So, what do you do when there’s nothing to do?
Take off your pants—and ride the New York City subway, that’s what!
Sometimes I have to think long and hard for blog inspiration—and then there are days like today, when the subject just falls into your lap. This one writes itself, mostly because there is really nothing to write.
After a week that included some serious posts, I wanted to keep it light today---and the following is the result.
It appears that removing your pants and riding the subway is an ANNUAL event—and I guess it is done in Chicago and other cities as well.
Here’s a news report:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ue-xF2pCrMI
In a serious world, it’s sometimes necessary to just “drop trou” and parade around. While you won’t see ME doing this anytime soon (or without a gun to my head), I applaud the combination of courage, lack of inhibition and audacity that propels so many people to ride the subway half naked.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, January 29, 2010
Thursday, January 28, 2010
The Challenger Tragedy Remembered
It’s hard to believe that 24 years have passed since that horrible moment in 1986 when the Space Shuttle Challenger exploded less than two minutes after liftoff.
Like the Kennedy assassination or, more recently, the 9/11 Terrorist attacks, everyone alive remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news.
Unlike those fateful days in Dallas or New York, millions of people were purposely watching TV to see the launch—waiting to celebrate the first teacher in space, Christa McAuliffe.
I was working in radio at WKSQ, known as Kiss 94.5 in Ellsworth, Maine—doing the midday show as usual—when I looked across through the studio glass and into the news studio, where a TV was monitoring the liftoff. I remember the feeling like I was literally punched in the stomach---a physical feeling that was almost overwhelming as the reality of what transpired began to become apparent. I remember stopping the music and opening the microphone to make the announcement to my listeners who were as yet unaware that anything had gone wrong.
I’ve embedded the ABC news coverage from that day below—and watching it even almost a quarter century later still brings strong emotions to the surface:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr1TMyxArXk
After the tragedy, President Reagan appointed a special commission to investigate the cause of the explosion, a panel that included former astronaut Neil Armstrong and former test pilot Chuck Yeager. The cause was determined to be the “O-ring” seals in one of the two booster rockets.
It was more than 2 years before another Shuttle launch was attempted. Another disaster occurred in 2003, as the Columbia disintegrated upon Earth re-entry, most likely due to wing damage that occurred from a piece of foam (yes, foam-weighing less than 2 pounds but traveling at over 500 mph) during takeoff days earlier.
Unlike the 1960’s, when each NASA launch captivated the nation if not the world, space travel became so commonplace that it failed to hold our attention. Only when tragedies like Challenger and Columbia occur do we realize just how complex it all is….and how extremely dangerous, too.
As a kid, I wanted to be an astronaut. That feeling extended into my adulthood—until this day 24 years ago—when being a disc jockey suddenly seemed like a better option. I applaud the courage of those who continue to put their lives on the line—especially when they have explicit evidence of what happens when something goes wrong.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Like the Kennedy assassination or, more recently, the 9/11 Terrorist attacks, everyone alive remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news.
Unlike those fateful days in Dallas or New York, millions of people were purposely watching TV to see the launch—waiting to celebrate the first teacher in space, Christa McAuliffe.
I was working in radio at WKSQ, known as Kiss 94.5 in Ellsworth, Maine—doing the midday show as usual—when I looked across through the studio glass and into the news studio, where a TV was monitoring the liftoff. I remember the feeling like I was literally punched in the stomach---a physical feeling that was almost overwhelming as the reality of what transpired began to become apparent. I remember stopping the music and opening the microphone to make the announcement to my listeners who were as yet unaware that anything had gone wrong.
I’ve embedded the ABC news coverage from that day below—and watching it even almost a quarter century later still brings strong emotions to the surface:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr1TMyxArXk
After the tragedy, President Reagan appointed a special commission to investigate the cause of the explosion, a panel that included former astronaut Neil Armstrong and former test pilot Chuck Yeager. The cause was determined to be the “O-ring” seals in one of the two booster rockets.
It was more than 2 years before another Shuttle launch was attempted. Another disaster occurred in 2003, as the Columbia disintegrated upon Earth re-entry, most likely due to wing damage that occurred from a piece of foam (yes, foam-weighing less than 2 pounds but traveling at over 500 mph) during takeoff days earlier.
Unlike the 1960’s, when each NASA launch captivated the nation if not the world, space travel became so commonplace that it failed to hold our attention. Only when tragedies like Challenger and Columbia occur do we realize just how complex it all is….and how extremely dangerous, too.
As a kid, I wanted to be an astronaut. That feeling extended into my adulthood—until this day 24 years ago—when being a disc jockey suddenly seemed like a better option. I applaud the courage of those who continue to put their lives on the line—especially when they have explicit evidence of what happens when something goes wrong.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
Don't Categorize Me!
Since a fair number of my blogs lean political, I have received some spirited response from a good many readers asking me to come clean.
Huh?
Accusations range from assertions that I am a closet liberal to an ignorant Neanderthal conservative. So which is it?
Maybe both---and maybe you are too.
Ours is a world where labels are applied to everyone and everything. These labels neatly categorize people as “liberal” or “conservative” when being kind—and “communist” or “right wing bible thumper” when trying to incite emotion.
I reject this notion that people are so one-dimensional—and state further that in my opinion, most people are probably a MOSIAC of different viewpoints that are issue-specific---and often contradictory if placed under the umbrella of the all-knowing LABEL that tries to reconcile all outlooks into one homogenous category.
So what the hell am I? Actually, I’m not entirely sure—plus, I find my views evolving as I get older.
