Whatever the conflict, wherever the war, it is the men and women of the U.S. Armed Forces who drop everything and go.
The professional military person may train for many years to see that day when “exercises” become instead, a “mission”. Voluntary and reserve personnel abandon their families, their jobs—their LIVES—to follows orders they may not agree with or even understand.
Behind every military action is a quagmire of politics. Decisions made by politicians who then step aside and send young people into harm’s way.
It is not the job of the soldier to question the decision. It is not their place to argue the merits of entering any country or within their authority to debate the pros and cons of any action ordered from above.
They just go.
Throughout history, corrupt politicians have shared the responsibility with honorable ones to change the course of history through force. Young men (and women more recently) have fought and died on foreign shores to protect freedom, be it their own or the rights of another people with whom they may share little in common.
But still they go.
The advancement of civilization should inevitably expose war as a no-win situation. Soldiers die, innocents are slaughtered—and the treasure of a nation is wasted on implements of death. Resources that could be diverted to humanitarian uses are instead squandered on missiles, guns, bombs and the tools of devastation.
At what point will we learn?
While it can be argued that the frequency of wars has decreased, the severity, the killing potential and capacity for mass destruction has never been higher. The only winners are the defense companies whose implements of war are sold (often to both sides).
And while we, the citizens of the United States can influence the duration of wars and perhaps aid in averting them, we too can fall victim to the righteous fervor that creates the conditions for war (as was the case in the wake of 9-11)
Our military?
They just go.
So, on this Veterans Day, let us honor those who served-and those who continue to.
And, let’s strive for the day when such service can be accomplished without wartime service being a part of it.
Check out this tribute video—featuring country star Toby Keith’s song “American Soldier”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SK7QxWDZ1yo
To all our servicemen and women—and our veterans:
Thank you.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just drop me a line: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, November 11, 2010
Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Breakfast At Ginger's
Thanks to 94.9 WHOM’s overnight guy (and our sister station Q97.9’s midday host) Teddy McKay, who posted this video on his Facebook page.
If you love animals—especially dogs, you’ll adore this clip. Our family has a Golden Retriever—and I must admit that I’m a bit partial to this breed. I think Goldens are the most beautiful and loving dogs out there…great with kids and good natured in general. Perhaps not the smartest hounds in the canine world, but as we say about our dear Molly—“when they were handing out brains, she was in line to get another helping of “cute”. She may have gotten “thirds”.
What’s really cute is this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaAVZ2yXDBo&feature=channel
Ha!
There are several other “Ginger” videos, all with about the same modus operandi.
You can find them all on YouTube.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
If you love animals—especially dogs, you’ll adore this clip. Our family has a Golden Retriever—and I must admit that I’m a bit partial to this breed. I think Goldens are the most beautiful and loving dogs out there…great with kids and good natured in general. Perhaps not the smartest hounds in the canine world, but as we say about our dear Molly—“when they were handing out brains, she was in line to get another helping of “cute”. She may have gotten “thirds”.
What’s really cute is this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaAVZ2yXDBo&feature=channel
Ha!
There are several other “Ginger” videos, all with about the same modus operandi.
You can find them all on YouTube.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, November 9, 2010
How Many More Laws Do We Need?
Everyone has heard the phrase, “There oughta be law!” when faced with an unjust situation.
Chances are, there is one.
In fact, there are likely SEVERAL laws to address whatever hypothetical situation you can come up with. These similar laws will sometimes negate each other or maybe deal with the exact same issue in opposite ways—perhaps none of it matters, since most laws are not enforced anyway.
In short, we have too MANY laws, with a significant percentage of them being redundant, unnecessary or downright stupid.
Little wonder, since we elect law-MAKERS at virtually every level of government, from city and town, municipalities, at the state level---and, of course, the big one: The United States Congress.
Check out this simplistic path for legislation from the classic movie, “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” starring Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in this scene. And we wonder why the whole thing is a mess?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZFRP67sX8o&NR=1
We the People, send these men and women to their jobs as law-MAKERS with the mandate of creating NEW laws. After all, that is their name and their job description, no? New laws represent their OUTPUT. Show me a lawmaker up for re-election who has not written, co-written or sponsored new legislation and I’ll show you a loser on election day.
It is how they are judged.
And, with each new law, a small fraction of your freedom is sliced away.
If you Google the question, “How Many Laws Are There?”, the answer will be: IMPOSSIBLE to tell (given all the levels of government), but easily into the hundreds of thousands.
So let’s just take ONE sliver of the entire “law pie” (if you will) and go to a source where such things are actually kept track of. Let’s look at “Federal crimes”—and reference the U.S. Justice Department to get some stats:
Since the start of 2000, Congress has created at least 452 new crimes. As of the end of 2007, the total number of Federal crimes exceeds 4,450. There are so many criminal laws that the odds of you or I going through a lifetime without breaking AT LEAST one of them is astronomical.
For a humorous look at what the output of some of our elected officials looks like, log onto to: www.dumblaws.com and you can sort by state. Here are a few in Maine:
In Augusta, to stroll down the street playing a violin is AGAINST THE LAW.
Mercury thermometers may not be sold in the city of Freeport.
Dog leashes must not be over 8 feet in length in Waterboro.
In New Hampshire, the insanity continues-these are state laws:
It is illegal to pick seaweed up from the beach.
You may not run machinery on Sundays.
And here’s a doozy from the White Mountain National Forest:
“If a person is caught raking the beaches, picking up litter, hauling away trash, building a bench for the park, or many other kind things without a permit, he/she may be fined $150 for ”maintaining the national forest without a permit”.
Are we actually PAYING people to come up with stuff like this?
I propose that we should institute a system that for EVERY law enacted, two are repealed. A noble objective, but it's more likely gridlock will take on new meaning and that absolutely NOTHING will be passed.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PASSED........hmmmm
Good idea, no?
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know (it’s free!) tim.moore@citcomm.com
Chances are, there is one.
