground troops.
Security starts at home—and it is my belief that terrorists plotting against the United States are likely ALREADY HERE and making their plans with biochemical weapons, investigating our water supplies, our electrical grids and other mass destruction avenues that have little to do with desert training in the mountains of Afghanistan.
The rationale for staying the course revolves around the notion that our exit will allow the Taliban to flourish.
Guess what? They will anyway, unless the PEOPLE of Afghanistan rise up against that type of oppression. If the people can organize and fight the Taliban, the U.S. can be there with the implements of war and the training—but NOT the troops. It is widely believed that Afghanistan’s tribal in-fighting prevents a unified attack. OK, but how is that now OUR problem?
We simply cannot be the world’s policeman—and our selective outrage at certain countries for “crimes against humanity” are neutralized by our indifference to similar offenses committed by other countries (like China) with whom we have a stronger economic relationship (read “dependency”)
It’s hypocritical to feign indignation at one country and ignorance for another when both are engaging in similar behavior.
The security we seek is for AMERICAN targets on AMERICAN soil. As this past week’s sad breach at the White House demonstrated, all a willing terrorist needs to assassinate our President at his own party is a tuxedo or evening gown.
We are missing the true threat. It is HERE, not THERE.
Get out—responsibly, but rapidly. Bring the troops home. Employ the National Guard in ways they were meant to be used—protecting OUR borders, protecting OUR facilities and guarding OUR people.
Work diplomatically and economically to alleviate the woes of the world, but stop short of doing it militarily.
Much has changed since WWII, so references to FDR are perhaps irrelevant, but on this day, the 54th anniversary of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama bus, the United States has a black man as President.
Much progress has been made-and Obama embodies that progress.
This man, our Commander-In-Chief, needs to define a new era of what we are to do in a hostile country thousands of miles away—and what the future role of the United States should be in the world community going forward.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
President Obama will use the backdrop of West Point to outline his plans for the war in Afghanistan. In a sea of horrible choices, he will make one that will likely please no one (not even the generals who requested extra troops). His challenge, without a doubt—is to define what SUCCESS means for this war and to articulate an end game.
Good luck, Mr. President.
It’s true that this is not a mess that Obama got us into. That said, the President’s campaign rhetoric focused on Afghanistan as being the true focal point for the war, not Iraq. It’s likely this was a political move to be able to simultaneously be critical of the Bush war strategy without appearing soft on terrorism. At the time, Obama proposed 8,000 to 10,000 additional troops.
Since the election, we have sent about 20,000 more troops in—and the advances on tonight’s plan indicate the President will send another 30 to 35 thousand American soldiers into the country, a nation that is led by a corrupt government.
Watch this outstanding report on Afghanistan, produced for “60 Minutes” earlier this year—and you’ll get a better sense of what we are up against:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZDonqtAf-8
FDR had to fight isolationist sentiment at the start of WWII. After the first World War-and still suffering the effects of the Depression with unemployment exceedingly high (sound familiar?), the nation was in no mood to send American boys overseas-again. Roosevelt’s wildly inventive “Lend-Lease” strategy to supply Great Britain and Russia with war materiel (avoiding the restrictions of the Neutrality Act) gained American support SOLELY because assisting the British and Russians in fighting the war against Hitler was far superior to the U.S. getting involved ourselves.
At some point, we have got to realize that the United States cannot impose its will on other countries without having it bite us in the rear. We should have learned this with the Shah of Iran. We did not. Numerous examples of meddling in the affairs of other nations have done nothing but plant the seeds of hatred that have caused extremists to export their “jihad” to our shores.
We need to get out—and soon.
Is it “isolationist” to engage politically and economically, but NOT militarily? As the movie “Charlie Wilson’s War” depicted, supplying the forces we support with arms and cash is a far cry from landing in their backyard with American ground troops.
Security starts at home—and it is my belief that terrorists plotting against the United States are likely ALREADY HERE and making their plans with biochemical weapons, investigating our water supplies, our electrical grids and other mass destruction avenues that have little to do with desert training in the mountains of Afghanistan.
The rationale for staying the course revolves around the notion that our exit will allow the Taliban to flourish.
Guess what? They will anyway, unless the PEOPLE of Afghanistan rise up against that type of oppression. If the people can organize and fight the Taliban, the U.S. can be there with the implements of war and the training—but NOT the troops. It is widely believed that Afghanistan’s tribal in-fighting prevents a unified attack. OK, but how is that now OUR problem?
We simply cannot be the world’s policeman—and our selective outrage at certain countries for “crimes against humanity” are neutralized by our indifference to similar offenses committed by other countries (like China) with whom we have a stronger economic relationship (read “dependency”)
It’s hypocritical to feign indignation at one country and ignorance for another when both are engaging in similar behavior.
The security we seek is for AMERICAN targets on AMERICAN soil. As this past week’s sad breach at the White House demonstrated, all a willing terrorist needs to assassinate our President at his own party is a tuxedo or evening gown.
We are missing the true threat. It is HERE, not THERE.
Get out—responsibly, but rapidly. Bring the troops home. Employ the National Guard in ways they were meant to be used—protecting OUR borders, protecting OUR facilities and guarding OUR people.
Work diplomatically and economically to alleviate the woes of the world, but stop short of doing it militarily.
Much has changed since WWII, so references to FDR are perhaps irrelevant, but on this day, the 54th anniversary of Rosa Parks refusing to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama bus, the United States has a black man as President.
Much progress has been made-and Obama embodies that progress.
This man, our Commander-In-Chief, needs to define a new era of what we are to do in a hostile country thousands of miles away—and what the future role of the United States should be in the world community going forward.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