I am a fiscally conservative, socially moderate progressive who believes that big government is wrong—and that too little government is dangerous. In short, I am far too complex to shoehorn into the standard categorization that makes it easy for others to assail you. My guess is that you may be as well---and, guess what?
That’s OK.
Ever since my radio interview with then-candidate Barack Obama on the date of the 2008 New Hampshire primary, I feel that I have been incorrectly painted by some people as a liberal Democrat. In the interest of full disclosure, the Obama campaign called 94.9 WHOM (not vice versa) and I declined the interview at first. Being persistent (the hallmark of a successful campaign it seems), they called back—and I relented on the condition that the interview content be LIGHT in nature as my campaign commercial-weary listeners were sick of hearing about the issues. I felt they wanted some sense of the PERSON they would be electing. By the way, the other candidates were offered the same opportunity—but failed to respond. The result was a pleasant conversation replete with the same kind of softball questions that I would have tossed at the other guys (and gal) too.
I am a registered Republican (from the Reagan days when ol’ Ronnie made the most sense to me, especially when compared with the likes of Jimmy Carter). I worked for Senator Ted Kennedy in high school (unpaid intern) and I worked for the Committee To Re-Elect The President and Democrats for Nixon in 1972. I don’t often brag about that last one at cocktail parties.
How’s THAT for schizophrenia?
Growing up in Washington, D.C. afforded me opportunities to see politics up close and I have many wonderful stories and memories from those times.
I voted for George Bush the elder, then Clinton, then Bush the younger—and then decided that Barack Obama was by far the best choice the last time around-a view I won’t be swayed from no matter what he does.
So…Democrat…Republican…Independent?
The last one, I guess.
My complete and utter disgust with both Democrats and Republicans is now so extensive that the thought of a viable Third party has never been more appealing. Why is it that one-on-one, every Congress member or Senator is charming, articulate and disdainful of the body of which they are a member? They all speak as if each is individually separate from the dysfunctional collection of egos that defines the term “gridlock”.
Collectively, it is becoming clear that they are all political cowards. Their overriding primary objective is reelection, not the priorities of the country. The Democrats have compromised themselves to the point of being unable to govern—and the Republican's sole agenda is to thwart any type of progress for the political gain that comes from making the Democrats look stupid (an increasingly easier feat by the minute). The Republican Party is truly the party of “No” as no substantive programs ever seem to emanate from a Republican bill, other than to deregulate further any industry that is beneficial to their maintenance of the status quo.
No Republican would ever vote today to establish Social Security, Medicaid or any social program-crying “Big Government!” However, you’ll never catch any one of them backing a plan to reduce benefits in these programs—political suicide.
Democrats, meanwhile, could find a way to lose a poker game while holding a Royal Flush. Inept at the game of wielding political power, even a super majority in the Senate could not be utilized. The very thought that one Joe Leiberman could hold an entire nation in limbo on his personal whim is a disgrace. Democrats could have punished him following his betrayal during the election by removing him from Committee assignments. I thought it magnanimous that they refused to do so---but believed at the time that such a reprieve from political exile would have been worked out in a back room deal (as it should have been) Such a deal to keep this Connecticut loose cannon tied down was never done—and demonstrated the naiveté of the party in power.
Enjoy this clip from Bill Maher’s show last June—language is a bit coarse at points, so be careful-and although I don’t completely agree with him, I find his bipartisan venom to be damn funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3kXpfEFjqQ
The man has a point.
It should be noted in the wake of the Scott Brown win over Margaret Coakley in Massachusetts that the Republican challenger never uttered the word “republican” in any of his campaign ads (aside from the required small-type disclaimers at bottom of the screen)
The messaging of the campaign was brilliant.
Brown used the basic statement: “I’m an INDEPENDENT thinker” to appeal to disaffected voters of both parties who were alarmed at the histrionics going on in Washington.
This use of the word “independent” and a largely positive campaign that focused on jobs, the economy and what he PLANNED to do----resonated with an electorate contemplating a choice between Brown and a horrible campaigner whose use of negative campaign ads backfired. The more negative the commercials, the more Brown’s lead grew. Did anyone on her side even NOTICE this?
George Washington warned us about the dangers of political parties. After over 230 years, his words are more impactful than ever.
I look forward to President Obama’s State of the Union Address tonight. Licking his wounds from the Senatorial defeat, the waning prospects for health care legislation and an economy still on life support, it will be interesting to see how our Chief Executive rallies the nation and redefines the agenda going forward.
Pockets of America still prefer stagnation and impasse over any progressive legislation that would be credited to Democrats or Obama. However, I still believe that the majority of Americans still desire the change they created with the outcome of the election in 2008.
Is doing NOTHING really an option anymore?
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Huh?
Accusations range from assertions that I am a closet liberal to an ignorant Neanderthal conservative. So which is it?
Maybe both---and maybe you are too.
Ours is a world where labels are applied to everyone and everything. These labels neatly categorize people as “liberal” or “conservative” when being kind—and “communist” or “right wing bible thumper” when trying to incite emotion.
I reject this notion that people are so one-dimensional—and state further that in my opinion, most people are probably a MOSIAC of different viewpoints that are issue-specific---and often contradictory if placed under the umbrella of the all-knowing LABEL that tries to reconcile all outlooks into one homogenous category.
So what the hell am I? Actually, I’m not entirely sure—plus, I find my views evolving as I get older.
I am a fiscally conservative, socially moderate progressive who believes that big government is wrong—and that too little government is dangerous. In short, I am far too complex to shoehorn into the standard categorization that makes it easy for others to assail you. My guess is that you may be as well---and, guess what?
That’s OK.