In fact, there are likely SEVERAL laws to address whatever hypothetical situation you can come up with. These similar laws will sometimes negate each other or maybe deal with the exact same issue in opposite ways—perhaps none of it matters, since most laws are not enforced anyway.
In short, we have too MANY laws, with a significant percentage of them being redundant, unnecessary or downright stupid.
Little wonder, since we elect law-MAKERS at virtually every level of government, from city and town, municipalities, at the state level---and, of course, the big one: The United States Congress.
Check out this simplistic path for legislation from the classic movie, “Mr. Smith Goes To Washington” starring Jimmy Stewart and Jean Arthur in this scene. And we wonder why the whole thing is a mess?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZFRP67sX8o&NR=1
We the People, send these men and women to their jobs as law-MAKERS with the mandate of creating NEW laws. After all, that is their name and their job description, no? New laws represent their OUTPUT. Show me a lawmaker up for re-election who has not written, co-written or sponsored new legislation and I’ll show you a loser on election day.
It is how they are judged.
And, with each new law, a small fraction of your freedom is sliced away.
If you Google the question, “How Many Laws Are There?”, the answer will be: IMPOSSIBLE to tell (given all the levels of government), but easily into the hundreds of thousands.
So let’s just take ONE sliver of the entire “law pie” (if you will) and go to a source where such things are actually kept track of. Let’s look at “Federal crimes”—and reference the U.S. Justice Department to get some stats:
Since the start of 2000, Congress has created at least 452 new crimes. As of the end of 2007, the total number of Federal crimes exceeds 4,450. There are so many criminal laws that the odds of you or I going through a lifetime without breaking AT LEAST one of them is astronomical.
For a humorous look at what the output of some of our elected officials looks like, log onto to: www.dumblaws.com and you can sort by state. Here are a few in Maine:
In Augusta, to stroll down the street playing a violin is AGAINST THE LAW.
Mercury thermometers may not be sold in the city of Freeport.
Dog leashes must not be over 8 feet in length in Waterboro.
In New Hampshire, the insanity continues-these are state laws:
It is illegal to pick seaweed up from the beach.
You may not run machinery on Sundays.
And here’s a doozy from the White Mountain National Forest:
“If a person is caught raking the beaches, picking up litter, hauling away trash, building a bench for the park, or many other kind things without a permit, he/she may be fined $150 for ”maintaining the national forest without a permit”.
Are we actually PAYING people to come up with stuff like this?
I propose that we should institute a system that for EVERY law enacted, two are repealed. A noble objective, but it's more likely gridlock will take on new meaning and that absolutely NOTHING will be passed.
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING PASSED........hmmmm
Good idea, no?
If you’d like my blog in your weekday inbox, just let me know (it’s free!) tim.moore@citcomm.com
Monday, November 8, 2010
X-Rays Discovered-----By Accident
If you land on Google today, you’ll see the familiar logo modified to honor the discovery of the X-Ray—on this date in 1895.
Like many inventions, this one was by accident. Physicist William Rontgen was testing cathode rays in Germany, to see if they would pass through glass. At some point, they passed through Rontgen himself—and the outline of his bones on a chemically-coated screen astounded the scientist, who dubbed the beam an “X-ray” because of its unknown nature.
The discovery was hailed as a medical miracle—becoming an important diagnostic tool. Without surgery, doctors could see inside the human body.
Although quick to discover the upside of this discovery, the world of science was slow to comprehend the inherent dangers of radiation passing through the body. Burns and skin damage was reported—and several scientists, including Thomas Edison’s assistant Clarence Daily, died of cancer after repeated exposure to the radiation. X-rays were prevalent outside of medicine, even to the point of SHOE STORES utilizing the technology to size footwear!
Here are a couple of videos—one a documentary on X-rays from 1940---the other an animated look at how X-rays work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3s5HFQ2YME&NR=1\
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vSH-dlM5U8
William Rontgen won the first Nobel Prize for Physics in 1901. Despite the numerous accolades he received, he remained modest and never tried to patent his discovery.
Today, x-ray technology is still used extensively in medicine, materials analysis and airport security.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Like many inventions, this one was by accident. Physicist William Rontgen was testing cathode rays in Germany, to see if they would pass through glass. At some point, they passed through Rontgen himself—and the outline of his bones on a chemically-coated screen astounded the scientist, who dubbed the beam an “X-ray” because of its unknown nature.
The discovery was hailed as a medical miracle—becoming an important diagnostic tool. Without surgery, doctors could see inside the human body.
Although quick to discover the upside of this discovery, the world of science was slow to comprehend the inherent dangers of radiation passing through the body. Burns and skin damage was reported—and several scientists, including Thomas Edison’s assistant Clarence Daily, died of cancer after repeated exposure to the radiation. X-rays were prevalent outside of medicine, even to the point of SHOE STORES utilizing the technology to size footwear!
Here are a couple of videos—one a documentary on X-rays from 1940---the other an animated look at how X-rays work:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3s5HFQ2YME&NR=1\
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vSH-dlM5U8
William Rontgen won the first Nobel Prize for Physics in 1901. Despite the numerous accolades he received, he remained modest and never tried to patent his discovery.
Today, x-ray technology is still used extensively in medicine, materials analysis and airport security.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, November 5, 2010
NBC Defies Racism--And Makes TV History
It’s hard today to imagine the courage displayed by NBC on this date in 1956.
It was 54 years ago today that the first TV show with a black host made its debut.
“The Nat King Cole Show” hit the airwaves, starring a man who today is considered an American musical icon. Back then, however, he was viewed as a talented singer and pianist who could be tolerated as a GUEST on someone else’s program---but----an African-American with a SHOW OF HIS OWN?
Unthinkable.
Not to the executives at NBC, who launched the program without a sponsor. No American business was willing to be associated with this harmless music and entertainment show. Starting as a 15 minute pops showcase, it was expanded to a half hour in 1957.
