Peter Berdovsky and Sean Stevens: New Icons?(Or More Proof America is Motivated By Fear and Paranoia)

......[c]2007 by
Richard L Zorek

.........02.01.07........
Sorry, but I think they gave one of the most impressive press conferences I have seen a long, long time. First, they ran the press conference. They didn't let the press run it. That in itself was enough to anger the press...who later touted them as "mockers." It was interesting to see CNN, Fox, and MSNBC start to listen to what they had to say. As they began talking about 70s haircuts..........I think it just threw them into a headspin as they couldn't figure out what was going on. I myself was impressed that Stevens and Berdovsky stayed their course and did not give into the reporters questions. The anchor from CNN said, as she went to commmercial break "I am not sure what that was."

They had been hired by a marketing firm, Interference Inc., which had been hired by Turner Broadcasting. They placed 38 of the devices on buildings, under bridges and in other spots around Boston, and each earned $300. The devices, featured flashing lights in the shape of a character from the cartoon show “Aqua Teen Hunger Force.” The devices had been placed in ten other cities around the country. None reacted like Boston.

So, just how efficent is Boston's "terrorist" team? I have doubts about one that could shut down a great portion of the city because of a toy with batteries. I predict the city of Boston will pursue a lawsuit against Turner Broadcasting because they know they can. And, if they don't, it would be admission that they messed up. Police Commissioner Edward F Davis is not likely to let that happen.

Time for the Democrats to Trash America Again

....[c]2007 by
Richard L Zorek

.........01.31.07........Senator Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Rep Dennis Kucinich, Tom Vilsack, Sen Joe Biden, Sen Barack Obama, Gov Bill Richardson, Sen Hillary Clinton, Wesley Clark, Al Gore, Al Sharpton, are among the official and unofficial Democratic candidates for the president in 2008. The election is still about one and three quarters of a year away. What happens now is that we have to hear all these candidates talk about how awful things are in this country and how they all want to "take it back" (to where????). And, though they have the right to speak, while they do so, they divert attention from the real issues that need to be faced. Go ahead and hate Bush's plans.........but do something contructive and suggest and alternative. Go ahead and hate the Iraq war plans..........but do something constructive and offer an alternative. Go ahead and hate all the Republican ideas.....but do something constructive and suggest an alternative.

It is not likely that will happpen. Instead....in order for the Democrats to get the White House, we will have to endure months of them selling the world (not just the US anymore) the idea that the US is in the worst possible condition it can be in and only they can make it better. And, they will be doing this while some incumbents will be missing time in their perpective elected office because they are to busy campaigning for another one. If I kept taking time off from my job to pursue another one, I dont think my employer would be too happy about that.

This has happened before though. Following the attacks on 9-11, Republicans and Democrats embraced in solidarity against the perpetrators of this tragedy. But, as election time came closer and candidates started declaring their intentions, they made efforts to draw lines. Suddenly, everything that was done was wrong and the Democracts declared that the USA was a mess again. Even though a lot of Democrats voted for the Iraq war initially, they suddenly decided that they did it because they were lied to by the opposing party. Not true, of course, but you would be surprised how many people actually believe that they were "lied" to because of the repeated "talking points" issued by the Democrats. Granted, there was a lot of bad information, but there was no orchestrated lie. The problem with this political warfare is that it is the citizens who are caught in the crossfire. While they try and politically out-manuever each other.......they often don't care what gets hurt in the scuffle.

The warfare from both parties that will go on between now and November 2008 has a price. Neither party is willing to pay it. That would require an interest in real issues, not just who is "more powerful" than the other.

President Bush Comes to Kansas City to Tell the Poor: Go Ahead and Die!

[c]2007 by Richard L Zorek............
President Bush came to Kansas City on Jan 25 in order to to tell a select group of people at St Luke's Hospital in Lee's Summit, that he doesn't acknowledge the plight of the poor when it comes to health care. Missouri Senator Kit Bond accompanied him. He came to promote what he is calling a "health care proposal," which in reality is nothing more than a tax break for the rich and upper middle class. Bush told the group, "There is no question in my mind that a proper role for the federal government is to help the poor and the elderly and the diseased get health care." But, he never offered any ideas onhow they are helping. His proposal isn't helping them. Bush proposed taxing employer-provided health care benefits, after allowing a $7,500 deduction for individuals and $15,000 for families. He said the plan would help individuals buy insurance, while keeping health care costs low. His plan does not help the poor and uninsured who truly need medical care. About half of the uninsured earn so little that they do not file income taxes, so the standard deduction would not help them. One of the "selected" audience member was an uninsured waitress. She was selected to give the impression that his plan really will help the poor. The truth is, though that she may be a waitress, but she has a husband who works also and they do not have a family riddled with health problems.