Ever since my radio interview with then-candidate Barack Obama on the date of the 2008 New Hampshire primary, I feel that I have been incorrectly painted by some people as a liberal Democrat. In the interest of full disclosure, the Obama campaign called 94.9 WHOM (not vice versa) and I declined the interview at first. Being persistent (the hallmark of a successful campaign it seems), they called back—and I relented on the condition that the interview content be LIGHT in nature as my campaign commercial-weary listeners were sick of hearing about the issues. I felt they wanted some sense of the PERSON they would be electing. By the way, the other candidates were offered the same opportunity—but failed to respond. The result was a pleasant conversation replete with the same kind of softball questions that I would have tossed at the other guys (and gal) too.
I am a registered Republican (from the Reagan days when ol’ Ronnie made the most sense to me, especially when compared with the likes of Jimmy Carter). I worked for Senator Ted Kennedy in high school (unpaid intern) and I worked for the Committee To Re-Elect The President and Democrats for Nixon in 1972. I don’t often brag about that last one at cocktail parties.
How’s THAT for schizophrenia?
Growing up in Washington, D.C. afforded me opportunities to see politics up close and I have many wonderful stories and memories from those times.
I voted for George Bush the elder, then Clinton, then Bush the younger—and then decided that Barack Obama was by far the best choice the last time around-a view I won’t be swayed from no matter what he does.
So…Democrat…Republican…Independent?
The last one, I guess.
My complete and utter disgust with both Democrats and Republicans is now so extensive that the thought of a viable Third party has never been more appealing. Why is it that one-on-one, every Congress member or Senator is charming, articulate and disdainful of the body of which they are a member? They all speak as if each is individually separate from the dysfunctional collection of egos that defines the term “gridlock”.
Collectively, it is becoming clear that they are all political cowards. Their overriding primary objective is reelection, not the priorities of the country. The Democrats have compromised themselves to the point of being unable to govern—and the Republican's sole agenda is to thwart any type of progress for the political gain that comes from making the Democrats look stupid (an increasingly easier feat by the minute). The Republican Party is truly the party of “No” as no substantive programs ever seem to emanate from a Republican bill, other than to deregulate further any industry that is beneficial to their maintenance of the status quo.
No Republican would ever vote today to establish Social Security, Medicaid or any social program-crying “Big Government!” However, you’ll never catch any one of them backing a plan to reduce benefits in these programs—political suicide.
Democrats, meanwhile, could find a way to lose a poker game while holding a Royal Flush. Inept at the game of wielding political power, even a super majority in the Senate could not be utilized. The very thought that one Joe Leiberman could hold an entire nation in limbo on his personal whim is a disgrace. Democrats could have punished him following his betrayal during the election by removing him from Committee assignments. I thought it magnanimous that they refused to do so---but believed at the time that such a reprieve from political exile would have been worked out in a back room deal (as it should have been) Such a deal to keep this Connecticut loose cannon tied down was never done—and demonstrated the naiveté of the party in power.
Enjoy this clip from Bill Maher’s show last June—language is a bit coarse at points, so be careful-and although I don’t completely agree with him, I find his bipartisan venom to be damn funny:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G3kXpfEFjqQ
The man has a point.
It should be noted in the wake of the Scott Brown win over Margaret Coakley in Massachusetts that the Republican challenger never uttered the word “republican” in any of his campaign ads (aside from the required small-type disclaimers at bottom of the screen)
The messaging of the campaign was brilliant.
Brown used the basic statement: “I’m an INDEPENDENT thinker” to appeal to disaffected voters of both parties who were alarmed at the histrionics going on in Washington.
This use of the word “independent” and a largely positive campaign that focused on jobs, the economy and what he PLANNED to do----resonated with an electorate contemplating a choice between Brown and a horrible campaigner whose use of negative campaign ads backfired. The more negative the commercials, the more Brown’s lead grew. Did anyone on her side even NOTICE this?
George Washington warned us about the dangers of political parties. After over 230 years, his words are more impactful than ever.
I look forward to President Obama’s State of the Union Address tonight. Licking his wounds from the Senatorial defeat, the waning prospects for health care legislation and an economy still on life support, it will be interesting to see how our Chief Executive rallies the nation and redefines the agenda going forward.
Pockets of America still prefer stagnation and impasse over any progressive legislation that would be credited to Democrats or Obama. However, I still believe that the majority of Americans still desire the change they created with the outcome of the election in 2008.
Is doing NOTHING really an option anymore?
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
Australia-From Prison to Paradise
Happy Australia Day!
Yeah, the Land Down Under is downing a few Foster’s today—in celebration of the sovereign nation that was founded on this day in 1788-----as a penal colony.
The prisons in Great Britain were becoming overcrowded by the mid 1780’s—and the bright idea was to basically ship off some of these hardened criminals halfway across the globe.
Captain Arthur Phillip apparently drew the short straw—and led this band of misfits onto Australian soil---known then as the colony of New South Wales.
Of the party of 1,000 that landed, 700 were convicts. The voyage itself lasted eight months, claiming the lives of 30 men.
The first years were close to a disaster. The combination of poor soil, an unfamiliar climate and workers who were largely ignorant of farming, the colony was constantly close to starvation for several years.
Captain Phillip returned to England in 1792—and the colony became prosperous by the turn of the 19th century. A sense of patriotism emerged from these roughnecks—and by 1818, “Australia Day” became an official holiday as the population—criminals or the offspring of criminals----began to commemorate the 26th as their founding day!
Check out the short video below—complete with breathtaking scenes from around Australia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6leHGHCKeSg
“Australia Day” may be celebrated by the British descendants who call the island/continent nation home, but it is also mourned by the Aborigines—the native population, who, like the American Indian, slowly were deprived of their land and culture as white colonization spread across the continent.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just drop me a line-it’s free! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
G’Day!
