Perhaps no other vehicle evokes images of the 60’s and 70’s counterculture movement as does the VW Bus, which began production on this date in 1950. This, of course, means it is within 5 years of retirement age—and has been eligible for AARP membership for a decade!
Yeah, this “almost” senior citizen was once the stereotype for the transportation of hippies. The VW nameplate was often modified to become a peace sign, the paint job became either a homemade canvas featuring large petal flowers or perhaps a total psychedelic makeover inspired by banned substances that were arguably as much the fuel for this machine as the gasoline itself.
Known officially as the Volkswagen Type 2 (the Beetle was the Type 1), the microbus was reportedly the brainchild of Dutch businessman Ben Pon, who was an importer of Beetles to the Netherlands and the man who foresaw a market for a small bus. In 1947, he sketched out his idea of a boxy utilitarian vehicle with a rear-mounted engine.
An economical solution for transporting young people to anti-war rallies and rock concerts like Woodstock, this rather un-sexy vehicle became an icon for the young generation. This fact was not lost on Volkswagen, which featured an ad with the front of the bus shedding a tear upon the death of Grateful Dead guitarist Jerry Garcia in 1995.
Check out the two TV ads for earlier versions of the VW bus:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcwIWxASw-E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq1gollgvm8
Reliable if not attractive, the VW bus became a symbol of a political and social movement not envisioned by its creator. Indeed, it was the VW bus’ customer base that supplanted whatever corporate-crafted image was portrayed in commercials with an image that better represented the reality of its use.
Visions of pot smoke billowing out of the VW bus whenever the doors opened and long-haired, love-bead laden hippies in bellbottom jeans and tie-dye T-shirts stumbled out somehow overtook whatever images the marketing team at VW cooked up.
“Hey dude….groovy bus…man.”
I have a sudden craving for Doritos.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, March 8, 2010
Friday, March 5, 2010
I Want To Invent Something Useless
This is what TV calls an “encore presentation”—as I wrote this blog originally
a year ago today. I did swap out a different video for your entertainment, however.
It was on this date in 1963 that the Hula Hoop was invented. I say “invented”, but really, how much thought went into a PLASTIC CIRCLE? The genius-if you can call it that—is in accurately forecasting that kids to adults would make fools of themselves by rotating their hips at a pace not designed by God in the HUMAN OWNERS MANUAL.
Big-time cashing in on this product was the result—and Mr. Hula Hoop laughed as he shook his hips all the way to the bank—probably somewhere in the Bahamas. Below is one of the original old TV commercials for the Hula Hoop-the NEW AND IMPROVED model with sand or beads or something inside that makes noise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U_nz1lgwvY
Of course, there are other useless inventions that have reaped their inventors rewards beyond reason or common sense. The Mood Ring and The Pet Rock come to mind. Useless? YES, yet extremely profitable for the guru responsible for bringing it to market.
I will be hard at work over the next several months trying to devise a cheap piece of crap that I can start a worldwide fad with. You will fall in love with my worthless piece of junk and you will buy it. If I am lucky, like the inventor of the Hula Hoop, you will not only APPEAR to be a fool by purchasing said crap in the first place, but also you will use it in front of OTHER people to:
a) convince them that my invention has enhanced your life and
b) CONFIRM that you are an imbecile by mere demonstration of my product (yet to be conceived, but certain to be embarrassing to all users)
If you have a good idea, we can work together! Want my daily blog in your inbox? (free-damn!) Let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
a year ago today. I did swap out a different video for your entertainment, however.
It was on this date in 1963 that the Hula Hoop was invented. I say “invented”, but really, how much thought went into a PLASTIC CIRCLE? The genius-if you can call it that—is in accurately forecasting that kids to adults would make fools of themselves by rotating their hips at a pace not designed by God in the HUMAN OWNERS MANUAL.
Big-time cashing in on this product was the result—and Mr. Hula Hoop laughed as he shook his hips all the way to the bank—probably somewhere in the Bahamas. Below is one of the original old TV commercials for the Hula Hoop-the NEW AND IMPROVED model with sand or beads or something inside that makes noise:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U_nz1lgwvY
Of course, there are other useless inventions that have reaped their inventors rewards beyond reason or common sense. The Mood Ring and The Pet Rock come to mind. Useless? YES, yet extremely profitable for the guru responsible for bringing it to market.
I will be hard at work over the next several months trying to devise a cheap piece of crap that I can start a worldwide fad with. You will fall in love with my worthless piece of junk and you will buy it. If I am lucky, like the inventor of the Hula Hoop, you will not only APPEAR to be a fool by purchasing said crap in the first place, but also you will use it in front of OTHER people to:
a) convince them that my invention has enhanced your life and
b) CONFIRM that you are an imbecile by mere demonstration of my product (yet to be conceived, but certain to be embarrassing to all users)
If you have a good idea, we can work together! Want my daily blog in your inbox? (free-damn!) Let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, March 4, 2010
John Candy
Hard to believe that it’s been 15 years since we lost actor and comedian John Candy, who died on this date in 1995 after suffering a heart attack.
