The Future----1939 Style

The New York World’s Fair of 1939 opened on this date—a sweltering April day in the Big Apple. Despite the heat, over 200,000 people showed up.

President Franklin Roosevelt gave the opening address—and became the first U.S. President to appear on television—the first day of regularly scheduled TV broadcasting in New York. Never mind that virtually no one had a television back then. Hey, the future has arrived!

Spanning 1,200 acres in Flushing Meadows, the World’s Fair introduced other new technologies, like FM broadcasting, robotics, fluorescent lighting and a crude fax machine! Albert Einstein gave a speech on cosmic rays and major corporations gave their vision of the future while simultaneously introducing new products.

This blog is all about the videos below. The first is a glimpse of what visitors encountered at the various exhibits. The second is a narrated look into the “future”, envisioning the world in…1960!!! Yes, 1960 was surely the future when sitting in New York 71 years ago. The exhibit was put together by General Motors, so there is a definite slant towards transportation. As such, even though it is a two-part segment, I’ve put what I believe is the more interesting second segment here. If you wish to see the first, it is right there as a choice on You Tube.

The most fascinating aspect of GM’s projection of 1960—is just how WRONG it turned out to be. First of all, it seems that total transportation transformation was somehow supposed to take place in a span of twenty years.

Who knows? When this exhibit and film were made, the U.S. had no idea that Pearl Harbor would be attacked two and a half years later—and that America would be drawn into World War II.

Enjoy the following vintage film clips—especially the one that “looks ahead” to the year 1960--the first one is merely a LINK--"Embedding" the player in this blog was disabled---but it is DEFINITELY worth clicking on the link to watch!:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZRVtdwzdDI&feature=fvw

Here's Part 2 of the GM exhibit film:




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WU7dT2HId-c&NR=1

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

Hair Lands On Broadway

The year 1968 was tumultuous for many reasons-most notably, the war in Viet Nam. The counter-culture was alive and kicking, the hippie lifestyle making its way into the mainstream media—and the political divide that characterized the so-called “generation gap”—was most universally centered around one aspect of our appearance:

Hair.

The length of hair, particularly on men was an instant category classification tool. Those with long locks were part of the “counter culture”—and those with short-cropped hair were part of “the establishment”.

The Broadway musical “Hair” made its debut on this date in 1968. The New York Times critic Clive Barnes stated that “you don’t have to be a supporter of Eugene McCarthy to love it, but I wouldn’t give it much chance among the adherents to Governor Reagan”.

“Hair” was the first rock musical to make it on the Great White Way. Songs that defined a generation, like “Aquarius” were part of the reason for its success. Even the family pop group, The Cowsills (inspiration for the later TV show “The Partridge Family”) had a mainstream pop smash with the title track. Here is their primitive video of the song “Hair”:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFy-yzj02FE

Funny ,weird and a tad pathetic all rolled into one.

In addition to the controversial references to sex and drugs throughout, “Hair” also featured a much talked about scene at the end of the first act in which the entire cast appeared completely nude on the dimly lit stage.

Not only a huge hit on Broadway, the show generated a million-selling original cast recording , a #1 song by the Fifth Dimension (“Aquarius”)—and became a cultural phenomenon.

I look back to the bell bottoms, the psychedelic colors and wild outfits and ask myself, “Did we REALLY look like that?” Well, unfortunately, the photographic evidence exists for many of us in family pictures from the era, one I do not miss at all. Yeah, we DID look like that.

Yuck.

And while the fashion “statements” made back then are embarrassing to view today, at least know that the alternative to such wild "threads" back then was a little item called the LEISURE SUIT.

I had one of those too.
Corduroy.

I should have been shot on sight, but then, anyone doing so would have had to turn the gun on themselves. “Let the sunshine in”-----INDEED! How about “close the door and turn the lights out”?

The next time somebody suggests that this is the dawning of the “age of Aquarius”, let’s hope that we don’t all arrive in that “new age” wearing Nehru jackets.

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

Carole And James---Buy This CD and DVD!!

One of the cool things about working at a radio station is that we receive the music first, usually well ahead of the general public.

A while back, I got the CD and DVD combo of Carole King and James Taylor at the Troubadour.

Buy this CD and DVD. It is terrific!

Clearly, it would be best if you are a JT and/or Carole King fan. Their intertwined careers and phenomenal success starting in the early 70’s was the soundtrack of all of our lives as we exited the 60’s and began a new decade searching for more than just a beat (or Beatles) in our music.