Yeah, the Land Down Under is downing a few Foster’s today—in celebration of the sovereign nation that was founded on this day in 1788-----as a penal colony.
The prisons in Great Britain were becoming overcrowded by the mid 1780’s—and the bright idea was to basically ship off some of these hardened criminals halfway across the globe.
Captain Arthur Phillip apparently drew the short straw—and led this band of misfits onto Australian soil---known then as the colony of New South Wales.
Of the party of 1,000 that landed, 700 were convicts. The voyage itself lasted eight months, claiming the lives of 30 men.
The first years were close to a disaster. The combination of poor soil, an unfamiliar climate and workers who were largely ignorant of farming, the colony was constantly close to starvation for several years.
Captain Phillip returned to England in 1792—and the colony became prosperous by the turn of the 19th century. A sense of patriotism emerged from these roughnecks—and by 1818, “Australia Day” became an official holiday as the population—criminals or the offspring of criminals----began to commemorate the 26th as their founding day!
Check out the short video below—complete with breathtaking scenes from around Australia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6leHGHCKeSg
“Australia Day” may be celebrated by the British descendants who call the island/continent nation home, but it is also mourned by the Aborigines—the native population, who, like the American Indian, slowly were deprived of their land and culture as white colonization spread across the continent.
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just drop me a line-it’s free! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
G’Day!
Monday, January 25, 2010
Emmy Awards--Sometimes Actually Deserved
A fair amount of TV time is consumed by the entertainment industry on shows of self congratulation.
And like sheep, we watch.
The Oscars, The Emmys, The Tony Awards, The Grammys, The People’s Choice Awards, The Country Music Awards, The Golden Globes….and on and on…
Better, I suppose, than telecasting the Plumbing Fixture Awards (although not necessarily more useful), but c’mon! The categories expand yearly it seems—and if you are in the “biz” and HAVEN’T won some type of award—HEY! What the hell are you doin’?
Today in history yields two unrelated events that occurred on January 25th. The very first Emmy Award was presented on this date in 1949. Primarily a local Los Angeles thing, it’s obvious that someone saw the potential to include everyone—and someday televise to a national audience the drivel that IS most television—and elevate it to “award-winning” status.
The second event is the very first televised press conference of President John F. Kennedy, which occurred on this date in 1961.
Putting two and two together, I arrived at an Emmy Award winning TV show: “The Making of The President 1960”, based on the book of the same name by Theodore White.
I decided to share this show on today’s blog—think you will find it interesting. It’s also proof that no two Emmys are created equal. While the golden statue looks the same, to win one for the following program is a far cry from, say, the “Best Daytime Game Show” Emmy, who looks identical, even though the level of thought, writing and filmmaking expertise is light years apart.
Oh well…who said things have to be fair?
Check out the show in several parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1unGa-2LHWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=895vfSH3KUo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyUt2OgQNaA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu731i5peqo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tfu4gOzwOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q--a92uxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePq50QoAXCk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPVx9S6lHOU
Now, THAT’S great TV!
Thanks to my faithful daily readers for their suggestions for future topics! I appreciate it greatly—and invite more! If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know:
Tim.moore@citcomm.com
And like sheep, we watch.
The Oscars, The Emmys, The Tony Awards, The Grammys, The People’s Choice Awards, The Country Music Awards, The Golden Globes….and on and on…
Better, I suppose, than telecasting the Plumbing Fixture Awards (although not necessarily more useful), but c’mon! The categories expand yearly it seems—and if you are in the “biz” and HAVEN’T won some type of award—HEY! What the hell are you doin’?
Today in history yields two unrelated events that occurred on January 25th. The very first Emmy Award was presented on this date in 1949. Primarily a local Los Angeles thing, it’s obvious that someone saw the potential to include everyone—and someday televise to a national audience the drivel that IS most television—and elevate it to “award-winning” status.
The second event is the very first televised press conference of President John F. Kennedy, which occurred on this date in 1961.
Putting two and two together, I arrived at an Emmy Award winning TV show: “The Making of The President 1960”, based on the book of the same name by Theodore White.
I decided to share this show on today’s blog—think you will find it interesting. It’s also proof that no two Emmys are created equal. While the golden statue looks the same, to win one for the following program is a far cry from, say, the “Best Daytime Game Show” Emmy, who looks identical, even though the level of thought, writing and filmmaking expertise is light years apart.
Oh well…who said things have to be fair?
Check out the show in several parts:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1unGa-2LHWE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=895vfSH3KUo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyUt2OgQNaA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qu731i5peqo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tfu4gOzwOg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3q--a92uxs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePq50QoAXCk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPVx9S6lHOU
Now, THAT’S great TV!
Thanks to my faithful daily readers for their suggestions for future topics! I appreciate it greatly—and invite more! If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know:
Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, January 22, 2010
Laugh-In Lands On America
Looking back on this day in history, the original Roe v. Wade decision was handed down by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1973, the Unibomber pleaded guilty in 1998, the Boeing 747 began service in 1970---and, of course there were a ton of other serious and momentous news events that could-and should warrant their own blog here.
So, what do I focus on today?
Rowan & Martin’s “Laugh-In”, which debuted on this date in 1968.
Hey, I learned a lesson from yesterday’s blog –featuring Frostie the Dancing Bird. In a world of SERIOUS (which includes “grave”, “disastrous”, “tragic” and more)—there is a real appetite for FRIVOLOUS (which includes “funny”, “stupid”, “trivial” and more)
Today-like yesterday, I choose the latter.
