Mediating (Liberal) Hollywood and Health Care Agenda

This post is about two things: mediation and politics of health care in pop culture. I swear, it will make (some) sense by the end.

Despite the fact I should be reading literature surrounding the ‘public sphere’ and ‘democratic civic culture’, right now, I am instead thinking about the role of media, in any reiteration, and its role in mediation. Mediation as the media theory to frame our cultural/social relationship with media, not mediation as in reconciliation between two parties… although I am sure you’ll see the etymological and conceptual connection.

Every time I see media, advertisements to Facebook posts to a television show, I try to think not about what I am seeing alone, but what that creator/producer/writer wanted me to see. I also think about why I see what I see; the connotations and information I attach to it– am I seeing what I want to see or the full context. Sounds incredibly convoluted, maybe.

So if mediation is the process in which information of all types is circulated, communicated, and conveyed through media (individual or collective), it offers some interesting implications if not causality to how norms and ideas take shape, as well as public opinion (Silverstone, Martin-Barbero, etc.). However, it cannot be said that it is completely one-way; just because a media predominantly portrays one thing that it is then absorbed or mirrored by those who hear/see it, does not mean that it was not first culture that influenced the media to portray that. Basically, “media” isn’t this alienated node that sits in their tower deciding what we want to think; whether they like it or not or mean it or not, they are members of the same society recycling the same issues or impressions too.

Mediation really makes you think about the ‘chicken and the egg’ scenario- does media represent us and dynamically work off mirroring society or do we absorb media and it determines our attitudes/knowledge/connotations/culture which is perpetuated again? Academically speaking, there is a lot surrounding it and can hardly be as dichotomous or mutually exclusive as that. It can at the very least be said that there is a dynamic there, and an important one that people are paid ridiculous amounts of money to harness that dynamic (looking at you Dr. Frank Luntz, #usingmediationforstraightmanipulation).

I’m fascinated by ‘mediation’ as a process because it says quite a lot about about the power behind media and communications and what people take from it to construct their opinions, ideologies, and realities.

For Instance…leading labels
This title- “Liberal Hollywood and Health Care”.  Just by stating that, I am taking an entire social entity, Hollywood, and labeling them with a _highly_ divisive or at least connotative word, liberal, and putting it next to a hot-button issue. Also, the title plays off stereotypes that you probably know already exist based on past media consumption. That title says so much about what one would assume they were going to get out of this article. Not just that, it aligns those ideas, giving the impression that there even IS a relationship between this thing Hollywood (which lets be real, its not a place, its a type of person in our society) and this political/policy issue ‘health care’ (again, left to one’s POV, many see it as more than policy, but also an ideological issue). The title is very loaded; in comes mediation. I solely used that title because it’s a pretty standard use of media to pull people in and draw labels, that influence our own associations of concepts and information.

Truthfully, a more appropriate title would have been “Thoughts on the Dynamics behind Mediation and a Recent Example”.

So what provoked all this talk, other than general observation, and my academic studies-

I stumbled upon what I think is the latest episode of that medical drama “House”.  It was purely for entertainment reasons. If you’ve seen it, you know it normally follows around eccentric Dr. House  and the drama within his team of doctors as they treat rare diseases. This episode, however, was about one of the major but peripheral characters, Dr. Cuddy, who is the Chief Administrator and Dean of Medicine for the hospital.

…You may or may not be able to watch it here. If not, the recap is here.

Dr. Cuddy deals with telling a patient that their insurance probably won't cover an unusual perscription despite having paid premiums for 30 years

The reason this episode seemed a bit different…
While it follows her around, really emphasizing the stress of her job and how much she deals with on a daily basis, from her sick infant to an employee stealing thousands in prescription drugs, the focus of the day is agreeing on the terms of the relationship between her hospital and AtlanticNet, the largest health insurance provider in their state. During this time, a gentleman also meets with Dr. Cuddy as he is suing the hospital for sewing his thumb back on– a procedure that costs $60,000 and he hadn’t asked for it, because his insurance would not be enough to cover it. The distressed former patient is very clear that the financial burden is so much he rather lose his thumb than not be able to provide for his kids, and lose his house (which is already close to foreclosure).
Obviously its moving, but Dr. Cuddy explains that this training and services cost money, and just like him, they are in a bind with insurance companies to keep running.