Many of Cole’s friends in show business appeared for union scale or no pay in order to help the show save money. Peggy Lee, Mel Torme, Ella Fitzgerald, Frankie Laine and Harry Belafonte appeared on the program.
Here’s a clip of an early show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5tZrH2O4jc
The show lasted more than a year, airing its last episode on December 17, 1957. In the end, it was Cole himself—and not the network that finally pulled the plug. It is believed that Nat King Cole himself was losing personal wealth in keeping the show alive—and NBC was also in the hole, having never landed a national sponsor. It should be noted that Rheingold Beer was a regional sponsor for a time.
Although routinely beaten in the ratings by ABC, the show did have a decent audience—and some TV critics insist the show’s ratings struggles were more due to the genre of the music/variety show, which also claimed casualties with white stars at the helm, namely Frank Sinatra (1957), Judy Garland (1962) and Julie Andrews (1972)
In commenting on his lack of sponsors, Nat King Cole remarked, “I guess Madison Avenue is afraid of the dark”.
Regardless, the show was a milestone, a breakthrough moment. Nat King Cole is to be commended for the fortitude he exhibited in the face of overt racism—and in a rare display of corporate courage, NBC is to be applauded too, for taking a stand—and making television history.
If you’d like my blog in your daily inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It was 54 years ago today that the first TV show with a black host made its debut.
“The Nat King Cole Show” hit the airwaves, starring a man who today is considered an American musical icon. Back then, however, he was viewed as a talented singer and pianist who could be tolerated as a GUEST on someone else’s program---but----an African-American with a SHOW OF HIS OWN?
Unthinkable.
Not to the executives at NBC, who launched the program without a sponsor. No American business was willing to be associated with this harmless music and entertainment show. Starting as a 15 minute pops showcase, it was expanded to a half hour in 1957.
Many of Cole’s friends in show business appeared for union scale or no pay in order to help the show save money. Peggy Lee, Mel Torme, Ella Fitzgerald, Frankie Laine and Harry Belafonte appeared on the program.
Here’s a clip of an early show:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5tZrH2O4jc
The show lasted more than a year, airing its last episode on December 17, 1957. In the end, it was Cole himself—and not the network that finally pulled the plug. It is believed that Nat King Cole himself was losing personal wealth in keeping the show alive—and NBC was also in the hole, having never landed a national sponsor. It should be noted that Rheingold Beer was a regional sponsor for a time.
Although routinely beaten in the ratings by ABC, the show did have a decent audience—and some TV critics insist the show’s ratings struggles were more due to the genre of the music/variety show, which also claimed casualties with white stars at the helm, namely Frank Sinatra (1957), Judy Garland (1962) and Julie Andrews (1972)
In commenting on his lack of sponsors, Nat King Cole remarked, “I guess Madison Avenue is afraid of the dark”.
Regardless, the show was a milestone, a breakthrough moment. Nat King Cole is to be commended for the fortitude he exhibited in the face of overt racism—and in a rare display of corporate courage, NBC is to be applauded too, for taking a stand—and making television history.
If you’d like my blog in your daily inbox, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Marketing Has Changed
You’re gonna love the video that is part of today’s blog!
The internet has opened up new avenues for businesses to promote their products---and has created new challenges for traditional media to adapt.
Here at 94.9 WHOM, it used to be enough to create a compelling commercial---the basics being:
1) Write and produce a message that motivates the listener to try or return to a specific brand, product or service.
2) Broadcast that commercial to the correct audience.
3) Play the spot with enough frequency so that the prospective customer is exposed to it at least three times.
These basics have served both radio and TV fairly well---and they still hold true. With a weekly audience that averages a quarter million people in Northern New England (and many thousands more listening on the web), our clients have enjoyed resounding success with campaigns that don’t violate any of the above. Making their cash registers ring ends up making both of us successful!
The web has afforded opportunities to showcase different approaches to the tried and true-check out this “commercial”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAH0rImQozQ
If you didn’t read the masthead/title, it likely took you by surprise! In good taste? Maybe not, but effective?
Probably.
It’s doubtful that you’ll see 94.9 WHOM create anything that approaches the video above, but we are definitely spreading the word about our advertisers in different ways.
Since the audience is always experimenting with new modes of entertainment— radio and television have to evolve as well. In fact, 94.9 WHOM has become a multi-media entity that, in addition to the traditional “spot” schedule, routinely supports its clients with:
1) Streaming videos on the website
2) Stream-only spots on the internet
3) E-mail via our Listener database
4) Text database
5) Facebook
6) Web-based promotions
7) Podcasting
8) iPhone and Blackberry applications to listen to 94.9 WHOM
9) Blogs like this one
There might be others I’m not thinking of—and there are certain to be more in the future.
Creating an emotional connection is key—and although the Immodium “ad” above did so in a very unconventional way, it was entertaining, memorable—and probably effective, too!
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
The internet has opened up new avenues for businesses to promote their products---and has created new challenges for traditional media to adapt.
Here at 94.9 WHOM, it used to be enough to create a compelling commercial---the basics being:
1) Write and produce a message that motivates the listener to try or return to a specific brand, product or service.
2) Broadcast that commercial to the correct audience.
3) Play the spot with enough frequency so that the prospective customer is exposed to it at least three times.
These basics have served both radio and TV fairly well---and they still hold true. With a weekly audience that averages a quarter million people in Northern New England (and many thousands more listening on the web), our clients have enjoyed resounding success with campaigns that don’t violate any of the above. Making their cash registers ring ends up making both of us successful!
The web has afforded opportunities to showcase different approaches to the tried and true-check out this “commercial”:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAH0rImQozQ
If you didn’t read the masthead/title, it likely took you by surprise! In good taste? Maybe not, but effective?
Probably.
It’s doubtful that you’ll see 94.9 WHOM create anything that approaches the video above, but we are definitely spreading the word about our advertisers in different ways.