Candy, who was only 43 at the time of his death—had already impacted American pop culture with his parade of hit movies. Even the ones that didn’t get…shall we say…”critical acclaim”? Well, they were still funny whenever he was on screen.
Canadian born, Candy was accepted into the prestigious Second City Comedy troupe in Toronto in 1972. He would later become a regular writer and performer on the show SCTV. When the show moved to network TV in 1981, Candy moved too—and won Emmy Awards for writing the show.
His most famous and recurring role was that of “Yosh Schmenge”, a clarinet player in a polka band.
Candy had his first break in movies with “Splash” in 1984, playing alongside a young actor named Tom Hanks. The film, directed by Ron Howard was a huge hit, launching the careers of Candy, Hanks, and Darryl Hannah.
Weighing in at up to 275 pounds and standing six foot-three, Candy would struggle with weight problems regularly, but, like Chris Farley and even John Belushi, the excess weight undoubtedly contributed to his comedic impact, where his clumsy physical antics would send audiences howling.
After “Splash”, the next ten years would see Candy starring in such box office hits as “Spaceballs”,”The Great Outdoors” and “Uncle Buck”. For me, his funniest—and most poignant performance was alongside Steve Martin in “Trains, Planes and Automobiles”
If you can watch this and NOT laugh, then you have no funny bone whatsoever and need to see a doctor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7v0eth4XAM
At the time of his death, Candy had just completed his directorial debut and was two thirds through filming “Wagons East”. It was on location for this movie in Durango, Mexico where Candy was stricken.
While Chris Farley (whom we also lost way too soon) became the “successor” if you will to the lovable overweight character roles in these movies, there will never be another John Candy. No pun intended, but the world truly lost a comedic heavyweight when John left us.
The good news is that he is no doubt upstairs—not playing the harp—but probably the clarinet—and keeping the angels in stitches.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Candy, who was only 43 at the time of his death—had already impacted American pop culture with his parade of hit movies. Even the ones that didn’t get…shall we say…”critical acclaim”? Well, they were still funny whenever he was on screen.
Canadian born, Candy was accepted into the prestigious Second City Comedy troupe in Toronto in 1972. He would later become a regular writer and performer on the show SCTV. When the show moved to network TV in 1981, Candy moved too—and won Emmy Awards for writing the show.
His most famous and recurring role was that of “Yosh Schmenge”, a clarinet player in a polka band.
Candy had his first break in movies with “Splash” in 1984, playing alongside a young actor named Tom Hanks. The film, directed by Ron Howard was a huge hit, launching the careers of Candy, Hanks, and Darryl Hannah.
Weighing in at up to 275 pounds and standing six foot-three, Candy would struggle with weight problems regularly, but, like Chris Farley and even John Belushi, the excess weight undoubtedly contributed to his comedic impact, where his clumsy physical antics would send audiences howling.
After “Splash”, the next ten years would see Candy starring in such box office hits as “Spaceballs”,”The Great Outdoors” and “Uncle Buck”. For me, his funniest—and most poignant performance was alongside Steve Martin in “Trains, Planes and Automobiles”
If you can watch this and NOT laugh, then you have no funny bone whatsoever and need to see a doctor:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7v0eth4XAM
At the time of his death, Candy had just completed his directorial debut and was two thirds through filming “Wagons East”. It was on location for this movie in Durango, Mexico where Candy was stricken.
While Chris Farley (whom we also lost way too soon) became the “successor” if you will to the lovable overweight character roles in these movies, there will never be another John Candy. No pun intended, but the world truly lost a comedic heavyweight when John left us.
The good news is that he is no doubt upstairs—not playing the harp—but probably the clarinet—and keeping the angels in stitches.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, March 3, 2010
Out Of Sorts About Mail
The computer age with e-mail, the internet for shopping and our desire to save trees should all be converging to create a HUGE reduction in the amount of paper and cardboard that goes through the U.S. Postal System.
But alas, that’s not the case.
I don’t know about you, but if anything, I’m getting MORE junk mail, not less of late.
With recent news that the Postal System is projected to lose billions going into the future, it’s enough to make you go….postal (sorry)
Really, though, do we need to have 47 credit cards? Judging by the number of credit card offers our household receives each week, if we responded to half of them (since we’re “already approved!”), I’d need to carry my plastic-laden wallet around in a wheelbarrow.
In was on this date in 1873 that Congress passed the so-called “Comstock Law”, making it illegal to send obscene materials through the mail.
Really. Has the postal inspector checked out a Victoria’s Secret catalogue lately?