There other scenes of this sentiment that pop up in this episode; and despite not clearly ever saying it, this was directed and written to speak to the health care crisis we have in America. The producers of this show are using their medium, a fictional TV drama, to add to the public discourse surrounding the state of insurance and health care. [Watch it and see if that's debatable]

There are always questions to be asked: how accurate is their representation of these relationships? Is this just their personal opinion or did they really do their research? What were they hoping I would take away from this?

Again, the guise is “Look how hard Dr. Cuddy has it, all she has to deal with”, but there is a far more political message behind it. This happens in everything purposefully made for consumption and not, like my blog, opinions are there. But if you watch, you’ll see its far to obvious to be accidental.

There is real-world not-just-built-for-entertainment-truth in its message. The administrative and structural friction that exists in these institutions and just people are very present; and although they make a point to paint the insurance corporations in a very damning way (not that it’s inaccurate),  even if you overlook that, on message seems pretty clear: the current system is so messed up that it simply does not serve the purpose it is designed for.

It reminds me the fact that in Congress it is debating the legitimacy of investing in that massive problem or navigating too far from the current system is absurd, just for these reasons (among so many others that are better justified in more legitimate and exhaustive resources than available in a blog posting).

Back to the point– this is mediation. This  is how ideas and opinions are circulated. What we grasp onto and choose to make the agenda of in our culture, and how we do it. At least part of it.

This feels strangely relevant to right now, and more so every day. In fairness, there are people out there of a different school of thought, questioning the lack of agency in this model, and its implications as a conceptual framework, and if they’re reading this, I encourage comments.

Universal/Socialized/Public Healthcare: Your Arguments are ridiculous America.

Facebook has done us all the ‘favor’ of putting the Presidential debates on forums for all those ‘Facebookers’ out there to debate to exhaustion. I generally don’t participate in these because its not just tiresome but frankly, I come across arguments like the one I am going to post, and frankly, these kids don’t know what they hell they’re talking about.

In terms of taxes, most of our parents bred us to think lower is better. I remember in high school debating with fellow classmates about the very-real operational tax the school district HAD to pass to open the newly built lower school. If it didn’t pass, they’d cut 90% of sports and extracurricular activities. I remember our Valedictorian and two sisters, who were I believe captain of the volley ball team, along with other highly engaged high schoolers were like “No, because it will raise my parent’s property tax”. While I understand this, it doesn’t speak to the fact that the initial tax to build the school was passed, it was built, and this was the only viable tax. I think the same kinds of kids argue against public health care; their parents complain about taxes, they really don’t understand other countries’ systems, and they only look out for themselves.

The day they aren’t covered by mom and dad or they work a job that doesn’t provide health care, they’ll get it. Even then, its still a poorly executed system that relies on the invisible hand and trickle down theories. Pffft.

Here is what a Facebooker said to someone in favor of ‘universal health care’:

“It is not the worst in the world ( U.S. healthcare). It is among the best, it just is not the best. And that’s probably not due to our health care system but Americans being generally far more unhealthy and living unhealthy lifestyles than other countries. Bottom line, universal health care would be an absolute disaster. If you want your taxes to skyrocket, go ahead, be for it. It is not free, you pay for it with your taxes as well as for others. Why should I have to pay for someone else’s doctor visits, hospitalization, tests, medicines, and much much more? Why do you think people from all over the world come to America for health care? Because they don’t get good quality health care in their socialist countries and have to wait forever to be seen. Also, universal health care just adds more power to the government. Do you really want the government deciding whether or not you should have a certain surgery because there is not a life threatening need? Do you want the government running another institution with their tendency to not run institutions that well? Private health care is better for the economy and has better quality. Also, the salary of doctors and other health care workers would drop drastically. Thousands of people working for insurance companies would lose their job because their insurance company would go bankrupt. America is NOT a socialist country and we shouldn’t turn into one. If someone wants to live in a socialist country, they should move to Canada or a European country where the taxes are among the highest in the world. In my opinion, socialism is a minor form of communism trying to make everyone equal and to redistribute wealth. Communism has never worked. I understand that something needs to be done to stop the extreme high costs of health care, but universal health care is most definitely not the way to go. ” – Jane

My backlash of a response to her and all the others using Canada, taxes, and communism as a response. I apologize for the lack of citation and references, as it was a Facebook post, although I’m sure it would have augmented my perspective on things:

“There are hundreds of posts (on this subject), so I just stopped at the first that truly got my attention. Before you defend private health care: have you ever gone without any insurance during a health care crisis? I’m going to say probably not, because if you have, you’d understand how desperate things can get.