Since the audience is always experimenting with new modes of entertainment— radio and television have to evolve as well. In fact, 94.9 WHOM has become a multi-media entity that, in addition to the traditional “spot” schedule, routinely supports its clients with:
1) Streaming videos on the website
2) Stream-only spots on the internet
3) E-mail via our Listener database
4) Text database
5) Facebook
6) Web-based promotions
7) Podcasting
8) iPhone and Blackberry applications to listen to 94.9 WHOM
9) Blogs like this one
There might be others I’m not thinking of—and there are certain to be more in the future.
Creating an emotional connection is key—and although the Immodium “ad” above did so in a very unconventional way, it was entertaining, memorable—and probably effective, too!
If you’d like my blog in your weekday box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Wednesday, November 3, 2010
All The Single Babies
Thank goodness the election is over. For at least awhile, no attack ads, no debates, no roadside signs (note to all candidates: TAKE THEM DOWN now)
So…how about something lighter today, OK?
I’ll get back to politics at some point-maybe tomorrow! But today’s all about the video. Thanks to Lorenzo Rozzi---whom I call the “Mayor of Portland”—he owns the newsstand at our studios at One City Center in Portland. When he’s not busy trying to strike up a conversation with every single woman who walks into the building, he is a purveyor of excellent e-mails.
This video is from Lorenzo and will definitely make you smile. Not new—it’s probably been up on You Tube for a year, but seeing it again made me want to share it with you.
Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onaZCPMTKcs
THAT’S what it’s all about. That little guy (?) doesn’t care about the elections, the deficit or the economy.
He sure can shake that booty though.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
So…how about something lighter today, OK?
I’ll get back to politics at some point-maybe tomorrow! But today’s all about the video. Thanks to Lorenzo Rozzi---whom I call the “Mayor of Portland”—he owns the newsstand at our studios at One City Center in Portland. When he’s not busy trying to strike up a conversation with every single woman who walks into the building, he is a purveyor of excellent e-mails.
This video is from Lorenzo and will definitely make you smile. Not new—it’s probably been up on You Tube for a year, but seeing it again made me want to share it with you.
Enjoy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=onaZCPMTKcs
THAT’S what it’s all about. That little guy (?) doesn’t care about the elections, the deficit or the economy.
He sure can shake that booty though.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Tuesday, November 2, 2010
Vote Today, But Beware Of Tea Party's Confused Agenda
OK, so the polls are open and the conventional wisdom is that the Democrats will take a serious bath tonight as the results roll in. Losing the House is a foregone conclusion by many—and the Senate is also in play. Governorships are heavily favored to shift Republican tonight.
ANGER is driving this election. Anger over the state of the economy, anger over the deficit, health care—and on and on.
The Republican Party will be the beneficiary of all this venom, but we should be clear on the following point:
Americans, by and large—are angry and distrustful of BOTH parties. Their dislike of Republicans is about as high as Democrats. However, being a Democrat is most definitely a liability this political season.
I’m re-posting the lion’s share of a blog I first published in May about the Tea Party. I have read SO much and heard SO much about the so-called “Tea Party Movement”, that I was curious re: their “Platform”. I mean, I get the whole “anger” part. They’re pissed off, feeling disenfranchised and generally mad as hell about everything to do with government, taxes, etc.
This anger is an appropriate fuel to initiate CHANGE---the Tea Party kind, not Obama’s.
That said, there must be something BEYOND THE ANGER—principles, ideas and plans that transform meaningless platitudes like “create jobs” or “cut spending” into CONCRETE decisions. That is, the actual decisions which cannot possibly be universally popular but those which must be made.
What are they?
I’m no expert on the so-called “Tea Party” movement, but those who align it with the Republican Party are misguided, I think.
From what I’ve seen, the Tea Party movement is party-neutral. Since fiscal conservatism and strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution-literally interpreted –as well as support for state’s rights are a cornerstone of the mantra, the vast majority of Tea Party “members” are probably Republicans.
Many of them, however, are disenfranchised GOP people who are looking for anything that they can align themselves with and be enthusiastic about. Nothing happening out there right now speaks to them-from either party.
Incumbents in both parties are being targeted for ejection from their seats. Maybe this is all well and good. After all, they are the problem, no? They are all corrupt, no?
I Google’d “Tea Party” to find a platform—an uniform set of beliefs that would somehow define what this “movement” stood for. What I uncovered was a fair amount of contradicting beliefs, alignments, goals and aspirations.
So, is that a “movement”? Or is it merely an umbrella term for “throw the bums out”?
The closest thing to a Tea Party Manifesto was the so-called “Contract With America”, listing ten points:
1) IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF EVERY NEW LAW- I think that this is already done when drafting legislation. While implying that recent laws violate the Constitution, no law is drafted without undergoing a “vetting” process for constitutionality. If laws passed do indeed cross the line, they will be challenged in court. In short, this is a largely useless “objective”—as it is already in place.
2) REJECT EMISSIONS TRADING- Stop “Cap and Trade” I don’t know enough on this to offer an informed opinion. I wonder how many Tea Party people are versed in the pros and cons of this approach. Hmmm.
3) DEMAND A BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGET- Great concept, but at least one of a couple of distasteful scenarios appear. To accomplish this objective, Congress must either a) raise taxes (which I think violates #10 below), b) reduce entitlements like Social Security (which I’m thinking won’t be popular with the Tea Party crowd, many of whom are collecting same) and/or c) permanently stop the practice of prosecuting wars (like Bush did) without actually accounting for the cost within the budget framework. President Obama has at least made the accounting for war transparent, placing it in the Federal Budget where it belongs. Previous Presidents conveniently leaving it “out of the budget” didn’t mean we weren’t deficit spending. OK, Tea Party people—which will it be?
4) SIMPLIFY THE TAX SYSTEM- I am completely on board here. Complexity of the U.S. Tax code favors the wealthy, who use their accountants to evade taxes by using loopholes that ongoing rulemaking means to close—and yet, ends up having the opposite effect. In fact, I support the “consumption tax” proposed by then presidential candidate Huckabee.