About those catalogues. I love L.L. Bean, but we receive a pair of identical catalogues each time they mail out. Thinking about the expense, the cost of mailing that kind of bulk material—as high as it must be—it still must be dwarfed by the cost of photographing each model wearing each sweater and blouse, assembling the items, writing the text and coding for mail-in orders, not to mention the cost of printing the high gloss stock that is then assembled, stapled, addressed and sorted for mailing. The poor carrier trudges through the snow to deliver these gems to our mailboxes---where we promptly flip through he pages (if that!) before tossing into the recycling bin. Hey, that’s somebody’s career you’re dismissing by being so cavalier with the catalogue!
At some level it must work, since sales in Freeport do draw a crowd—and the telephone operators are plenty busy answering the phone. It may only represent 2% of the flyers that shipped, but it still somehow generates enough to repeat the whole process over again NEXT month.
The envelopes stuffed with a zillion coupons from area businesses are another matter. I open one of these high quality pieces and prepare to catch the blizzard of offers before they spray like confetti on the kitchen floor.
“Get 10% off your next sofa reupholstering!”
Be still my heart. I’m not sure my ticker can handle such excitement—or such savings! Five different pizza parlors will be inside, a plumber or two—and the obligatory roofer or siding installer. God bless’em. Here’s hoping they get even ONE response for the dollars they are shelling out to “Advertise” in this manner.
Offers from car dealers, clothing stores, sporting goods and real estate agents, who somehow have to always devote the majority of column inch ad space to their own FACE. Is it a job requirement that to be a real estate agent you have to have an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore?
There is a way to stop—or at least cut down on the amount of junk mail that arrives at your house—watch this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Cf5Fej4sw
My suggestion to all of you print advertisers is to divert that budget—however meager—to radio advertising for just a month or two. Granted, I’m not impartial as this is what pays my bills, but after over 30 years in the business, I see the smart business people getting the most “bang for their buck” from radio. They come back again and again—and when an ad schedule that includes a) a decent offer (which will NEVER be “get 10% off!), b) a compelling or creative way to convey that message (the copy) with c) a schedule with enough frequency to be exposed to the target audience at least 3-5 times, the radio advertiser will see results that will pay for the schedule---and then some.
So, why don’t we all just save a tree or two?
You’ll feel better—and maybe the Postal System will someday break even.
If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
But alas, that’s not the case.
I don’t know about you, but if anything, I’m getting MORE junk mail, not less of late.
With recent news that the Postal System is projected to lose billions going into the future, it’s enough to make you go….postal (sorry)
Really, though, do we need to have 47 credit cards? Judging by the number of credit card offers our household receives each week, if we responded to half of them (since we’re “already approved!”), I’d need to carry my plastic-laden wallet around in a wheelbarrow.
In was on this date in 1873 that Congress passed the so-called “Comstock Law”, making it illegal to send obscene materials through the mail.
Really. Has the postal inspector checked out a Victoria’s Secret catalogue lately?
About those catalogues. I love L.L. Bean, but we receive a pair of identical catalogues each time they mail out. Thinking about the expense, the cost of mailing that kind of bulk material—as high as it must be—it still must be dwarfed by the cost of photographing each model wearing each sweater and blouse, assembling the items, writing the text and coding for mail-in orders, not to mention the cost of printing the high gloss stock that is then assembled, stapled, addressed and sorted for mailing. The poor carrier trudges through the snow to deliver these gems to our mailboxes---where we promptly flip through he pages (if that!) before tossing into the recycling bin. Hey, that’s somebody’s career you’re dismissing by being so cavalier with the catalogue!
At some level it must work, since sales in Freeport do draw a crowd—and the telephone operators are plenty busy answering the phone. It may only represent 2% of the flyers that shipped, but it still somehow generates enough to repeat the whole process over again NEXT month.
The envelopes stuffed with a zillion coupons from area businesses are another matter. I open one of these high quality pieces and prepare to catch the blizzard of offers before they spray like confetti on the kitchen floor.
“Get 10% off your next sofa reupholstering!”
Be still my heart. I’m not sure my ticker can handle such excitement—or such savings! Five different pizza parlors will be inside, a plumber or two—and the obligatory roofer or siding installer. God bless’em. Here’s hoping they get even ONE response for the dollars they are shelling out to “Advertise” in this manner.
Offers from car dealers, clothing stores, sporting goods and real estate agents, who somehow have to always devote the majority of column inch ad space to their own FACE. Is it a job requirement that to be a real estate agent you have to have an ego the size of Mt. Rushmore?
There is a way to stop—or at least cut down on the amount of junk mail that arrives at your house—watch this short video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W0Cf5Fej4sw
My suggestion to all of you print advertisers is to divert that budget—however meager—to radio advertising for just a month or two. Granted, I’m not impartial as this is what pays my bills, but after over 30 years in the business, I see the smart business people getting the most “bang for their buck” from radio. They come back again and again—and when an ad schedule that includes a) a decent offer (which will NEVER be “get 10% off!), b) a compelling or creative way to convey that message (the copy) with c) a schedule with enough frequency to be exposed to the target audience at least 3-5 times, the radio advertiser will see results that will pay for the schedule---and then some.
So, why don’t we all just save a tree or two?