1. We have superb health care POTENTIAL but one of the poorest executed systems. So yes, we have the means, but few can attain the coverage needed to get that five star care. What does it matter if you can’t get it?

2. Having social health care doesn’t make us a socialist country. And what most Dems and liberals are talking about is an integrated system that allows for paid coverage as well as flat coverage. Examples of this already exist in our government you’re just USED to them; we have the USPS and its not like people don’t use Fed Ex or UPS. We even already have some of these elements in health care, it is just hugely lacking. It can be fashioned, and it would be sensitive to our market economy, naturally.

3. “Private health care is better for the economy”?? Who’s? If you haven’t noticed, the only people that truly reap benefits from private health care are hospital execs and pharm companies. Other countries DO have standards for public health care and they DO pay well because they can afford to do so by health incentives.
Healthier citizens and those with access to health care means less tax dollars wasted on preventable disease, early pregnancy, and even emergency medical attention. There ARE government checks and balances that can be implemented to better monitor this while still paying doctors well enough- European countries do it.

4. Out of all the socialized health care systems, CANADA ranks far far lower than others, so people should stop using it as an example! I can tell you the France and UK do not have the same gripes. AND EVEN IF THEY ALL DID, according to studies, countries with socialize services and high taxes rank among the HAPPIEST in the world. Literally!

5. I think people are using the term ‘universal health care’ broadly; it doesn’t mean just raking in a single tax and pumping out unquestioned free health care. It’s complicated and requires a great amount of infrastructure that is sensitive to both our economy and social needs. People like ME are willing to pay taxes for people LIKE YOU because I know none of us can predict our future need for a system like this; your child might be born with a handicap, and I might get cancer. As one doctor I spoke to on the matter said “It shouldn’t be health insurance. Sickness and death are inevitable.” Americans have no foresight for this, as a collective conscience.

6. People like me are more worried about creating a sustainable environment for our neighbors and our kids than just myself, and I’m willing to live a more conscientious lifestyle to do it.

7. Nine out of 10 Americans don’t know what they hell they are talking about when they say Socialism or Communism; neither of these systems are inherently evil.

8. Telling people to get out of the country if they don’t like things the way they are? True patriots and those who love their countries are willing to invest to make it better, not abandon it. (More information on ‘dogmatic nationalism’ opposed to ‘patriotism’ in previous blog Howard Zinn: Be apart of your Country’s Democracy”)

Please don’t take this personally, as this addresses my issues with many people who argue public health care. My points were brief and I assure you not as simple as I presented them, but I hope you truly consider the future of our entire nation before making your mind up on this.”

I wonder if any of this will resonate.
For now, those of you with this ridiculous dogmatic rhetoric from your parents, go ahead, prove yourself right, pay for your own insurance. Or, just drop it and run the risk of getting sick.  What are you waiting for?

Cheers not Leers!

Edwards is Finally Endorsing Obama

Finally, after all the begging, jokes, and projections: John Edwards is endorsing Barack Obama for his presidential candidacy.

He will later be giving his official endorsement at a campaign event in Michigan.
I’m supposing it will be riddled with careful verbiage to imply that he is supporting Barack Obama as the Presidential candidate, versus the Democratic nominee.

Edwards had dropped out because he thought it would expedite the process, and possibly to retain his gracious and humble image, but really the only offer he has brought to the plate lately has been his endorsement. Obviously he waited for a clear sign before making this decision.

Possibly helpful to Obama’s standings with the “hard working white” demographic?
Now if we can get Hillary on board.

Check it out.

Go Obama.

photo credits Washington Post

Libertarian is the New Republican | Pt. I

What is the important news this week? The West Virginia Primary.

What is the interesting news of the week? Bob Barr announcing his bid for the presidency. Bob Barr is a former Republican, well known in his party for not only his personal debacles, but his involvement in the impeachment of Bill Clinton.

However Barr has turned over a new leaf! He is running for president on the Libertarian ticket. Truth be told, I’m not fluent on Bob Barr’s politics. By way of this article in the Washington Post, all of it seems interesting and shady enough.
Barr is pretty outspoken about his differences with McCain.
As are most Libertarians.

For not familiar with their views…
A political view “favoring minimally regulated, laissez-faire markets, strong civil liberties, minimally regulated migration across borders, and non-interventionism in foreign policy that respects freedom of trade and travel to all foreign countries.” per Wikipedia.