5) AUDIT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENGIES FOR CONSTITUTIONALITY- This advocates creating ANOTHER bureaucracy-a so-called “blue ribbon commission” (are you SERIOUS?) that puts everything the Federal government does under the microscope. I could support this if I felt it could root out waste, inefficiencies and have teeth. How many “blue ribbon commissions” have the force of law? Zero, maybe?
6) LIMIT ANNUAL GROWTH IN FEDERAL SPENDING-Again, a great concept. This strives to limit the growth to the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. A worthy goal-perhaps attainable.
7) REPEAL THE HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION- Not only unrealistic, but regardless of the claims of “government takeover” of healthcare, to say so is factually incorrect. The free market system was simply not working—mostly because the medical ethic of NEVER DENYING CARE to those without insurance only meant that this cost was ALWAYS shifted to those who DID have insurance—and did so at a much higher cost, as a disproportionately high number of these uninsured patients received their care through the avenue of the local Emergency Room—the highest cost possible. The independent GAO determined that the Health Plan as passed was not only “deficit neutral” as was proposed, but would actually reduce the Federal deficit. Time will obviously tell, but all evidence points to this legislation as being both fiscally and socially positive over the long run. In short, don’t make as an “objective” the repeal of something that could not be defeated politically as legislation. Removing an existing law-one that benefits millions of Americans—will be nearly impossible. When the Tea Party controls both houses of Congress AND the White House, then we’ll talk.
8) PASS AN “ALL OF THE ABOVE” ENERGY POLICY- Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources. Reduce regulatory barriers. With the exception of that last sentence (given the oil spill in the Gulf), I think we can all agree on this point. How we arrive at this objective will differ. I’m assuming that Federal tax incentives to invest in such alternate energy projects would be agreeable to all, but am I right?
9) REDUCE EARMARKS- Place a moratorium on ALL earmarks until the budget is balanced—and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. I can agree with this, but as a percentage of the Federal Budget, all earmarks together comprise such a small percentage of the total amount spent—that it is largely window-dressing. When our local Congressman or woman scores Federal funding for a local project, he or she is hailed as a hero at home—those not benefiting from it (in other states) call it “pork”. The ability to deliver pork to the home folks is a prerequisite for re-election. In short, we love OUR pork, hate the pork of others.
10) REDUCE TAXES- “Permanently” repeal all recent tax increases, including those to the income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes. Again, who ISN’T in favor of decreasing taxes? I am. You are. The problem is that such consensus evaporates when discussing which programs go away.
So, there you have it. Ten goals, of which maybe only 3 or 4 have a realistic chance of achievability---even among Tea Party “members”—who could not be counted upon to agree on the so-called “tough choices” they advocate for. No consensus? Gridlock? What happens on Capital Hill may be a reflection of the lack of the same in our population.
When considering the hacking of Federal Programs, let’s “do away” with the following big wasters of cash—your cash:
1) SOCIAL SECURITY- Here is the biggest waste. Who cares if Grandma cannot support herself now? Let’s slice that entitlement in half. After all, the extended families that are such a part of other cultures are a social benefit, no? Granny will move in with you and your family.
2) MEDICAID- Wrought with fraud and waste, this too should be on the chopping block. Our refusal to deny medical care will simply move these costs, many of which constitute nursing home care—to the consumer in the form of even higher health insurance costs. But hey, it’s a free market system—and the capitalistic way to solve the problem, no?
3) ELIMINATE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION- No barriers to keep companies from bringing drugs to market. Without all that pesky testing for safety, not only do we eliminate a huge bureaucracy, but maybe drug prices will go down as the pharmaceutical companies will not need to spend nearly as much to bring a drug to market. The tens of thousands who may die as a result of using untested drugs are merely the collateral damage that any free capitalistic society must endure.
4) ELIMINATE THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION- Like the FDA, think of the savings! We’ll be able to increase our imports of dangerous Chinese goods without the threat of federal intervention. In fact, we’ll be able to make our own dangerous goods right here in the U.S.A.!
5) ELIMINATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY!- Repeal those oppressive laws that restrict companies from dumping raw sewage into our water and carcinogens into our air and soil. These laws seriously diminish the profitability of these job-creating industries.
6) ELIMINATE THE FAA- Without the stringent regulations that require companies to perform regular safety checks on their airplanes and restrict a pilot’s flying time, maybe the airlines will become profitable again!
7) ELIMINATE THE SEC- Hey, we don’t want to further burden the Wall Street companies that almost brought us to the brink, so why not wipe out ALL consumer protection with regard to investments? Publicly held companies that need not publish a prospectus or adhere to accounting principles that guarantee the viability of their businesses to prospective investors will be able to raise a lot more capital.
8) ELIMINATE OSHA- Worker safety on the job is over-rated. Companies have the best interests of their employees at heart anyway, right? Think of the savings!
Those are just a few—I could go on! Who needs all that oversight, all that regulation?
In our justified frustration, let’s be careful not to demonize everything that smacks of government. Let’s not paint the scene with so broad a brushstroke that we lose sight of what life could be like WITHOUT these awful services that are paid by our taxes.
Excesses? Absolutely.
Inefficiencies? Without a doubt.
Sheer indignation and a “throw the bums out” mentality without some thought to whatever their replacements COULD accomplish is immature and unrealistic.
If Sarah Palin is the face of the Tea Party movement, that fact alone should send shudders up your spine.
By gosh, by golly.
It’s often said that the government we have is the one we deserve. Be careful what you wish for. Just as there is “no free lunch”, there is a consequence to all attempts to achieve the objectives that we say we want.
Sacrifice—and in some cases, profound sacrifice is the only alternative. And, no matter the candidate, promising “shared sacrifice” never got anyone elected—even a Tea Party candidate.
So, today, before you vote, think hard about the efforts throughout our history that have promised to “restore integrity to politics/government/Congress”. Have any of them worked?