You’ll feel better—and maybe the Postal System will someday break even.
If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
A Million Mustangs!
I’d have to wait until next month for the official “birthday” of the Ford Mustang—it was in April of 1964 that the sporty but affordable convertible seized the attention of the auto marketplace.
Today is an anniversary of sorts, though—it was on this date in 1966 that the ONE MILLIONTH Mustang rolled off the assembly line!
What was originally conceived as the “working man’s Thunderbird”, the first Mustangs sold for about $2,300! The first 22,000 models were snapped up on virtually the first day. This was essentially Lee Iacocca’s car—as the-then general manager of Ford was involved in the design, production and marketing of the Mustang.
Growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, every boy wanted either a Mustang or a Chevy Camaro. I loved both cars, but that little horsey in the grille of the Mustang was the clincher. Bucket seats, a floor-mounted stick shift and sleek styling said it all. This was a chick magnet, not that any of us had a chance with anyone older than fifteen.
If you bought a new Mustang back then, it could today be worth more than ten times the original purchase price—if in good shape! Now, THAT’S an investment more solid than any 401K.
Below are a couple of TV commercials for the Mustang. The first is the “preview” spot for that very first model year—and then a 1967 TV ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBot2MAewpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQRYBhuBwb8
More than 400,000 Mustangs were sold in the first model year-and within 3 years of its introduction, about 500 Mustang Fan Clubs had sprung up. The Mustang appeared on the silver screen in its debut year in the James Bond film “Goldfinger”, the first of virtually hundreds of movies to feature this particular Ford.
Design changes through the 70’s made the Mustang less attractive-until the awful Mustang II’s, a mere shell of the former greatness that defined Mustang. Then came the Mustang GT-also awful. Ford finally came to its senses in 2004—with a completely redesigned model that approximated the terrific original design that turned heads in 1964.
So, here it is, 2010—and I STILL don’t have a Mustang…maybe when the kids get out of college and I am fully into my midlife crisis, I’ll try to recapture my lost youth by tooling down the road with the top down, radio blaring.
I won’t be “cruisin’ for babes” (a) they wouldn’t have me and (b) I don’t have a death wish.
I’ll be driving around, no doubt looking cool as my Mustang and I pick up my prescription at the CVS Drive-Thru Pharmacy.
Not exactly what I had in mind back in the 60’s, but better late than never.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Today is an anniversary of sorts, though—it was on this date in 1966 that the ONE MILLIONTH Mustang rolled off the assembly line!
What was originally conceived as the “working man’s Thunderbird”, the first Mustangs sold for about $2,300! The first 22,000 models were snapped up on virtually the first day. This was essentially Lee Iacocca’s car—as the-then general manager of Ford was involved in the design, production and marketing of the Mustang.
Growing up in the 60’s and 70’s, every boy wanted either a Mustang or a Chevy Camaro. I loved both cars, but that little horsey in the grille of the Mustang was the clincher. Bucket seats, a floor-mounted stick shift and sleek styling said it all. This was a chick magnet, not that any of us had a chance with anyone older than fifteen.
If you bought a new Mustang back then, it could today be worth more than ten times the original purchase price—if in good shape! Now, THAT’S an investment more solid than any 401K.
Below are a couple of TV commercials for the Mustang. The first is the “preview” spot for that very first model year—and then a 1967 TV ad:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MBot2MAewpY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQRYBhuBwb8
More than 400,000 Mustangs were sold in the first model year-and within 3 years of its introduction, about 500 Mustang Fan Clubs had sprung up. The Mustang appeared on the silver screen in its debut year in the James Bond film “Goldfinger”, the first of virtually hundreds of movies to feature this particular Ford.
Design changes through the 70’s made the Mustang less attractive-until the awful Mustang II’s, a mere shell of the former greatness that defined Mustang. Then came the Mustang GT-also awful. Ford finally came to its senses in 2004—with a completely redesigned model that approximated the terrific original design that turned heads in 1964.
So, here it is, 2010—and I STILL don’t have a Mustang…maybe when the kids get out of college and I am fully into my midlife crisis, I’ll try to recapture my lost youth by tooling down the road with the top down, radio blaring.
I won’t be “cruisin’ for babes” (a) they wouldn’t have me and (b) I don’t have a death wish.
I’ll be driving around, no doubt looking cool as my Mustang and I pick up my prescription at the CVS Drive-Thru Pharmacy.
Not exactly what I had in mind back in the 60’s, but better late than never.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, March 1, 2010
Lindbergh Baby Kidnapping Still Mysterious
It was on this date—March 1, 1932—that the infant son of aviator Charles Lindbergh was taken from his crib, triggering one of the largest manhunts in history.
Called the “crime of the century”, the nation was completely gripped by the emotional ordeal of someone who was arguably the most famous person on the planet at the time.
I am reading A. Scott Berg’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography, “Lindbergh” right now—and, coincidentally, started the part about the kidnapping last night, unaware that today was the 78th anniversary of the crime.