No one will likely call “Laugh-In” “great” television, but it WAS influential—and its impact on pop culture was undeniable.
An instant smash that ran for five years on NBC, the show began as a one-hour special, but its huge popularity prompted NBC to create a series just months later.
This comedy/variety show was populated by a zany cast of previously unknown characters—many of whom became household names—and superstars in the process.
Goldie Hawn, Lily Tomlin, Ruth Buzee, Arte Johnson, Eileen Brennan--and MANY more.
Here’s a clip of highlights—and although much of the humor that had people on the floor back in ’68 seems to have lost its punch—at the time, it was “cutting edge”—even if SILLY was the overriding effect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDjOQuckjpg
Here is a short clip of “Laugh-In” bloopers---WARNING-language gets a little PG-13:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFksUB9gWyk
Regular features included “Laugh-In Looks At The News”, “The Fickle Finger Of Fate Award”, and “Letters To Laugh-In”
The fast-paced, almost schizophrenic format poked fun at politics, social issues and people—both famous and infamous. Many of the jokes were sexually oriented, yet managed to get by the censors. Known for catchphrases such as “Here Come Da Judge!”, “Verrrry Interesting!”, “You Bet Your Bippy” and “Sock It To Me!” (delivered weekly by even famous people-including President Richard Nixon), “Laugh-In”’s infiltration of our day-to-day language was significant.
The show ended in 1973 after many of the cast members left to pursue careers launched by the program’s success. “Laugh-In” was revived in 1977-78 with a cast of lesser known comics—and fell flat. That failed edition did produce a future superstar, though. Robin Williams used it to spring to the hit TV series “Mork & Mindy”.
It’s hard to imagine a similar show being able to make it today—as the variety genre has a poor recent track record (just ask Jay Leno!)
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com It’s FREE—and you can look THAT up in your Funk & Wagnalls!
So, what do I focus on today?
Rowan & Martin’s “Laugh-In”, which debuted on this date in 1968.
Hey, I learned a lesson from yesterday’s blog –featuring Frostie the Dancing Bird. In a world of SERIOUS (which includes “grave”, “disastrous”, “tragic” and more)—there is a real appetite for FRIVOLOUS (which includes “funny”, “stupid”, “trivial” and more)
Today-like yesterday, I choose the latter.
No one will likely call “Laugh-In” “great” television, but it WAS influential—and its impact on pop culture was undeniable.
An instant smash that ran for five years on NBC, the show began as a one-hour special, but its huge popularity prompted NBC to create a series just months later.
This comedy/variety show was populated by a zany cast of previously unknown characters—many of whom became household names—and superstars in the process.
Goldie Hawn, Lily Tomlin, Ruth Buzee, Arte Johnson, Eileen Brennan--and MANY more.
Here’s a clip of highlights—and although much of the humor that had people on the floor back in ’68 seems to have lost its punch—at the time, it was “cutting edge”—even if SILLY was the overriding effect:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TDjOQuckjpg
Here is a short clip of “Laugh-In” bloopers---WARNING-language gets a little PG-13:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFksUB9gWyk
Regular features included “Laugh-In Looks At The News”, “The Fickle Finger Of Fate Award”, and “Letters To Laugh-In”
The fast-paced, almost schizophrenic format poked fun at politics, social issues and people—both famous and infamous. Many of the jokes were sexually oriented, yet managed to get by the censors. Known for catchphrases such as “Here Come Da Judge!”, “Verrrry Interesting!”, “You Bet Your Bippy” and “Sock It To Me!” (delivered weekly by even famous people-including President Richard Nixon), “Laugh-In”’s infiltration of our day-to-day language was significant.
The show ended in 1973 after many of the cast members left to pursue careers launched by the program’s success. “Laugh-In” was revived in 1977-78 with a cast of lesser known comics—and fell flat. That failed edition did produce a future superstar, though. Robin Williams used it to spring to the hit TV series “Mork & Mindy”.
It’s hard to imagine a similar show being able to make it today—as the variety genre has a poor recent track record (just ask Jay Leno!)
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com It’s FREE—and you can look THAT up in your Funk & Wagnalls!
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Frostie The Dancing Bird
The headlines today are enough to make you throw up.
Let’s see….first, the ongoing catastrophe in Haiti is beyond our ability to comprehend. Health care (in any form) seems doomed now on Capitol Hill. The claims for jobless benefits are up unexpectedly, there’s John Edwards’ “love child”, Tiger Woods sex rehab and more threats from terrorists.
I need an escape—and I’m thinking you do too.
Enter Frostie the Dancing Bird.
This fowl creature apparently loves Ray Charles—and if you don’t think the following is funny or entertaining, we need to get you into therapy immediately:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bt9xBuGWgw
Now the world doesn’t seem so bad after all, does it?
Some days are meant for serious blogs. Others are tailor made for a boogying bird and today is that day!
Have a great one—if you’d like my daily missive in your inbox, sign up for free with a quick e-mail to tim.moore@citcomm.com
Let’s see….first, the ongoing catastrophe in Haiti is beyond our ability to comprehend. Health care (in any form) seems doomed now on Capitol Hill. The claims for jobless benefits are up unexpectedly, there’s John Edwards’ “love child”, Tiger Woods sex rehab and more threats from terrorists.
I need an escape—and I’m thinking you do too.
Enter Frostie the Dancing Bird.
This fowl creature apparently loves Ray Charles—and if you don’t think the following is funny or entertaining, we need to get you into therapy immediately:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bt9xBuGWgw
Now the world doesn’t seem so bad after all, does it?
Some days are meant for serious blogs. Others are tailor made for a boogying bird and today is that day!