Think about what you WANT as well as what you DON’T want. Tossing all the bums out will make you feel good for a minute---until we collectively realize that they’ve been replaced with OTHER bums---some of whom may have “incompetence” as added feature.
Let’s hope for the best—and vote our dreams, not our fears---or our anger.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm..com
ANGER is driving this election. Anger over the state of the economy, anger over the deficit, health care—and on and on.
The Republican Party will be the beneficiary of all this venom, but we should be clear on the following point:
Americans, by and large—are angry and distrustful of BOTH parties. Their dislike of Republicans is about as high as Democrats. However, being a Democrat is most definitely a liability this political season.
I’m re-posting the lion’s share of a blog I first published in May about the Tea Party. I have read SO much and heard SO much about the so-called “Tea Party Movement”, that I was curious re: their “Platform”. I mean, I get the whole “anger” part. They’re pissed off, feeling disenfranchised and generally mad as hell about everything to do with government, taxes, etc.
This anger is an appropriate fuel to initiate CHANGE---the Tea Party kind, not Obama’s.
That said, there must be something BEYOND THE ANGER—principles, ideas and plans that transform meaningless platitudes like “create jobs” or “cut spending” into CONCRETE decisions. That is, the actual decisions which cannot possibly be universally popular but those which must be made.
What are they?
I’m no expert on the so-called “Tea Party” movement, but those who align it with the Republican Party are misguided, I think.
From what I’ve seen, the Tea Party movement is party-neutral. Since fiscal conservatism and strict adherence to the U.S. Constitution-literally interpreted –as well as support for state’s rights are a cornerstone of the mantra, the vast majority of Tea Party “members” are probably Republicans.
Many of them, however, are disenfranchised GOP people who are looking for anything that they can align themselves with and be enthusiastic about. Nothing happening out there right now speaks to them-from either party.
Incumbents in both parties are being targeted for ejection from their seats. Maybe this is all well and good. After all, they are the problem, no? They are all corrupt, no?
I Google’d “Tea Party” to find a platform—an uniform set of beliefs that would somehow define what this “movement” stood for. What I uncovered was a fair amount of contradicting beliefs, alignments, goals and aspirations.
So, is that a “movement”? Or is it merely an umbrella term for “throw the bums out”?
The closest thing to a Tea Party Manifesto was the so-called “Contract With America”, listing ten points:
1) IDENTIFY THE CONSTITUTIONALITY OF EVERY NEW LAW- I think that this is already done when drafting legislation. While implying that recent laws violate the Constitution, no law is drafted without undergoing a “vetting” process for constitutionality. If laws passed do indeed cross the line, they will be challenged in court. In short, this is a largely useless “objective”—as it is already in place.
2) REJECT EMISSIONS TRADING- Stop “Cap and Trade” I don’t know enough on this to offer an informed opinion. I wonder how many Tea Party people are versed in the pros and cons of this approach. Hmmm.
3) DEMAND A BALANCED FEDERAL BUDGET- Great concept, but at least one of a couple of distasteful scenarios appear. To accomplish this objective, Congress must either a) raise taxes (which I think violates #10 below), b) reduce entitlements like Social Security (which I’m thinking won’t be popular with the Tea Party crowd, many of whom are collecting same) and/or c) permanently stop the practice of prosecuting wars (like Bush did) without actually accounting for the cost within the budget framework. President Obama has at least made the accounting for war transparent, placing it in the Federal Budget where it belongs. Previous Presidents conveniently leaving it “out of the budget” didn’t mean we weren’t deficit spending. OK, Tea Party people—which will it be?
4) SIMPLIFY THE TAX SYSTEM- I am completely on board here. Complexity of the U.S. Tax code favors the wealthy, who use their accountants to evade taxes by using loopholes that ongoing rulemaking means to close—and yet, ends up having the opposite effect. In fact, I support the “consumption tax” proposed by then presidential candidate Huckabee.
5) AUDIT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AGENGIES FOR CONSTITUTIONALITY- This advocates creating ANOTHER bureaucracy-a so-called “blue ribbon commission” (are you SERIOUS?) that puts everything the Federal government does under the microscope. I could support this if I felt it could root out waste, inefficiencies and have teeth. How many “blue ribbon commissions” have the force of law? Zero, maybe?
6) LIMIT ANNUAL GROWTH IN FEDERAL SPENDING-Again, a great concept. This strives to limit the growth to the inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth. A worthy goal-perhaps attainable.
7) REPEAL THE HEALTH CARE LEGISLATION- Not only unrealistic, but regardless of the claims of “government takeover” of healthcare, to say so is factually incorrect. The free market system was simply not working—mostly because the medical ethic of NEVER DENYING CARE to those without insurance only meant that this cost was ALWAYS shifted to those who DID have insurance—and did so at a much higher cost, as a disproportionately high number of these uninsured patients received their care through the avenue of the local Emergency Room—the highest cost possible. The independent GAO determined that the Health Plan as passed was not only “deficit neutral” as was proposed, but would actually reduce the Federal deficit. Time will obviously tell, but all evidence points to this legislation as being both fiscally and socially positive over the long run. In short, don’t make as an “objective” the repeal of something that could not be defeated politically as legislation. Removing an existing law-one that benefits millions of Americans—will be nearly impossible. When the Tea Party controls both houses of Congress AND the White House, then we’ll talk.
8) PASS AN “ALL OF THE ABOVE” ENERGY POLICY- Authorize the exploration of additional energy reserves to reduce American dependence on foreign energy sources. Reduce regulatory barriers. With the exception of that last sentence (given the oil spill in the Gulf), I think we can all agree on this point. How we arrive at this objective will differ. I’m assuming that Federal tax incentives to invest in such alternate energy projects would be agreeable to all, but am I right?