While one cannot discount the remarkable feat that Lindbergh accomplished with his solo flight from New York to Paris in 1927, it can be said that the fame, adulation and financial windfalls that accrued from that one 36 hour flight were completely out of proportion with the magnitude of the event itself.
Mass media was in its infancy—and Charles Lindbergh became the first true worldwide superstar. The newspaper headlines were a given, but the new medium of radio and sound coupled with film in the form of newsreels catapulted Lindbergh to a level of fame and intrusion of his privacy that had never occurred before.
As such, Lindbergh and his family were prime targets for kidnapping, especially as the Great Depression created economic hardship for millions of Americans.
The Lindbergh baby kidnap case didn’t have a happy ending. Although $50,000 in ransom was paid, the baby was never returned. A corpse was found about a month after the ransom drop—not far from the Lindbergh’s New Jersey home.
For a long time, it appeared the crime would not be solved…..until a marked bill from the ransom money turned up more than two years after the crime. Spent at a gas station, the operator wrote down the license plate of the driver, thinking he looked suspicious. The car belonged to a Bruno Hauptman, a German immigrant. When his home was searched, about $15,000 of the ransom money was found.
Needless to say, the conviction and execution of Hauptman was a fairly straightforward matter. However, there are those who believe the German was innocent. Here is an interesting show from the Leonard Nimoy’s “In Search Of…” series about the crime—and the allegations that Hauptman was framed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbeLVi3IuRI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW_WpKoqxts
Although the program was interesting, I am still not convinced. Even if Hauptman was not personally involved in the abduction and/or murder of the child, it’s difficult to believe that he was an innocent bystander. Holding 15 grand of the tainted money with no plausible explanation is damning evidence to me.
Either way, it’s a fascinating story—and I highly recommend “Lindbergh” by A. Scott Berg. With exclusive access to the Lindbergh family papers, it is the definitive biography of one of America’s most complex personalities.
If you’d like my blog in your daily inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Called the “crime of the century”, the nation was completely gripped by the emotional ordeal of someone who was arguably the most famous person on the planet at the time.
I am reading A. Scott Berg’s Pulitzer Prize winning biography, “Lindbergh” right now—and, coincidentally, started the part about the kidnapping last night, unaware that today was the 78th anniversary of the crime.
While one cannot discount the remarkable feat that Lindbergh accomplished with his solo flight from New York to Paris in 1927, it can be said that the fame, adulation and financial windfalls that accrued from that one 36 hour flight were completely out of proportion with the magnitude of the event itself.
Mass media was in its infancy—and Charles Lindbergh became the first true worldwide superstar. The newspaper headlines were a given, but the new medium of radio and sound coupled with film in the form of newsreels catapulted Lindbergh to a level of fame and intrusion of his privacy that had never occurred before.
As such, Lindbergh and his family were prime targets for kidnapping, especially as the Great Depression created economic hardship for millions of Americans.
The Lindbergh baby kidnap case didn’t have a happy ending. Although $50,000 in ransom was paid, the baby was never returned. A corpse was found about a month after the ransom drop—not far from the Lindbergh’s New Jersey home.
For a long time, it appeared the crime would not be solved…..until a marked bill from the ransom money turned up more than two years after the crime. Spent at a gas station, the operator wrote down the license plate of the driver, thinking he looked suspicious. The car belonged to a Bruno Hauptman, a German immigrant. When his home was searched, about $15,000 of the ransom money was found.
Needless to say, the conviction and execution of Hauptman was a fairly straightforward matter. However, there are those who believe the German was innocent. Here is an interesting show from the Leonard Nimoy’s “In Search Of…” series about the crime—and the allegations that Hauptman was framed:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbeLVi3IuRI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cW_WpKoqxts
Although the program was interesting, I am still not convinced. Even if Hauptman was not personally involved in the abduction and/or murder of the child, it’s difficult to believe that he was an innocent bystander. Holding 15 grand of the tainted money with no plausible explanation is damning evidence to me.
Either way, it’s a fascinating story—and I highly recommend “Lindbergh” by A. Scott Berg. With exclusive access to the Lindbergh family papers, it is the definitive biography of one of America’s most complex personalities.
If you’d like my blog in your daily inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, February 26, 2010
I Am Ready For Golf!
Maine in February is no time to think about the greatest game ever invented, since the grass is usually completely hidden by FEET of snow.
This year, however, is different. The relatively mild temps, coupled with all that rain-and the fact that the Mid Atlantic states seem to have received all of our snow (our pleasure!), I am seeing my yard! There is GRASS there!
While I not-so-patiently wait for the chance to tee it up, I thought you might enjoy this golf blooper video. Even if golf is not your sport (and it most certainly isn’t for some of the poor souls in this film), you will get a chuckle out of this, the most humbling of games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sERwdGY_ITU
It won’t be long!
Have a terrific weekend—and if you’d like my blog in your daily in-box, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It is delivered to you daily FORE free!