Have a great one—if you’d like my daily missive in your inbox, sign up for free with a quick e-mail to tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Military Tribute
Wow…I missed a day on the ol’ blog Tuesday and did I ever hear about it! Sorry ‘bout that-was out of town most of yesterday!
Some days are just crazy—and this week has seemed to last a month. So, although I may be taking the easy way out today, there is a least a post here—and I think a couple of terrific little homemade videos that salute our military.
The situation in Haiti continues to worsen as an “aftershock” of 6.0 on the Richter scale has pummeled the already reeling nation.
Aid is pouring in from all over the world—and, as usual, the American military is at the forefront, providing expert search and rescue teams, troops for security, medical supplies and much needed logistical support and technical expertise.
As with every crisis, the post mortem will reveal ways that we could have done it better. However, landing into the midst of such utter devastation and death cannot trigger some pre-made “playbook” with its share of glitches. All of the efforts on the ground have had to be improvised along the way, each person and organization doing the best they can under horrendous circumstances.
When we think of our military, we instantly think of war. The following video features this aspect of the mission, even though we know it is so much more. Embedding has been disabled, so just click on the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAZs9KnaKdY
This video is displayed fully-and is also a reminder of the sacrifices made for us—and freedom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji_GlEcrR-M
To the men and women of our Armed Forces—whether they be in Iraq, Afghanistan or are bringing aid to Haiti, we salute you for your bravery, your compassion—and your willingness to do the impossible on a daily basis—often in impossible circumstances and conditions.
“Proud” doesn’t begin to cover it.
If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Some days are just crazy—and this week has seemed to last a month. So, although I may be taking the easy way out today, there is a least a post here—and I think a couple of terrific little homemade videos that salute our military.
The situation in Haiti continues to worsen as an “aftershock” of 6.0 on the Richter scale has pummeled the already reeling nation.
Aid is pouring in from all over the world—and, as usual, the American military is at the forefront, providing expert search and rescue teams, troops for security, medical supplies and much needed logistical support and technical expertise.
As with every crisis, the post mortem will reveal ways that we could have done it better. However, landing into the midst of such utter devastation and death cannot trigger some pre-made “playbook” with its share of glitches. All of the efforts on the ground have had to be improvised along the way, each person and organization doing the best they can under horrendous circumstances.
When we think of our military, we instantly think of war. The following video features this aspect of the mission, even though we know it is so much more. Embedding has been disabled, so just click on the link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAZs9KnaKdY
This video is displayed fully-and is also a reminder of the sacrifices made for us—and freedom:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ji_GlEcrR-M
To the men and women of our Armed Forces—whether they be in Iraq, Afghanistan or are bringing aid to Haiti, we salute you for your bravery, your compassion—and your willingness to do the impossible on a daily basis—often in impossible circumstances and conditions.
“Proud” doesn’t begin to cover it.
If you’d like my blog in your box daily, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, January 18, 2010
The Fact Gap
We are drowning in information disguised as facts.
I believe the statement above is indeed, itself a fact. However, it may only be my opinion. Evidence would seem to support the notion that the avalanche of data posing as credible information is a certifiably true statement-a fact.
Webster defines a fact as:
1) Knowledge or information based on real occurances
2) Something demonstrated or known to exist or have existed
3) Something believed to be true or real
The last definition is troublesome, because something merely BELIEVED to be true doesn’t make it necessarily so. This becomes a very serious problem as issues affecting our future are debated through the lens of competing media sources with opposing political agendas.
The two most prominent outlets—and ones at polar extremes are MSNBC and FOX. It is a catch phrase for talking heads and politicians appearing on both networks to use the following statement when prefacing their OPINION:
“You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own FACTS”. Then, most of them proceed to enlighten us with their OPINION, portrayed as if it were, indeed, fact.
So then, the ability to sway the masses lies with whomever can herd the most gullible people into their “tent” for the ultimate revival meeting—an orgy of misinformation that whips the already converted into an emotional frenzy, complete with its practical manifestations (see “Tea Party”)
The statement: “The Earth rotates around the sun” is a fact. Although the reverse USED to be BELIEVED as truth---the sun rotates around the Earth---science has unquestioningly demonstrated the opposite to be the actual fact.
I enjoy the MSNBC program “Morning Joe”, mostly because there seems to be a true ying and yang, left versus right discussion that is above all, civil. Conservative Joe Scarborough and right winger Pat Buchanan can peacefully co-exist with the likes of Mike Barnacle and other liberal guests without letting it all become mean-spirited. Each side can concede a “point” or two to the other without fearing the appearance of being weak.
While most of MSNBC’s fare is decidedly liberal—and virtually all of FOX’s is conservative, “Morning Joe” stands out for being (forgive me FOX) TRULY “fair and balanced”.
Debating issues around the dinner table, at cocktail parties and elsewhere has certainly increased since the 2008 Presidential campaign. Overall, I see this as a positive sign of involvement in the political process.
What is not so positive is that many discussions are undertaken by opposing sides who have at their disposal, almost ZERO “facts” on which to base their opinion (this last statement by me is, of course, my OPINION). Instead, if they have been exposed to Bill O’Reilly and his biased view on say, health care, he may make a statement like:
“If Obama’s health care plan passes, your premiums will skyrocket and the quality of your health care will go down!”
Is this statement a FACT? Or, is it merely an OPINION, structured linguistically to resemble a fact? If you watch FOX and see O’Reilly make this statement, this premise (faulty or not) will become the cornerstone of your argument against the health care bill, whether or not you know the truth of its impact. You haven’t actually READ the bill—and frankly, Mr. O’Reilly probably hasn’t either.