He told staff as he toured the hospital, “Medicine is finally catching up with the rest of America in the use of information technology, particularly this facility here." It is too bad that Bush and his administration hasn't caught up with the rest of America. People who don't get health care die. The last thing they say as they are dying is not "I wish I had a tax break."

Healthcare Mathematics: No Health Care = People Die

[c]2007 by Richard L Zorek

Health is a valuable commodity in America. The healthier one is, the more they can accomplish it seems (though there are exceptions to that rule). Businessmen know this and know that people will often pay a lot for their health. So they have made "healthcare" a profitable business for them by exploiting that fact. The problem with that business-ideology is that the health industry then truly caters to the rich and well-to-do. If you are rich and can afford a good doctor or good insurance, you have a better chance of lving longer and feeling better quicker when you are ill. If you are not...you could have a long hard road ahead of you.

American politics is just that "American politics." I recollect a Black Hills State University professor who used to describe politics as simply "the sruggle for power." It seemed like a shallow definition, but I have come to realize that that is really all it is. There is no right or wrong in American politics: just who has more power. There seems to be a growing number of politicians who spend all their time just trying to see "who can stay in power the longest." Sometimes that involves actually being in touch with the needs of the people, but more often than not, it just means having the most money and the slickest campaign. A bunch of "yes" men doesn't hurt. A lot of important issues get lost in the crossfire as polticians battle each other for power. Health care is one of those. The politicans, who get their health care from their government jobs are mostly clueless. The victims of their ignorance are the poor people and the uninsured.

Then there's Social Security and Disability. The stories I have heard and still hear are just pathetic. People who end up with disabilities have to fight in order to get approved to receive any aid. And the process itself can be emotionally draining. There are attorneys who specialize in this. Although, when you are applying, the office personnel will often say "you worked for this" or "you are entitled to it." This really isn't so when it comes to actually getting it. Sometimes after a few years of appeals you might get it. By then, as if the disability wasn't devasting enough, everything else in your life has been pretty much devastated also.

Social Workers for the most part are first and foremost employees of the state. A lot of them do get into the business because they have a heart for people and want to help. Government rules and regulations do not cater to that. The focus of the government's rules when it comes to these kinds of programs is to not spend anything they shouldnt have to spend. Although they don't seem to have any problem dumping money on irrelevant pork barrel projects in order to help their own state or PR standing. Being careful with how money is spent is good business. The problem is that people that need the help then become a business tool. Having been involved in the system I get a little tired of the catch-all phrase "I understand," but if they truly understood I might have receieved the medical help I needed when I needed it most.

For many years I was outside the system. I had insurance and if a health problem arose, it was covered. I remember reading something by Thomas Sowell: "Neither the affluent nor the poor are being denied access to health care, whether or not they have health insurance. The uninisured may not be given cosmetic surgeyr, and they may have to wait in line in clincis and emergency rooms, but they are not denied medical care." I embraced that back in 1995 and even put it in my newsletter. It made me feel better knowing that that was so. But, as I had to enter the world of the uninsiured I find that Thomas Sowell was very wrong and I was wrong to believe him and those who embraced his ideology. The fact of the matter is that there are two health care systems in America: one for the rich and one for the poor. The one for the poor and uninsured is, for the most part a mess and very hard to get into. And if you do get into it, many are charged as though they were a part of the "rich" side of healthcare. And if their illness had not destroyed their life be free, then the medical administrators send out collection agencies to devour anything you might have left. The hospitals and medical agencies don't care....but they might say "I understand," while at the same time destroy your credit or have a collection agency garnish your wages.

The new Democratic congress has a "health care" buzz around it, but so did many candidates from both parties. The new Bush proposal for health care helps the middle class and rich and does nothing for anyone else. So the Bush administration is continuing its policy of ignorance on the subject of health care. The fact of the matter is that tax cuts and breaks don't help those who have lower incomes or no incomes.

There is no way to end this article, because the battle is still going on. Life has no guarantees and when health becomes an issue we often find we have little or no warranty. So, this article will be continued.......

The Entertainment Value of News (Or, How CNN Helped Destroy the World)

[c]2007 by Richard L Zorek

Once upon a time, in days of old, people got their TV news every evening. It was usually to the point and delivered in a few words. If one needed more information, there was the newspaper or in some cases some extra news show like "60 Minutes," "Face The nation," or "Meet the Press."