The Troubadour is a famous club in Los Angeles, perhaps most notable for launching the career of one Elton John, also in the early 70’s. Not a glamorous setup, to be sure. Some of the artists who played there would call it a dump.

Whatever it was then—apparently it still is now, as James Taylor remarks during his reunion show with Carole King---namely, that not much has changed in the nearly 40 years since the two young singer-songwriters performed there regularly.

A couple of clips today—one is from the 2007 show that spawned this CD/DVD and inspired the summer tour for Carole and James. To be sure, 94.9 WHOM will be giving away tickets to the Boston shows in June!

Check it out:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJ2ncTGQEA0&feature=related

Now, this clip---vintage Carole King and James Taylor—back when he had HAIR---at the start of their amazing ride in 1971:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=urt2cy7AqFs

James Taylor was signed to Apple Records, the Beatles label—after Paul McCartney and George Harrison heard the shy teenager and saw in him great talent. The breakup of the Beatles soon after left James a bit lost in the shuffle—and he returned to the U.S. and signed with Warner Brothers Records.

Although the landmark album “Sweet Baby James” was not initially a hit, word of mouth and airplay on FM stations slowly edged the album up the charts. Carole King’s song “You’ve Got A Friend” was a huge #1 song for James.
Concurrently, Carole King was already an accomplished songwriter, having penned or co-written MANY hits, starting with the Shirelles’ , “Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow”.
However, she was not a performer—until hooking up with James and appearing with a host of musicians in club gigs, including The Troubadour.

Then came “Tapestry”—the album that ranked #1 on the Billboard charts for an amazing 13 weeks. It has sold 22 million copies—making it the biggest selling album by a solo female artist in history—a mark that was held until Alanis Morrisette’s “Jagged Little Pill” surpassed King’s sales in the 90’s.

Both singers became huge mega-stars almost overnight.

If you are like me, the songs from “Tapestry” and “Sweet Baby James” are not just “tunes”. Hearing anything off either album immediately transports me back to a specific time, a specific place—and evokes a flood of memories. These songs are literally part of the fabric of my life, interwoven with all of the experiences, both happy and sad—that exemplify those years when I was constantly exposed to this music.

As is the case for me, so it is for literally millions of other people who lives are in part DEFINED by this wonderful music. What an awesome feeling it must be to have something that you wrote—come to mean so much to so many people. James Taylor jokes that little did he know that when Carole King gave him permission to record “You’ve Got A Friend” and release it as a single ahead of her, that he would be “singing that same song every day for the rest of my life!” Perhaps it grows tiresome after a while—and you wonder if these two ever grow weary of their own music after so many performances.

I don’t know the answer to that question— I do know that I never tire of hearing these unbelievable songs—and losing myself in the memories they bring.


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

Greed Is Winning

If there is ONE thing that Democrats and Republicans should agree on—even if ONLY to align themselves with American sentiment, it is the issue of Wall Street reform.

An overwhelming majority of Americans are disgusted with the conduct of the Wall Street banks, which have traveled from the brink of extinction to taxpayer bailout to record profits in the course of a few short months. All of this while unemployment stays just under 10 percent and the economy struggles to recover from the near collapse caused largely by these same greedy capitalists.

Let’s face it-demonizing Wall Street—even if it isn’t entirely accurate—is good politics. Nobody likes these Armani suited, cigar smoking, limo-riding pigs whose only objective is to make as much money (in whatever manner possible). OK—is that not the truth? Perhaps it’s not universal, but the impression of the average American tends to gravitate to this image.

And the Republicans don’t get it. Again.

In another effort to thwart the President and re-cast measures to reform this broken system into being yet another example of Democrats attempting to place all things under governmental control, the Republicans have succeeded in using a legislative tactic to keep the proposed bill from even coming to the floor of the Senate for debate.

Huh?

This time around, playing politics with Wall Street reform may backfire for the Republicans, who stand to gain a bunch of seats in the mid-term elections coming off the distaste of many Americans over the passage of Health Care reform. Seems that any agreement with the Dems is seen as a sign of weakness—and a “scorched earth” approach is the only one warranted.

Bad decision.

Let’s go back to the Fall of 2008, when the spector of these Wall Street banks failing had the U.S. economy on the literal brink of collapse. At that time, both Democrats and Republicans voted to bail out the banks—and BOTH parties vowed that this could never happen again. To be clear, both parties promised significant new federal regulatory measures to keep private banks from engaging in ultra-risky behaviors.