Conversely, if you are fed a steady diet of “The Ed Show” on MSNBC, you will believe that anything short of a health care plan WITH a Public Option is a dismal failure. This, of course, is Ed Shultz’s OPINION. Many of his viewers will base their arguments on this “viewpoint disguised as fact”—regardless of whether or not it is true.
The truth is that we don’t know the TRUTH. I think this is a fact, but it’s only my opinion.
Let’s watch both sides display their “facts”-first, Bill O’Reilly talks health care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4p0VtZRMo0
Now, here’s Chris Matthews on “Hardball” with the same topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXL6JoWE_gY
Until real-life market forces are applied to any health care scenario, conjecture (however educated ) is all we have to draw on. Well over 90 percent of Americans have never read the Senate bill—and it is likely that we never will. Regardless, we ALL have an “opinion” on the plan—and our views are being heavily influenced by networks with nothing but time to fill and an agenda to advance.
So, I am making a resolution re: the Health care debate—and for that matter, ANY debate on which substantive points can be made either way. That resolution is to simply require every statement be supported by fact--or at least sourced to something other than another person's opinion--regardless of how prominent or knowledgeable they may be.
Therefore, any statement re: the effects of health care reform can be challenged with the simple question:”Where did you get that information? What is the source of that so-called “fact”?”
Most people will not be able to definitively “source” the premise for their arguments (myself included). If one starts off by saying, “my opinion is that….”, I am totally fine with this approach. It combines emotions, gut level feelings and anecdotal personal experience into an argument whose source is the person delivering it. It is, by definition, an opinion. As long as that person doesn’t cloak that assortment of random data incorrectly as irrefutable fact, then he or she (and I) will remain open to be influenced by data that IS factual.
Politics has for too long been a zero-sum game. Patriotism, love of country and the notion that our lawmakers do what is right for the country has no such orientation. Compromise is the currency on which our democracy exists. Placing political victory over national progress is a crime that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of. Those engaging in such practices should be voted out of office. The networks would also do well to avoid portraying their viewpoints as being factual.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
I believe the statement above is indeed, itself a fact. However, it may only be my opinion. Evidence would seem to support the notion that the avalanche of data posing as credible information is a certifiably true statement-a fact.
Webster defines a fact as:
1) Knowledge or information based on real occurances
2) Something demonstrated or known to exist or have existed
3) Something believed to be true or real
The last definition is troublesome, because something merely BELIEVED to be true doesn’t make it necessarily so. This becomes a very serious problem as issues affecting our future are debated through the lens of competing media sources with opposing political agendas.
The two most prominent outlets—and ones at polar extremes are MSNBC and FOX. It is a catch phrase for talking heads and politicians appearing on both networks to use the following statement when prefacing their OPINION:
“You are entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own FACTS”. Then, most of them proceed to enlighten us with their OPINION, portrayed as if it were, indeed, fact.
So then, the ability to sway the masses lies with whomever can herd the most gullible people into their “tent” for the ultimate revival meeting—an orgy of misinformation that whips the already converted into an emotional frenzy, complete with its practical manifestations (see “Tea Party”)
The statement: “The Earth rotates around the sun” is a fact. Although the reverse USED to be BELIEVED as truth---the sun rotates around the Earth---science has unquestioningly demonstrated the opposite to be the actual fact.
I enjoy the MSNBC program “Morning Joe”, mostly because there seems to be a true ying and yang, left versus right discussion that is above all, civil. Conservative Joe Scarborough and right winger Pat Buchanan can peacefully co-exist with the likes of Mike Barnacle and other liberal guests without letting it all become mean-spirited. Each side can concede a “point” or two to the other without fearing the appearance of being weak.
While most of MSNBC’s fare is decidedly liberal—and virtually all of FOX’s is conservative, “Morning Joe” stands out for being (forgive me FOX) TRULY “fair and balanced”.
Debating issues around the dinner table, at cocktail parties and elsewhere has certainly increased since the 2008 Presidential campaign. Overall, I see this as a positive sign of involvement in the political process.
What is not so positive is that many discussions are undertaken by opposing sides who have at their disposal, almost ZERO “facts” on which to base their opinion (this last statement by me is, of course, my OPINION). Instead, if they have been exposed to Bill O’Reilly and his biased view on say, health care, he may make a statement like:
“If Obama’s health care plan passes, your premiums will skyrocket and the quality of your health care will go down!”
Is this statement a FACT? Or, is it merely an OPINION, structured linguistically to resemble a fact? If you watch FOX and see O’Reilly make this statement, this premise (faulty or not) will become the cornerstone of your argument against the health care bill, whether or not you know the truth of its impact. You haven’t actually READ the bill—and frankly, Mr. O’Reilly probably hasn’t either.
Conversely, if you are fed a steady diet of “The Ed Show” on MSNBC, you will believe that anything short of a health care plan WITH a Public Option is a dismal failure. This, of course, is Ed Shultz’s OPINION. Many of his viewers will base their arguments on this “viewpoint disguised as fact”—regardless of whether or not it is true.
The truth is that we don’t know the TRUTH. I think this is a fact, but it’s only my opinion.
Let’s watch both sides display their “facts”-first, Bill O’Reilly talks health care:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4p0VtZRMo0
Now, here’s Chris Matthews on “Hardball” with the same topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXL6JoWE_gY
Until real-life market forces are applied to any health care scenario, conjecture (however educated ) is all we have to draw on. Well over 90 percent of Americans have never read the Senate bill—and it is likely that we never will. Regardless, we ALL have an “opinion” on the plan—and our views are being heavily influenced by networks with nothing but time to fill and an agenda to advance.