This year, however, is different. The relatively mild temps, coupled with all that rain-and the fact that the Mid Atlantic states seem to have received all of our snow (our pleasure!), I am seeing my yard! There is GRASS there!
While I not-so-patiently wait for the chance to tee it up, I thought you might enjoy this golf blooper video. Even if golf is not your sport (and it most certainly isn’t for some of the poor souls in this film), you will get a chuckle out of this, the most humbling of games:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sERwdGY_ITU
It won’t be long!
Have a terrific weekend—and if you’d like my blog in your daily in-box, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It is delivered to you daily FORE free!
Thursday, February 25, 2010
First African American Congressman
In 2008, America crossed a threshold by electing Barack Obama as the very first President of African American descent. It was certainly an accomplishment in the sense that Americans of all stripes essentially set aside the issue of race in order to elect whom they felt was the best qualified candidate for the job.
It was about time—remarkable, but not astounding, since our nation has come a long way since the Civil War.
If you had asked me when the first African American was elected to Congress, I would probably have said sometime in the 1940’s or even the 50’s.
Not even close.
The year was 1870.
That’s right EIGHTEEN-seventy. Barely five years after the war prompted by the issue of slavery, Hiram Rhoades Revels, a Republican from Natchez, Mississippi was sworn into the U.S. Senate on this date in 1870.
Revels, a college-educated minister, helped form African American army regiments for the UNION cause, started a school for free men and served as a chaplain for the Union army. In January of 1870, Revels was elected to the Mississippi Legislature to fill the seat once occupied by none other than Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy. Now, THAT’S irony for ya!
Perhaps more amazing than a black man in the Senate just after the Civil War is the fact that (as of 2008) he remains one of only FIVE African Americans to serve as U.S. Senators. That fact is perhaps even more incredible than Revels' term coming when it did.
Here is a quick video resume for America’s first black congressman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=offq5Mp_FDU
Progress will truly come when sex, race and religion fail to affect the outcome of elections. President Kennedy dispelled the notion that a Roman Catholic could not be elected—and Barack Obama neutralized the issue of race in 2008. Hillary Clinton’s exceedingly close defeat to Obama demonstrated that gender would likely not have been a factor had she been the Democratic nominee.
There will surely be a woman President in the future, a Hispanic Chief Executive and maybe even someone whose religion is Islam—although I’ll bet that we are a long way from that last threshold, given the public's orientation today. Of course, the goal is never to affirm our absence of prejudice by purposely voting in someone of a specific “group”, be it nationality, gender or religious preference.
Let’s stick to the three C’s:
Character
Competence
Communicator
Other C’s like: Charisma or Correctness (as in Political) can dangle forever as completely irrelevant.
Remember, if Charisma (seen by many as essential) was employed as a “must-have” quality more than a century ago, a young lawyer by the name of Abraham Lincoln would never have been elected. And that’s a sobering thought.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It was about time—remarkable, but not astounding, since our nation has come a long way since the Civil War.
If you had asked me when the first African American was elected to Congress, I would probably have said sometime in the 1940’s or even the 50’s.
Not even close.
The year was 1870.
That’s right EIGHTEEN-seventy. Barely five years after the war prompted by the issue of slavery, Hiram Rhoades Revels, a Republican from Natchez, Mississippi was sworn into the U.S. Senate on this date in 1870.
Revels, a college-educated minister, helped form African American army regiments for the UNION cause, started a school for free men and served as a chaplain for the Union army. In January of 1870, Revels was elected to the Mississippi Legislature to fill the seat once occupied by none other than Jefferson Davis, the President of the Confederacy. Now, THAT’S irony for ya!
Perhaps more amazing than a black man in the Senate just after the Civil War is the fact that (as of 2008) he remains one of only FIVE African Americans to serve as U.S. Senators. That fact is perhaps even more incredible than Revels' term coming when it did.
Here is a quick video resume for America’s first black congressman:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=offq5Mp_FDU
Progress will truly come when sex, race and religion fail to affect the outcome of elections. President Kennedy dispelled the notion that a Roman Catholic could not be elected—and Barack Obama neutralized the issue of race in 2008. Hillary Clinton’s exceedingly close defeat to Obama demonstrated that gender would likely not have been a factor had she been the Democratic nominee.
There will surely be a woman President in the future, a Hispanic Chief Executive and maybe even someone whose religion is Islam—although I’ll bet that we are a long way from that last threshold, given the public's orientation today. Of course, the goal is never to affirm our absence of prejudice by purposely voting in someone of a specific “group”, be it nationality, gender or religious preference.
Let’s stick to the three C’s:
Character
Competence
Communicator
Other C’s like: Charisma or Correctness (as in Political) can dangle forever as completely irrelevant.
Remember, if Charisma (seen by many as essential) was employed as a “must-have” quality more than a century ago, a young lawyer by the name of Abraham Lincoln would never have been elected. And that’s a sobering thought.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Mascot Miscues
Anyone who thinks that being a sports team mascot is easy duty should be re-educated by those who have donned an oversize head and waded into a crowd of rowdy sports fans!