When Cable TV started to expand during the 80s, along with specialized channels for movies and shopping, came specialized news channels. CNN (Cable News Network) was launched on June 1, 2005 by Turner Broadcasting CEO, Ted Turner. Soon came all the other news channels like MSNBC and Fox. But, CNN, goes on record has having started the path to news media chaos.

Now, you have the ability to deliver news every hour on the hour and even on the half hour. What do you do to fill in the time in between? I believe it is that dilemma that has contributed to TV-News and its credibility issue. In order to fill minutes, news teams have had to interview the friend of a friend of friends in order to draw out a story. And if there is interest, all the other news channels do the same. They are often not credible and the "experts" aren't that expert. But they are loaded with opinion.

And how do they decide if there is interest? Not necessarily by importance as much as how many watch and how much advertising investors are interested in financing. It didn't take long before news became entertainment, image and and a financial investment.

The problems with all this is that it still come to us under the title called "news." Granted, there is some news, but in most cases that seems secondary to everything else.

Predominantly, anchors are exceptionally good looking men or women. Not that good looking women or men can't be good news people, but how much did their looks play into their ability to get their job? Alex Witt? I think she is beautiful and I will admit I have watched her because of that. She came to MSNBC in 1999 and had previous reporting experience. And I am not suggesting she used her looks to get her job because, of course, I do not know and no one would admit it if it were so. But her looks certainly do not hurt her popularity. We are, after all, largely an "image driven" society.

And what news is interesting and will drive people to watch? Scott Peterson? OJ Simpson? Rosie vs Trump? I can't tell you how many reporters and anchors seemed to add an "disclaimer" suggesting the Rosie vs. Trump feud was ridiculous, but then went on to report it over and over again. Was the Laci Peterson murder an isolated incident in the USA? No. There were others similar. This one just happened to catch the attention of someone in the media and it. This story became fodder for the news media and elevated Scott Peterson to notoriety he did not deserve.

Then comes the case of the two boys who had been kidnapped by Michael Devlin in Missouri. Immediately upon their discovery, this became a media circus. Reporters interviewed people who lived in the apartment complex and "just heard noises" and though they knew they shouldn't ask the kids anything, they certainly tried. Even Oprah Winfrey got in on it. (Although I will also fault the Hornbeck parents for getting involved in that one). Then there is the New York Times reporter who somehow got an interview with Devlin in jail. Followed by new stations reporting that this probably shouldn't have been done but, at the same time, reporting what they say shouldn't have been done. And how much further will it go? I do not believe any of these reporters were motivated by their "right to know" creed they taut so often, but rather they did it for ratings. They did it to get an edge. It is what American journalism and news reporting has evolved into.

As with any issues, the media has so much time to create and re-create stories. Many stories would probably pass without incident, except, the news media has to fill some time. They have to edge out their competing station. They have to make it sensational to sell. The answer? Unfortunately there isn't one. The media is like politicians who spend more time campaigning then actually doing something productive. In that case we as citizens have to fend for ourselves often against them. With the media, we have to fend for ourselves to find out what is really going on.

American Idol: Calculated PR

"American Idol"

REVIEW: American Idol: Simon Cowell, Paula Abdul, Randy Jackson. Just entering its sixth season, it appears to be a show that isn't going to stop. But, it is a show that has entertainment for all. It is usally as enjoyable to watch the people in the auditions as it is to watch those who actually make the competition. Though it is kind of sad that some of the people in the auditions probably think they can sing. It's like that awful karaoke singer who gets up and sings everytime because she or he has convinced themselves they truly have talent. Clearly, some show up just to get on TV and be part of the "in" thing even though they know they have no talent. All the controversies that follow the show are just soundbytes that make it stronger. And every competition....if it is really looking for a true winner....needs critic like Simon. As the new season premiered, two issues kept American Idol before the press: an interview with Paula Abdul where she appeared drunk or falling asleep, and some really cruel comments by the judges toward some contestants. Excecutive Producer Ken Warwick, however, made no apologies. And why would he? The cruel comments could have been edited out, but they were purposely left in. That was no mistake. And, I dont think there is anything going on with Paula as far as drugs, but maybe she is a better actress than we give her credit for. The incidents bought them soundbytes and new interest in the show. American Idol does not have "controversies," just calculated PR stunts. And they work every year.

Thumbs Up!!! Michellle Arrow to Trump: I quit!!

Michelle Arrow was a 34 year old contestant on Donald Trumps's "The Apprentice: LA." Tonight (01.21.07), she quit, instead of being fired. The reasons: the interview process. She cited specifically the "living in a tent"
as part of the process. Amen to her!!! No one should have to do such degrading stuff to get a job, no matter how important the CEO thinks he is. Donald Trump, in the board room, tried to turn the tables and make it look like she was a quitter--but, though she did technically quit--it was not one of defeat. Sometimes you have to draw the line.