So, I am making a resolution re: the Health care debate—and for that matter, ANY debate on which substantive points can be made either way. That resolution is to simply require every statement be supported by fact--or at least sourced to something other than another person's opinion--regardless of how prominent or knowledgeable they may be.
Therefore, any statement re: the effects of health care reform can be challenged with the simple question:”Where did you get that information? What is the source of that so-called “fact”?”
Most people will not be able to definitively “source” the premise for their arguments (myself included). If one starts off by saying, “my opinion is that….”, I am totally fine with this approach. It combines emotions, gut level feelings and anecdotal personal experience into an argument whose source is the person delivering it. It is, by definition, an opinion. As long as that person doesn’t cloak that assortment of random data incorrectly as irrefutable fact, then he or she (and I) will remain open to be influenced by data that IS factual.
Politics has for too long been a zero-sum game. Patriotism, love of country and the notion that our lawmakers do what is right for the country has no such orientation. Compromise is the currency on which our democracy exists. Placing political victory over national progress is a crime that both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of. Those engaging in such practices should be voted out of office. The networks would also do well to avoid portraying their viewpoints as being factual.
Of course, that’s just my opinion.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, January 15, 2010
Happy Days!
As a huge fan of the movie “American Graffiti”, I was skeptical about a TV series based on the flick’s premise and main characters.
I was right----and wrong---all at the same time.
“Happy Days” could never approximate the powerful script and acting that made “American Graffiti” a classic. A young George Lucas cast then unknown actors like Richard Dreyfus and Harrison Ford into roles alongside Ron Howard, Cindy Williams and Suzanne Somers—to create what to some is a “cult classic”, but a movie that I believe is a mainstream appeal look at the coming of age of several California teenagers at the crossroads of high school and college.
“Happy Days” –once past the comparisons made to the movie—took on a life and identity of its own, becoming a HUGELY popular TV series. The first episode was aired on this date in 1974. Those who remember the old TV show “Love American Style” may be surprised to know that the “original” “Happy Days” episode was actually a segment on this show, which, on a weekly basis, created the TV version of several “short stories”. Here is the opening of that first episode, known as "Love and Happy Days"—with characters who would soon stand on their own in a TV program that was all theirs :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNHuI0Pw0m8
Interestingly, even though the “Happy Days” TV show came AFTER the release of the movie “American Graffiti”, the pilot of the TV show was produced first—and George Lucas used it as the basis of his decision to cast Ron Howard in the lead role of his movie!
“Happy Days” left a bigger footprint on American pop culture, lasting for ten years on television. A minor character, The “Fonz” (played by Henry Winkler) soon became the star of the show. This was, in part, due to the audience reaction that occurred the minute that the show’s producers decided to film the show in front of a studio audience. Here is a clip of the ending of that FIRST show performed in front of a live audience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYovsz_Y9y4
If spinoffs are an indication of a TV series’ success, then “Happy Days” ranks near the top. “Laverne & Shirley”, “Mork & Mindy” and “Joannie Loves Chachi” were all spawned from “Happy Days”.
It was pure escapism, pure frivolity—and many laughs. Although no one will mention “Happy Days” in the same breath as other landmark television shows, it deserves a measure of respect for the genre it existed in---and the sheer entertainment it provided millions of Americans for a decade.
The Tim Moore blog is carefully crafted (and sometimes hastily slapped together) every weekday—if you’d like to receive it via e-mail ($0 U.S. Dollars), let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
I was right----and wrong---all at the same time.
“Happy Days” could never approximate the powerful script and acting that made “American Graffiti” a classic. A young George Lucas cast then unknown actors like Richard Dreyfus and Harrison Ford into roles alongside Ron Howard, Cindy Williams and Suzanne Somers—to create what to some is a “cult classic”, but a movie that I believe is a mainstream appeal look at the coming of age of several California teenagers at the crossroads of high school and college.
“Happy Days” –once past the comparisons made to the movie—took on a life and identity of its own, becoming a HUGELY popular TV series. The first episode was aired on this date in 1974. Those who remember the old TV show “Love American Style” may be surprised to know that the “original” “Happy Days” episode was actually a segment on this show, which, on a weekly basis, created the TV version of several “short stories”. Here is the opening of that first episode, known as "Love and Happy Days"—with characters who would soon stand on their own in a TV program that was all theirs :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNHuI0Pw0m8
Interestingly, even though the “Happy Days” TV show came AFTER the release of the movie “American Graffiti”, the pilot of the TV show was produced first—and George Lucas used it as the basis of his decision to cast Ron Howard in the lead role of his movie!
“Happy Days” left a bigger footprint on American pop culture, lasting for ten years on television. A minor character, The “Fonz” (played by Henry Winkler) soon became the star of the show. This was, in part, due to the audience reaction that occurred the minute that the show’s producers decided to film the show in front of a studio audience. Here is a clip of the ending of that FIRST show performed in front of a live audience:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aYovsz_Y9y4
If spinoffs are an indication of a TV series’ success, then “Happy Days” ranks near the top. “Laverne & Shirley”, “Mork & Mindy” and “Joannie Loves Chachi” were all spawned from “Happy Days”.
It was pure escapism, pure frivolity—and many laughs. Although no one will mention “Happy Days” in the same breath as other landmark television shows, it deserves a measure of respect for the genre it existed in---and the sheer entertainment it provided millions of Americans for a decade.
The Tim Moore blog is carefully crafted (and sometimes hastily slapped together) every weekday—if you’d like to receive it via e-mail ($0 U.S. Dollars), let me know! Tim.moore@citcomm.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