In Portland, we are blessed by a bunch of great mascots, from the Portland Pirates “Crackers” and “Salty Pete” to the Red Claws “Crusher” to the Lewiston Maineiacs “Kollide” to perhaps the most beloved, The Portland Sea Dogs “Slugger”. Of course, we also have “Oakie” from Oakhurst Dairy and even the City of Portland has a mascot (which looks suspiciously like Slugger if you ask me)
Imagine crawling into a fur suit on an 85 degree day-expected to do gymnastics and pranks-all sorts of athletic maneuvers wearing a costume that inhibits walking let alone jumping and dancing!
Yet with all the poking and probing, pulling and yanking, the people behind the mask come back year after year. There must be something FUN to it all, although many children scream in terror when the mascot heads their way. Others are drawn like a magnet—and even adults act like children in the presence of a mascot.
Several quick videos today—of our local sports mascots—then a HILARIOUS montage of Mascot Bloopers!
Here is the introductory video for the Maine Red Claws mascot “Crusher”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wv5S56QF5U
Ha! Now, here’s one for “Slugger” the Sea Dog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQeAHHyjhko
Couldn’t find any Pirates mascot video, but here is the Maineiacs “Kollide”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFTmKF9Ukc0
And NOW, the best---Mascot Bloopers—enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqCjrYgO3xw
I’d love to try out being a mascot—but wonder if I could LAST even one game in that stifling suit! And I think I am nearly alone in that desire…so, until you volunteer, be good to your mascots—they may be working harder than the athletes out there!
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
In Portland, we are blessed by a bunch of great mascots, from the Portland Pirates “Crackers” and “Salty Pete” to the Red Claws “Crusher” to the Lewiston Maineiacs “Kollide” to perhaps the most beloved, The Portland Sea Dogs “Slugger”. Of course, we also have “Oakie” from Oakhurst Dairy and even the City of Portland has a mascot (which looks suspiciously like Slugger if you ask me)
Imagine crawling into a fur suit on an 85 degree day-expected to do gymnastics and pranks-all sorts of athletic maneuvers wearing a costume that inhibits walking let alone jumping and dancing!
Yet with all the poking and probing, pulling and yanking, the people behind the mask come back year after year. There must be something FUN to it all, although many children scream in terror when the mascot heads their way. Others are drawn like a magnet—and even adults act like children in the presence of a mascot.
Several quick videos today—of our local sports mascots—then a HILARIOUS montage of Mascot Bloopers!
Here is the introductory video for the Maine Red Claws mascot “Crusher”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wv5S56QF5U
Ha! Now, here’s one for “Slugger” the Sea Dog:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQeAHHyjhko
Couldn’t find any Pirates mascot video, but here is the Maineiacs “Kollide”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFTmKF9Ukc0
And NOW, the best---Mascot Bloopers—enjoy!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqCjrYgO3xw
I’d love to try out being a mascot—but wonder if I could LAST even one game in that stifling suit! And I think I am nearly alone in that desire…so, until you volunteer, be good to your mascots—they may be working harder than the athletes out there!
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Take Ice Skating Out Of The Olympics
After taking a “blogcation” (a word I just made up for “vacation from blogging”), I am BACK with both guns blazing.
Yes, as the title suggests, I think figure skating should be thrown out of the Olympics.
In fact, I believe that Ice Dancing, Synchonized Swimming, Gymnastics and ANYTHING else that requires a judge to determine a winner should be jettisoned immediately.
No, I am not one of those people who don’t believe skating is a sport or that it is not athletic. Clearly it is, as are all of the others mentioned above. My issue is that SUBJECTIVE judgment by biased people should not enter into the formula. How many competitors have had their Olympic dreams dashed-not by their performance, but by their looks, their hairstyle or their nationality? The numbers would likely make us sick.
Don’t get me wrong. I truly enjoy watching all of these sports, but I cannot abide the snide remarks by the announcers (even if they are past champions) regarding so and so’s “interpretation of the music” or this couple’s “ability to connect” while doing their thing.
PLEASE.
As my brother-in-law Bob has said for years: “If it cannot be measured with a stopwatch, measuring tape or points scored against an opponent, it should not be an Olympic sport”. I completely agree. Speed skating works because there is a definitive winner-the only time judging comes into play is if intentional interference causes one skater to wipe another one out in order to win/advance.
I will sit and watch two performances (which I consider to be flawless because no one’s head smacked into the ice) and then be astounded when some self-important skating has-been doofus like DICK BUTTON will rip one of the pairs apart. Of course, he knows the ludicrous judging system because he is part of the problem—and he’ll usually be right. Sometimes, I’d like to hit him in the knee with a baseball bat—maybe Tonya Harding will lend me hers.