No one argued about the need for more stringent regulations. It gave political cover for those whose votes to bailout the banks were, shall we say…..distasteful—at best.

So, what happened?

The banks cruise along their merry way, utilizing the American taxpayer to provide their golden parachute—and then proceed to generate record profits, all of this while small businesses still struggle to secure short-term credit.


Here’s a little clip from the 1987 movie “Wall Street” entitled “I Create Nothing..I Own”-yeah, it’s a movie, but the sentiment drives Wall Street behavior, I think. Michael Douglas’s character, Gordon Gekko—is a role model to those whose only goal is to get rich—quick:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9mWAxHpeew&feature=related


The Republicans argue that they were not included in the process, that it was not bi-partisan, just another attempt by the Democrats to exclude their input. Sounds fair on the surface, but Republicans failed to offer a SINGLE amendment to the bill (hey, guys, that’s the opportunity to have the input you crave) No, the GOP allows the bill to pass through committee and then KILLS it before it has a chance to come to the floor.

The reasons I have heard generally revolve around the following:

1) They want to eliminate the “too big to fail” provisions-blaming Democrats for bailouts that were truly bipartisan. OK, but the six LARGEST banks control over HALF of the U.S. GDP. Republicans are against invoking anti-trust logic to break up these banks into smaller entities, however, arguing that to do so would make these large banks globally uncompetitive. Seems a choice needs to be made. If breaking up these banks is not acceptable, then we must prop them up when they edge towards failure. Not doing this and allowing them to fail could have disastrous consequences. Their prior votes to bailout these banks prove they agree.
2) Republicans are against a “commission” to oversee Wall Street behavior. I may side with them on this one—as creating another entity-a separate bureaucracy—is against the fiber of my being. Here, too, was an opportunity to discuss/debate this in committee—or on the floor of the Senate. But they blew it.
3) There is a belief that more restrictive regulations will somehow hurt SMALL business. I just plain don’t understand this. Maybe I’m ignorant.

The huge infusion of cash into the campaign coffers of Congress members cannot be understated when looking for motives. The general strategy is to keep this legislation (which many Americans don’t fully comprehend as it is complex in nature)in the back rooms of Congress. Keep it away from the spotlight and the glare of media attention. Those Congress members who are essentially OWNED by Wall Street will then be able to insulate their inaction and/or their true motives from voters.

Much of what Wall Street engages in has nothing to do with creating jobs. Derivatives-their creation, their trading and sale to other banks and unsuspecting countries—have no socially redeeming value. Margin selling, short selling, betting on entire segments of the economy to fail (like the housing market)—and then CASHING in on that failure is at the heart of the problem.

No one wants more government regulation. However, ALL government regulation has its birth directly related to actual abuses in the private sector that created a reason to step in.

Perfect economic models always favor de-regulation.
The missing piece, however, is an assumption that all players in the game are not motivated solely by greed and efforts to skirt the edges of legality. The fact that corporations and banks will go to all lengths to increase profits—regardless of the consequences to anyone but shareholders—is all the reason we need to make sure that safeguards are in place.

The SEC is there to protect consumers who actively participate in the stock and bond markets. Without strict regulations, U.S. citizens would be routinely ripped off, misinformed about investments and would have no recourse to seek justice. No one argues the need for the SEC, not even Republicans, who park much of their wealth in the U.S. Stock Market.

But hey, it’s a GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRACY, no?

What caused the need to create the SEC has now extended to additional segments of the economy.
This spirit of consumer protection needs to extend to Wall Street, which collectively has no conscience and seeks only to further its own wealth.

This is a mission that needs a unified attack. Courageous Congressmen and women need to join forces. Those not in the pocket of Wall Street need to join—Republicans and Democrats. The mere exercise of doing this will expose those whose political survival has depended upon the wicked motives of Wall Street banks. These politicians need to be shamed into either siding with Americans or their investment banker buddies.

For those who elect to choose the money over the interests of their country, there may be no amount of campaign cash that will allow them to return to their seats in the next election.

Wall Street—and too many Congress members—are counting on Americans to NOT pay attention to this proposed legislation.

Let’s do the opposite.

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

Studio 54 Opens-Disco's Headquarters

I've got to admit that I was never a fan of Disco music.

When Chicago DJ Steve Dahl caused a riot at a baseball game when he burned disco albums, I was on the sidelines cheering him on.