9) REDUCE EARMARKS- Place a moratorium on ALL earmarks until the budget is balanced—and then require a 2/3 majority to pass any earmark. I can agree with this, but as a percentage of the Federal Budget, all earmarks together comprise such a small percentage of the total amount spent—that it is largely window-dressing. When our local Congressman or woman scores Federal funding for a local project, he or she is hailed as a hero at home—those not benefiting from it (in other states) call it “pork”. The ability to deliver pork to the home folks is a prerequisite for re-election. In short, we love OUR pork, hate the pork of others.
10) REDUCE TAXES- “Permanently” repeal all recent tax increases, including those to the income tax, capital gains tax and estate taxes. Again, who ISN’T in favor of decreasing taxes? I am. You are. The problem is that such consensus evaporates when discussing which programs go away.
So, there you have it. Ten goals, of which maybe only 3 or 4 have a realistic chance of achievability---even among Tea Party “members”—who could not be counted upon to agree on the so-called “tough choices” they advocate for. No consensus? Gridlock? What happens on Capital Hill may be a reflection of the lack of the same in our population.
When considering the hacking of Federal Programs, let’s “do away” with the following big wasters of cash—your cash:
1) SOCIAL SECURITY- Here is the biggest waste. Who cares if Grandma cannot support herself now? Let’s slice that entitlement in half. After all, the extended families that are such a part of other cultures are a social benefit, no? Granny will move in with you and your family.
2) MEDICAID- Wrought with fraud and waste, this too should be on the chopping block. Our refusal to deny medical care will simply move these costs, many of which constitute nursing home care—to the consumer in the form of even higher health insurance costs. But hey, it’s a free market system—and the capitalistic way to solve the problem, no?
3) ELIMINATE THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION- No barriers to keep companies from bringing drugs to market. Without all that pesky testing for safety, not only do we eliminate a huge bureaucracy, but maybe drug prices will go down as the pharmaceutical companies will not need to spend nearly as much to bring a drug to market. The tens of thousands who may die as a result of using untested drugs are merely the collateral damage that any free capitalistic society must endure.
4) ELIMINATE THE CONSUMER PRODUCT SAFETY COMMISSION- Like the FDA, think of the savings! We’ll be able to increase our imports of dangerous Chinese goods without the threat of federal intervention. In fact, we’ll be able to make our own dangerous goods right here in the U.S.A.!
5) ELIMINATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY!- Repeal those oppressive laws that restrict companies from dumping raw sewage into our water and carcinogens into our air and soil. These laws seriously diminish the profitability of these job-creating industries.
6) ELIMINATE THE FAA- Without the stringent regulations that require companies to perform regular safety checks on their airplanes and restrict a pilot’s flying time, maybe the airlines will become profitable again!
7) ELIMINATE THE SEC- Hey, we don’t want to further burden the Wall Street companies that almost brought us to the brink, so why not wipe out ALL consumer protection with regard to investments? Publicly held companies that need not publish a prospectus or adhere to accounting principles that guarantee the viability of their businesses to prospective investors will be able to raise a lot more capital.
8) ELIMINATE OSHA- Worker safety on the job is over-rated. Companies have the best interests of their employees at heart anyway, right? Think of the savings!
Those are just a few—I could go on! Who needs all that oversight, all that regulation?
In our justified frustration, let’s be careful not to demonize everything that smacks of government. Let’s not paint the scene with so broad a brushstroke that we lose sight of what life could be like WITHOUT these awful services that are paid by our taxes.
Excesses? Absolutely.
Inefficiencies? Without a doubt.
Sheer indignation and a “throw the bums out” mentality without some thought to whatever their replacements COULD accomplish is immature and unrealistic.
If Sarah Palin is the face of the Tea Party movement, that fact alone should send shudders up your spine.
By gosh, by golly.
It’s often said that the government we have is the one we deserve. Be careful what you wish for. Just as there is “no free lunch”, there is a consequence to all attempts to achieve the objectives that we say we want.
Sacrifice—and in some cases, profound sacrifice is the only alternative. And, no matter the candidate, promising “shared sacrifice” never got anyone elected—even a Tea Party candidate.
So, today, before you vote, think hard about the efforts throughout our history that have promised to “restore integrity to politics/government/Congress”. Have any of them worked?
Think about what you WANT as well as what you DON’T want. Tossing all the bums out will make you feel good for a minute---until we collectively realize that they’ve been replaced with OTHER bums---some of whom may have “incompetence” as added feature.
Let’s hope for the best—and vote our dreams, not our fears---or our anger.
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm..com
Monday, November 1, 2010
Beatlemania Firsthand
Life is a series of moments, a stream of seemingly chance encounters—and the results of these random events can---and do change history.
It’s possible that music history was changed forever on Halloween of 1963.
That’s the day that Ed Sullivan---by the sheer coincidence of being at London’s Heathrow Airport the same day the Beatles returned from a successful tour of Sweden---witnessed Beatlemania firsthand.
The pandemonium he experienced in trying to make his flight back to New York would pave the way for his desire to have them appear on his hugely popular TV show. Heathrow was mobbed by hordes of screaming teenagers. It was nothing like he had ever seen before—and really no one has seen since (at least not to that degree).
Some people will say that the Beatles would have “made it” regardless of Sullivan’s booking them on his show. Perhaps, but consider the following:
1) Beatles manager Brian Epstein had repeated tried and failed to convince Capitol Records to release their singles in the United States. The American arm of EMI, it was believed that the “Mersey Beat” sound would simply not translate and appeal to American audiences.
2) Capitol declined to release “Please Please Me”, “From Me To You” and “She Loves You”—allowing them to be released on minor labels Vee-Jay and Swan, where they initially languished on the charts without pop promotion.
3) In an effort to crack the American market, John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote and recorded a song specifically to appeal to American teenagers. “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” was completed just two weeks before their chance encounter with Ed Sullivan.