In case you’re not fully aware of the scoring system (which had to be changed after the 2002 Olympics when it was discovered that a Russian judge and a French judge colluded to rig the outcome), here is a short tutorial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYUXWqzSl80
Now, THAT’S simple and straightforward, no? When we are talking about .25 points here or there, there is a big problem.
The Ice Skating World, clique-ish enough as it is, blindly believes that the 2002 Olympics were somehow an aberration- that the rigging of results, the fixing of champions was not going on for years. The very phrase “He/she is a favorite of the judges!” is a blatant admission of bias in a sport where virtually EVERYTHING is subjective. Even though the present system is a vast improvement, each element carries the stigma of EVALUATION.
So, how to make it better?
Well, keep the present performances intact if skaters want to aspire to a career in the Ice Capades following their Olympic moment.
Do it for the TV audience.
But, for the scoring that the medals are based on, make everyone skate to the same music, perform the exact same routine—and score it based on time intervals between moves and whether or not one’s bottom lands on the ice.
Not perfect, I know, because judging is still involved, but eliminating these sports will just plain NOT happen. We know the odds of removing figure skating from the Olympics is about the same as Scott Hamilton playing inside linebacker for the Patriots.
Reducing everyone to the same program will also not happen-as boring to watch as the compulsories—which, while technically a better way to judge basic ability, makes dreadful TV.
No, it forever will be evaluation and judgment that control the outcome. What if that occurred in the other sports?Luge competitors aren’t scored on their “interpretation” of the course. At least with an identical routine, even viewers without judging credentials would likely pick the best competitors.
Do the same for gymnastics.
Let’s just drop synchronized swimming, OK?
If you’d like to receive my (mostly) weekday blog for free—a blog that 9 out of 10 judges have given a perfect score (never mind that I bribed them), just let me know:
Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Yes, as the title suggests, I think figure skating should be thrown out of the Olympics.
In fact, I believe that Ice Dancing, Synchonized Swimming, Gymnastics and ANYTHING else that requires a judge to determine a winner should be jettisoned immediately.
No, I am not one of those people who don’t believe skating is a sport or that it is not athletic. Clearly it is, as are all of the others mentioned above. My issue is that SUBJECTIVE judgment by biased people should not enter into the formula. How many competitors have had their Olympic dreams dashed-not by their performance, but by their looks, their hairstyle or their nationality? The numbers would likely make us sick.
Don’t get me wrong. I truly enjoy watching all of these sports, but I cannot abide the snide remarks by the announcers (even if they are past champions) regarding so and so’s “interpretation of the music” or this couple’s “ability to connect” while doing their thing.
PLEASE.
As my brother-in-law Bob has said for years: “If it cannot be measured with a stopwatch, measuring tape or points scored against an opponent, it should not be an Olympic sport”. I completely agree. Speed skating works because there is a definitive winner-the only time judging comes into play is if intentional interference causes one skater to wipe another one out in order to win/advance.
I will sit and watch two performances (which I consider to be flawless because no one’s head smacked into the ice) and then be astounded when some self-important skating has-been doofus like DICK BUTTON will rip one of the pairs apart. Of course, he knows the ludicrous judging system because he is part of the problem—and he’ll usually be right. Sometimes, I’d like to hit him in the knee with a baseball bat—maybe Tonya Harding will lend me hers.
In case you’re not fully aware of the scoring system (which had to be changed after the 2002 Olympics when it was discovered that a Russian judge and a French judge colluded to rig the outcome), here is a short tutorial:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYUXWqzSl80
Now, THAT’S simple and straightforward, no? When we are talking about .25 points here or there, there is a big problem.
The Ice Skating World, clique-ish enough as it is, blindly believes that the 2002 Olympics were somehow an aberration- that the rigging of results, the fixing of champions was not going on for years. The very phrase “He/she is a favorite of the judges!” is a blatant admission of bias in a sport where virtually EVERYTHING is subjective. Even though the present system is a vast improvement, each element carries the stigma of EVALUATION.
So, how to make it better?
Well, keep the present performances intact if skaters want to aspire to a career in the Ice Capades following their Olympic moment.
Do it for the TV audience.
But, for the scoring that the medals are based on, make everyone skate to the same music, perform the exact same routine—and score it based on time intervals between moves and whether or not one’s bottom lands on the ice.
Not perfect, I know, because judging is still involved, but eliminating these sports will just plain NOT happen. We know the odds of removing figure skating from the Olympics is about the same as Scott Hamilton playing inside linebacker for the Patriots.
Reducing everyone to the same program will also not happen-as boring to watch as the compulsories—which, while technically a better way to judge basic ability, makes dreadful TV.
No, it forever will be evaluation and judgment that control the outcome. What if that occurred in the other sports?Luge competitors aren’t scored on their “interpretation” of the course. At least with an identical routine, even viewers without judging credentials would likely pick the best competitors.
Do the same for gymnastics.
Let’s just drop synchronized swimming, OK?
If you’d like to receive my (mostly) weekday blog for free—a blog that 9 out of 10 judges have given a perfect score (never mind that I bribed them), just let me know:
Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