Although I was a baby DJ at the time—and had to actually spin “K.C. And The Sunshine Band”, I was a rock fan—and usually turned the studio monitor DOWN. It’s one thing to have to PLAY that music. To have to LISTEN to it was another matter entirely.

Disco’s “Ground Zero” was the nightclub “Studio 54”, which opened on this date in 1977. Taking exclusivity to heights never before seen, “Studio 54” almost overnight became THE place to be---and getting in became an obsession.

Two college roommates at Syracuse were the owners—Steve Rubell and Ian Schrager. After a chain of steak restaurants failed, they went into the nightclub business.

Part of the plan was to overtly and shamelessly EXCLUDE all but the most chic, beautiful and famous patrons. Purposely denying entrance to a “B-list” celebrity occasionally was part of the plan to cultivate a desire to “get in” that turned into a crusade for many Manhattan residents.

The woman behind the success of “Studio 54” was one Carmen D’Allessio, a public relations entrepreneur whose Rolodex included names like Liza Minnelli, Andy Warhol, Truman Capote and Bianca Jagger. She created what is now termed “buzz” in advance of the club’s opening that, by the time it did, became a MAJOR event.

Here is a video clip of the short history of the nightclub-check out the young Michael Jackson, a regular patron:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dl726_FKhc


Disco was the music that kept the club pumping. That it became the embodiment of the disco era, it is perhaps only fitting that “Studio 54” died a death almost as sudden as the demise of disco music itself.

As the video implies, the rampant use of drugs at “Studio 54” was bragged about too much---as was the cash being generated by the activities, both legal and illicit inside the club. Raided by authorities, the owners were brought up on charges of tax evasion (among others).

“Studio 54”’s swan song was on February 4, 1980—a closing party appropriately entitled “The End of Modern Day Gomorrah”

If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just drop me a line—and I will e-mail to you-FREE!! Tim.moore@citcomm.com

Movie Technology-We've Come A Long Way

Apologies for some of the profane language in yesterday’s blog….not from ME, but rather, from actor Jack Nicholson—in a couple of the clips I embedded on the site while saluting his birthday.

Movie buffs will likely forgive these “transgressions”, chalking it up to the “art” category that films fall into. Just as museum patrons can stroll past nudes without batting an eye and can attend plays that include nudity (like “Oh! Calcutta!”) while not condoning such exhibitionism elsewhere, they also forgive foul language in movies without forgiving its use in mixed company in real life.

Whatever.

The technology of the cinema has advanced light years since its introduction, which happened to be on this date in 1896. Thomas Edison’s projector, the Vitascope, made it’s debut in front of a live theatre audience. No profane language here—as there was no sound at all.

Here are a couple of vintage Vitascope clips—the first one is interesting as it depicts the VERY FIRST on-screen kiss:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LinYaA0icIs&feature=related

Here is another clip from a movie whose only surviving remnants are here:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2JZfla3dWmM&NR=1

It’s hard to imagine the reaction of audiences to these “moving pictures”. For many, still photography was still a miracle—and to think that one could see events unfolding on a screen—in motion—must have been remarkable.

We look at this primitive film—with inferior picture quality, lighting and stilted action—and compare it to our plasma screen/DVD/Blu-Ray world and find it all wanting. But, if you think about it, a hundred plus years is a relatively short time frame for the quantum leap in technology represented by all things video. Yes, your cell phone has a better video camera inside it than the most sophisticated movie camera at the turn of the century (the 20th century)

I walk into Best Buy and the sensory bombardment is almost too overwhelming to take in. Can you imagine being able to transport Edison into today’s electronics stores and even ATTEMPT to explain to him how it all works?

Truth is, we largely don’t understand how any of it works. Like trained apes, we can hook up the right cords and push the correct buttons—and viola! Entertainment beyond Edison’s wildest dreams—on demand, at our fingertips.

Amazing stuff, no?

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

Happy Birthday, Jack Nicholson!

Doing an Earth Day blog on Earth Day is obvious, even if it is the 40th Anniversary. Besides, I think I did one last year on this date.

One of the best things to happen to Hollywood’s environment occurred on this day in 1937.

Actor Jack Nicholson was born!

His father left before he arrived---and he actually grew up believing all that time that his grandmother was his mother and that his mother was his older sister! Nicholson didn’t learn the truth until the early 70’s after a reporter doing a story on the young actor uncovered the truth.