Once back in the States, Sullivan was so bowled over by what he saw that he started the process of getting the Beatles on his program. Brian Epstein flew to New York—and the deal he struck indicates Sullivan’s level of desire. He negotiated not one, but THREE appearances on the show as HEADLINER, even though they were virtually unknown to U.S. audiences. Armed with this deal, he finally convinced Capitol Records to release “I Wanna Hold Your Hand”, backed by a $40,000 promotion budget.
Check out this rare footage of early Beatlemania:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLvTq6FdOj4&feature=related
Pretty incredible, no?
Epstein’s coup with Capitol Records—using Ed Sullivan as leverage—set the stage for the storied arrival of the Beatles in New York just four months later, on February 7, 1964.
By the time they landed at another airport taken over by teenagers, The Beatles already had the #1 song in the country—and the initial Sullivan show appearance (which broke Nielson ratings records for viewership) was followed by the other two contracted appearances---and an additional 5 more in the next year.
Sullivan’s knack for great timing was confirmed---and his chance encounter with the Fab Four 47 years ago yesterday---- turned out to be hugely beneficial for both of them.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
It’s possible that music history was changed forever on Halloween of 1963.
That’s the day that Ed Sullivan---by the sheer coincidence of being at London’s Heathrow Airport the same day the Beatles returned from a successful tour of Sweden---witnessed Beatlemania firsthand.
The pandemonium he experienced in trying to make his flight back to New York would pave the way for his desire to have them appear on his hugely popular TV show. Heathrow was mobbed by hordes of screaming teenagers. It was nothing like he had ever seen before—and really no one has seen since (at least not to that degree).
Some people will say that the Beatles would have “made it” regardless of Sullivan’s booking them on his show. Perhaps, but consider the following:
1) Beatles manager Brian Epstein had repeated tried and failed to convince Capitol Records to release their singles in the United States. The American arm of EMI, it was believed that the “Mersey Beat” sound would simply not translate and appeal to American audiences.
2) Capitol declined to release “Please Please Me”, “From Me To You” and “She Loves You”—allowing them to be released on minor labels Vee-Jay and Swan, where they initially languished on the charts without pop promotion.
3) In an effort to crack the American market, John Lennon and Paul McCartney wrote and recorded a song specifically to appeal to American teenagers. “I Wanna Hold Your Hand” was completed just two weeks before their chance encounter with Ed Sullivan.
Once back in the States, Sullivan was so bowled over by what he saw that he started the process of getting the Beatles on his program. Brian Epstein flew to New York—and the deal he struck indicates Sullivan’s level of desire. He negotiated not one, but THREE appearances on the show as HEADLINER, even though they were virtually unknown to U.S. audiences. Armed with this deal, he finally convinced Capitol Records to release “I Wanna Hold Your Hand”, backed by a $40,000 promotion budget.
Check out this rare footage of early Beatlemania:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLvTq6FdOj4&feature=related
Pretty incredible, no?
Epstein’s coup with Capitol Records—using Ed Sullivan as leverage—set the stage for the storied arrival of the Beatles in New York just four months later, on February 7, 1964.
By the time they landed at another airport taken over by teenagers, The Beatles already had the #1 song in the country—and the initial Sullivan show appearance (which broke Nielson ratings records for viewership) was followed by the other two contracted appearances---and an additional 5 more in the next year.
Sullivan’s knack for great timing was confirmed---and his chance encounter with the Fab Four 47 years ago yesterday---- turned out to be hugely beneficial for both of them.
If you’d like my blog in your box weekdays, let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Friday, October 29, 2010
Time Traveler Revealed in 1928 Movie!
It created such a buzz this week that Brian Williams featured it on the NBC Nightly News.
“It” is an intriguing piece of film that was discovered recently—supposedly depicting a woman walking down the street talking on a cell phone.
Nothing out of the ordinary there—except that the film clip was part of a Charlie Chaplin movie shot in 1928---nearly a half century before the advent of mobile phones. The first mobile phone made its debut in 1973—and was enormous in size, compared to the handheld cell phones of today. The phone in this scene seems to be more like the devices of today, making the gap in years approaching 80!
The brief clip features a woman walking down the street clearly clutching what appears to be a cell phone in her left hand. She stops and almost faces the camera for an instant—and in that brief glimpse, it appears that she is carrying on some sort of conversation.
So, what exactly WAS it?
Perhaps a time traveler?
Check out the clip for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRvVN39ZwtM
There has been some speculation that the device she was holding was a type of hearing aid that was used in the 20’s. Critics of this theory say the hearing-assist unit was larger, shaped differently and would have been held in a different manner or orientation.
Of course, if this woman WAS a time traveler—whom was she calling? Perhaps someone in current times? Of course, we’ll never know---I just hope that the carrier won’t charge that lady for a call that lasts from 1928-2010.
Nobody has that many minutes in their plan.
Have a great weekend!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
“It” is an intriguing piece of film that was discovered recently—supposedly depicting a woman walking down the street talking on a cell phone.
Nothing out of the ordinary there—except that the film clip was part of a Charlie Chaplin movie shot in 1928---nearly a half century before the advent of mobile phones. The first mobile phone made its debut in 1973—and was enormous in size, compared to the handheld cell phones of today. The phone in this scene seems to be more like the devices of today, making the gap in years approaching 80!
The brief clip features a woman walking down the street clearly clutching what appears to be a cell phone in her left hand. She stops and almost faces the camera for an instant—and in that brief glimpse, it appears that she is carrying on some sort of conversation.
So, what exactly WAS it?
Perhaps a time traveler?
Check out the clip for yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DRvVN39ZwtM
There has been some speculation that the device she was holding was a type of hearing aid that was used in the 20’s. Critics of this theory say the hearing-assist unit was larger, shaped differently and would have been held in a different manner or orientation.
Of course, if this woman WAS a time traveler—whom was she calling? Perhaps someone in current times? Of course, we’ll never know---I just hope that the carrier won’t charge that lady for a call that lasts from 1928-2010.
Nobody has that many minutes in their plan.
Have a great weekend!
If you’d like my blog in your box, just let me know: tim.moore@citcomm.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