The Phenomenon of QVC and HSN

[c]2007 by Richard L Zorek

Shopping networks have become a cultural phenomenon. They sprung up in the late 80s with all the other specialized cable channels as kind of a pre-ebay experience. There were even some before this which you could tune in if you could turn your antennae the right way or get the piece of tin foil to fit over the VHF connection just right.

I remember first seeing shopping TV back in the late 80s, but paid little attention to it. I had no use for being sold something through the TV. Then in the early 90s I paid attention a little more. As a channel surfer, I started to surf across them more as they became more common. The idea, however of buying something without actually being able to touch was just far-removed from my way of thinking. But I did notice an interesting and charming saleslady named Mary Beth Roe. She was beautiful and had such a soothingly seductive voice. I remember observing a few others, like Kathy Levine and Jane Traecy, among others.

Not being an avid TV watcher at the time, it was about about ten years later when shopping TV caught my attention again. Now it seemed to have matured a bit. It was no longer just stiff sales. There was personality coming from the hosts, a little humor, phone calls, and a lot of consumer tips. I watched one night when this lady named Shivan Sarna showed up and I was instantly enamored. I can still see the image of her selling coats that night. And, largely, that is what was becoming dominant: image. They were no longer just trying to sell stuff--though that is the bottom line--they were trying to create a community: hosts that knew how to communicate with guests and customers and for the most part looked very good and were professional at doing it. Also each with their own personalities which is reflected by their following. Yes, each host has a following. Rick Domeier, among other males hosts, has a following of women. And its hard to pinpoint which female hostess has the greatest fan club of men. Some don't even buy--they just watch. But these hosts and hostesses are on TV several days a week and probably log in more TV time in a year than some TV actors log in a life time. I don't mind hearing Mary Beth's voice in my living room, or admire the quirky energy of Suzanne Runyan (as she struggles not to drop something), or get laid back with the very wise Antonella Nester, enjoy Rick Domeier's off the wall sense of humor, or try figuring out how Colleen Lopez can be just so perfect.

The internet has changed some of that focus. "Fetish" websites that focus on legs, heels and other things, along with "wanderlist" that has running lists where one can vote on the sexiest TV shopping host (Diana Perkovic won once) to which one has the best legs. Even as I looked at the lists, I had to join the board and cast my votes in various section for Kathy Wolf, who has gone through personal changes which has given her a little different look and, I think, more energy (her beauty goes without saying). I have seen some forums with rude and crude comments about various hosts, but truly superficial, which most anonymous posts are, and I think say more about the person posting than it does about their "perspective."

Also, in researching "shopping networks: demographics," I was able to send an email to several hosts and just want to note that Bobbi Ray Carter was the first host to repond. But, if you watch her, you would expect her to just be down-to-earth and not afraid to relate to average-joe citizen. And I wrote nothing personal, just told her I thought she did a great show after watching her sell sheets one night.

The other day I watched Chris Scanlon sell toys. Not without demonstration, though, and it was very entertaining. Of course, it is not everyday you see and attractive blonde in a short black skirt running around a stage shooting toy darts at other little kids. She beat out the "Ellen Degeneres" show for my attention, so I can't think HSN wouldn't be proud. I had never watched Chris before, but that "personal" approach would inspire me to watch her again.

Many of the hosts do have a "media" edge in experience as many of the hosts come largely from a media background. Some in news casting, documentaries (Lisa Mason has an impressive resume), some former beauty queens (Mary Beth Roe, Lisa Robertson), some info-mercials and the stage, like ShopNBC's Connie Kunkel.

It's hard to say what the future holds and what changes may come about. But, as of now, I don't "surf" over them as quickly anymore. I look to see who's on, what is being said, what is being sold. I am a guy, so I cannot say I don't notice what they are wearing but, except for Jewelry TV, they all sell fashions and for the most part have great fashion sense for women to learn from, also. They are more than just "sales people," they are in many respects "celebrities": E!'s "The Soup" often uses clips. Susan Lucci, Suzanne Somers, Joan Rivers, Marie Osmond, Frankie Avalon, Paula Abdul and even Madonna have been guests on various shows. Youtube has clips from both QVC and HSN. David Letterman mention Lynn Murphy in a top ten list one night. And on and on and on.

Hopefully the hosts will all stay grounded, though, and I don't foresee a "Golden Globe" category for it. But they are a relevant and impactful part of American culture. Now, grab your credit card and go watch TV.