That could help explain why Nicholson is Hollywood’s most lovable wacko.

Some of the greatest scenes on film feature Mr. Nicholson. His off-center, sometimes insane personality is especially believable, I think, because most fans feel it may not be far from the actor’s reality.

So, enough with words! Here are some terrific clips from Jack Nicholson’s movie career, starting with the one that helped create his reputation—the diner scene in “Five Easy Pieces”:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElNpwX_8YpQ


“A Few Good Men”



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hopNAI8Pefg&feature=related

“Easy Rider”:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ySgOds3bzcc&feature=related


“The Shining”



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2TVooUHN7j4&feature=related


And last, but not least, “One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J74Yj2Dn8M8


He’s a Lakers fan, so nobody’s perfect, but “Happy Birthday” to Jack Nicholson!


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

A Name Synonymous With Cheating

Wow…she doesn’t even look tired!

That’s what some folks said on this date back in 1980 when they saw Rosie Ruiz finish “first” for the women at the Boston Marathon.

Good time, too. 2:31:56.

She got the medal, the laurel wreath and silver bowl—and the accolades of millions who either witnessed or heard about her crossing the Finish Line.

Eight days later, however, she was stripped of her victory after race officials learned that Ruiz jumped into the race about a mile before the finish. Word was that she had taken Boston Mass Transit to scoot her ahead.

Here is a short video of the Boston Marathon finish. Rosie is said to be wearing yellow:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S18PtCsJD4k&feature=related


While she has never really explained WHY she cheated, it appears that her deception was NOT meant to win the race. The Cuban born administrative assistant from New York had apparently qualified for the Boston race after her finish in the New York Marathon. Her boss was impressed—and offered to pay her way to the Boston Marathon.

Here’s where it gets pathetically interesting---and funny.

Ruiz’s original intention was apparently to jump into the middle of the pack. She miscalculated her entry point, however, not realizing that she was entering the race just a mile before the finish—and ahead of the 448 other female runners!

Ruiz was unknown in the running world—so race officials became suspicious when they saw that her winning time---then the third fastest marathon time in history for a woman—was a full 25 minutes faster than her New York Marathon time.

Oops.

Lost in the shuffle was Jacqueline Gareau of Canada, who was the REAL winner for the women. Ruiz’s time for the New York race was also invalidated when it was determined that she rode the subway for part of that race!

Also overshadowed was the overall winner, Bill Rogers, who won his fourth consecutive Boston Marathon.

As for Ruiz, the road got rougher. Steadfastly maintaining that she won the race fairly, she lost her job in New York. She encountered more trouble in 1982 when she was accused of stealing money from an employer. The following year, she was caught selling drugs to an undercover police officer and served a couple of stints in jail.

Where she is now—or what she is up to today is not known, but after 30 years, she is still the butt of jokes and her name has become synonymous with cheating. In fact, it has become a verb: “I Rosie Ruiz’d that race!”

For those of us who have ever been lost in Boston (all of us), there can be at least some measure of pity. Our misdirection and wrong turns have caused us angst and emotional outbursts. For Rosie, had she been able to blend in earlier, it likely would never have been discovered. But, as it turned out, her inability to master a Boston map essentially defined her life.

Were she to have found a cure for cancer, it’s still likely that her obituary would read:
“Rosie Ruiz: Boston Marathon Cheater Dies”

The Fickle Finger Of Fate touches us all. For Rosie, it was the middle finger.

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

The Ultimate Job Interview

It’s been said that a Presidential election represents the pinnacle in evaluation for a job. After all, months of stumping, speeches and debates, TV and radio interviews culminate in a trip to the polls—and millions of Americans weigh in.

Grueling…and yet ultimately fair.

Not so with an opening on the Supreme Court.

The impending retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens will allow President Obama to nominate another justice. This most apolitical of bodies in theory (The Supreme Court) nevertheless becomes the victim of intense political posturing as the eventual nominee is announced.

Unlike politicians, who willingly subject themselves to this kind of abuse, those we look for in a Supreme Court Justice usually have a public persona that’s a bit more restrained.

I’m no constitutional scholar (bet THAT comes as a surprise), but I can see the dilemma that prospective nominees face. It’s a push-pull tap dance between the forces who sit on the Judiciary Committee who believe in one of two general ideologies:

1) The Constitution should be interpreted literally and applied strictly and…
2) The Constitution is a “living, breathing” document, whose application and interpretation is relative to the changing times we live in.

While I cannot speak to detailed Constitutional law, it seems that #2 is a bit more reasonable, if only because so much has changed since the Founding Fathers gathered in Philadelphia.

Back in 1776, many of the issues that we routinely face were not even capable of being wildly imagined by the likes of even Ben Franklin-a man certainly ahead of his time.

Despite the theme of “equality” that is the cornerstone of the Declaration of Independence and the bedrock of our Constitution, both documents were drafted in part by slave owners whose wives were not able to vote and were not considered full citizens.

Thankfully, we have amended the Constitution in the years since to right these wrongs.

Back in the days of the Founding Fathers, there was no mass communication-no radio, TV or internet. Medicine was not capable of prolonging a life—or taking the life of an unborn fetus without serious danger to the mother. Ethical questions about privacy, the right to free speech and the insertion of government in the medical decisions of private citizens were just not reality.

So, what’s a judge to do?
Each potential nominee will be vetted (a great word, no?, conjuring up images of a deer being eviscerated)—all judicial decisions will be studied, all speeches and written documents will be pored over. Every life event will be scrutinized.

And then the fun begins.

Those with a score to settle with the President will use this stage to batter and badger the nominee—in a forum where retaliatory responses never help. Regardless of the insulting accusations, the nominee will attempt to quietly respond. Conversely, Democrats on the Committee will fire marshmallow questions and pile on the accolades.

Here’s a video of Supreme Court Justices being interviewed by C-Span:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wUfl9-cwJt4


When the nominating process begins, a truthful answer might never take the place of a useful one. A useful answer is one that calms the fears of those predisposed to vote against you without ever hearing your testimony. It’s one that remains hypothetical enough to allow for the gray areas that lawyers and judges specialize in. Since many of those in Congress (and I suspect most of the Judiciary Committee) are attorneys by training, the wordplay will be nothing if not interesting.

Not taking the bait is the one goal of the potential nominee. That-and surviving the withering questioning without appearing to be ruffled in any way.

The abortion question will be the defining litmus test for conservatives and liberals alike. Skirting this issue without making a “judgment” is key to making it through the process.

As I write this, I have no idea who the nominee will be. That the President will strive for diversity is a given, but beyond that, whomever it is---he or she will be in for the ride of their lives.

At the end, a lifetime appointment in a job of near unequalled stature and importance awaits. For the attorney turned judge, it is the Mount Everest of jobs….and, like a climb up that sheer face, it must be navigated carefully.


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

The Danceman Hits 500 At Cornell

A milestone was reached this weekend---and probably the least interested party to it all was the man who achieved it.

Dancer.
The Danceman.
Dick.
Uncle Dancer.
Coach Blood.

No doubt other nicknames exist, but I don’t know them and besides, children occasionally read this blog.

All of the above refer to my brother-in-law,Richard Blood---coach of the Women’s Softball team at Cornell University—who won his 500th game on Saturday against the University of Pennsylvania.
Later that day, win #501 came against the same team, so to Dancer, the “record” is already ancient history as Cornell works to win their second consecutive Ivy League title.

That’s the Danceman for you.

You see, for Dancer, it’s all about excellence. It’s about doing the things that help the team. It’s about class—and conducting yourself both on and off the field in such a manner that transcends a mere GAME. However, when those behaviors occur, a funny thing happens.

You win.

In Dancer’s case, you win A LOT. In fact, Coach Blood is only the SECOND coach in Cornell school history to reach 500 wins in ANY sport. We’re talking about a school that was founded a few years after the Civil War. Football “helmets” were made of leather back then—and if tennis was your game, guys, don’t forget to put on your coat and tie before heading to the court. Jolly good!

500 wins is a big deal, mostly because it represents so much more than victory on the softball diamond when associated with Coach Blood.

I’ve decided that since Dancer won’t blow his own horn, I‘ll do it for him. A shout-out to cousin-in-law Diane Hessler, (a faithful Tim Moore Blog reader), who inspired this topic as the milestone approached. She’s a huge Dancer fan-as is the case with every member of his family, his wide circle of friends and of course, the ladies of Big Red Softball.



Here’s a video of Coach Blood talking about the 2010 season:





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubj4FY-wmfQ

Despite being “all business” on the job, you can’t have a nickname like “Dancer” without also having a side of your personality that’s…well, a little DIFFERENT. From college days at Plymouth State in New Hampshire where my brother-in-law was a regular marcher in some notorious parade dressed in a chicken suit (where presumably the “Dancer” nickname and legend began) to the countless hilarious life episodes retold at those family gatherings where beer is served (that would be all of them), a complete picture of the Danceman emerges:

A master carpenter/builder.
Talented artist.
Passionate fisherman.
Wicked funny storyteller.
Avid golfer
Uncle and Hero to his nieces/nephews

And, oh yeah….he can coach.

All of the above talents and pastimes pale when the talk turns to baseball/softball-or sports in general. A virtual baseball trivia machine, he also seems to remember EVERY inning of every game he has ever coached. You should hear it-goes something like this:

“It was the ’92 championship game---5th inning with one out and runners on first and third…I put the steal sign on and told the batter to take the first two pitches and then slap it down the first base line…..”

I couldn’t tell you what I ate for lunch yesterday.

Dancer is a walking baseball encyclopedia and this knowledge of every situation and the likely outcomes combine with a gut feel for the game that no doubt contribute to the incredible record he has achieved.

Now don’t get me wrong—Dancer is not perfect. He was a Yankee fan for a while.

At first I attributed this disease to the fact that he had moved from staunch Red Sox country in New Hampshire to Ithaca, New York, where I assumed he had succumbed to peer pressure. In fact, the reason had much more to do with the composition of the Red Sox at the time---and the respect for discipline that has been the hallmark of the Yankees. Dancer was not a fan of Manny Ramirez—his lack of a work ethic doomed him in the eyes of the Coach. He was also critical of the wildman that Johnny Damon was while in Boston. I guess the trade to New York—complete with detour to the barber shop—did much to resurrect his image with the Danceman.

Don’t wear your baseball cap BACKWARDS while in Dancer’s presence. Don’t resort to infantile cheers while in the dugout-he doesn’t make a distinction between baseball and softball-it’s not cool. Root for your teammates, but let’s exhibit a little self-respect, OK?

For Dancer, the coaching success began at Hopkinton High School in New Hampshire, where he won 8 State Championships, 5 of them in a row from 1985-89. When the diamond was renamed “Blood Field”, it was a fitting tribute to someone who taught the girls both on the field and also in the classroom. Dancer spent a year as assistant Women’s Softball coach at Dartmouth. Coaching pitchers was—and is-- his specialty.

After Dartmouth made the serious mistake of NOT hiring him to be their head coach, Cornell gave Dancer the opportunity to show what he could do at the college level.

Dartmouth’s loss was Cornell’s gain. Funny how things work out, no?

Dreams of major league stardom morph into the thought of umpiring, then coaching at the high school level—then moving to college—at a prestigious institution like Cornell.
This was what Dancer was born to do.

Despite the Ivy League’s distinct disadvantage in recruiting (no athletic scholarships), the Danceman has done a remarkable job attracting young women from around the country to come to sometimes frigid upstate New York for zero financial help and play a sport for him—for which there is no pro option after college (at least not yet). A zillion prospects, hundreds of scouting trips and phone calls and home visits. I get the distinct impression that parents can see the real deal---and there is nothing phony about Dick Blood. His personality is his best recruiting tool---when combined with the scholastic reputation of Cornell, it might well be unfair for the other Ivy schools.

Just as Dancer chooses to shine the spotlight on others, I would be seriously remiss if I didn’t acknowledge the OTHER half of this winning team. Dancer’s wife Judy has been through it all—and Dancer would be first to admit that NONE of the accomplishments achieved would have been possible without her love and support.

I’d call her the “assistant coach” ,but Dancer already has a couple of them on the squad, so I’ll refer to her as the Athletic Director. Seems more appropriate.

Untold miles of driving, following a bus—and literally THOUSANDS of innings, in all kinds of weather, often alone while Dancer coaches on the field. The pressure is no less intense, the helplessness of not being able to do anything more than support her husband until the game is over, the win—or loss—is absorbed—and the next step is planned.

Judy has had a rotating “family” of a dozen or more “daughters” every season. From meals to moral support, equipment manager and concierge to God-knows-what, Judy Blood’s contribution to Cornell Softball is only speculated on by folks like me—but intimately known to those whose lives she touches on a daily basis. She is the best.

So…what’s next?

Another day…grind out another win or suffer a loss. Either way, Dancer will be there, supporting, teaching, coaching.

After all, there’s always another game, right?

Congratulations, Coach.


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