For me, Libertarianism is a complicated subject. Mostly because most of I am so against their supporters.
The short reason: Libertarianism is the opposite of Communism, where it is equally flawed in practice because it resorts to the worst of human nature such as greed, power, and selfishness. While neither are inherently evil, they could never function in our society. I find the first much worse than the latter; did I mention hedonistic? I tend to get fired up about it- so I’ll have to save that for a future post.

In my experience Libertarians are former Republicans that never joined the religious-right. Therefore, they are socially liberal (as their party believes in individual rights over any other), but fiscally conservative. You could say Bob Barr is one of the more socially conservative, but it would appear his support of DoMA (Defense of Marriage Act) might have been to counter his flagrant personal affairs rather than Barr’s conservative integrity.

The reason this is interesting is because it means a few things: 1) There is someone to take away from McCain’s base 2) There is an ulterior candidate aside from Ralph Nadar and 3) Ron Paul can’t revert to the Libertarian ticket.
Due to McCain’s unpopularity there are speculations that Barr is enough to be his “Nadar” for this election, taking away just enough votes to cripple him. He appeals to the conservatives that are fed up with the Republican party, and their ‘sad excuse for a candidate’, John McCain. Nadar generally appeals to the further left, for those fed up with the Democrats. However he entered a highly competitive and historic race rather late, and now will have little affect. All the former Nadar voters and supporters I know either actually work for the Obama campaign, or, are at least voting for him.
Ron Paul was never on the Libertarian ticket, but rather had a strategy of mass appeal by aligning himself with the Republican party. He stood out as ‘the only one against the war’. Really, if you discuss Paul’s policies with ideas such as dissolving the Department of Education and IRS, privatizing everything, and rigid limitations on government spending and border control, he is simply a Libertarian.

Curious how this will all work out, and I am certainly curious what stir this will cause in the McCain camp.
Next issue: Ron Paul and Paulville.
November, here we come.

Pandermonium: The Gas Tax Holiday

I’m a huge fan of Veracifier‘s podcast and website. If you’re not subscribed and you like a fresh analysis of the political landscape I’d say get on that. ‘

While some episodes are commentary from Josh Marshall at TPM Media, others are citizen-submitted journalism, others are cuts of all the major political shows, pundits, and candidates themselves on recent issues.

Here is the episode “Sunday Roundup: Gas Tax Holiday (From Reality)”.

In the Clinton interview with George Stephanopoulos, she dismisses the what economists have to say about the issue (including her husband’s former Labor Secretary who refers to it as “Stupid and dumb and I don’t know why she would support it”). One woman in the audience, who clarifies she only makes $25,000 a year and is very concerned about the gas prices, calls Clinton out on pandering as well as ignoring what experts have to say on this.

Rep. Neil Abercrombie came out on Washington Post saying he thinks Obama is belittling the common American by not recognizing the importance of $25 saved monthly at the gas pump. While I believe Barack Obama should finish out his message on the gas tax with how HIS plan is going to specifically save them money, I think Abercrombie isn’t recognizing what many Americans are smart enough to realize as well as our economists: Demand will rise, the price will rise, people will just drive more.

Also, Barack Obama has vote FOR a gas tax holiday before (*gasps*). After his Senatorial experience in Illinois, and passing this ‘holiday’ and voting for the holiday three times, he has learned from experience that it does not benefit the consumer and only drained funds from other important civic projects to compensate for the tax.

So not only is it just for political positioning, it wouldn’t even be effective for the stated purpose.
I thought HRC was bent on who has the legislative experience, the policy experience? While she might have the ‘track record’ for health care, this issue she doesn’t, yet she goes against expert opinions and ignores the experience card Obama’s case.
Seems like a double-standard to me.
Mrs. Clinton, we’re getting mixed messages from you, just fyi.
This is just another ploy that has driven me away from her campaign and supporting her.

I’d say more but I think that video says it all.
Very representative of what we’re dealing with here.

Cheers

Huckabee on Wright

This sounds convoluted, but the plight of the Obama campaign is really not far from that of most ‘conventional’ religions. The only reason I draw that parallel is because my grandparents, whom are lovely and wise, often get on me because my spiritual beliefs are not in line with theirs.

While this is a highly involved subject, and an entry that will surface eventually, I think its relevant to what I do on the campaign, in terms of higher objectives, inevitable skepticism from others, and the people who say they are believers but refuse to truly commit.

In news, however, something totally unrelated other than it has to do with one pastor commenting on another, Mike Huckabee has an interesting take on Rev. Wright’s actions over the past weeks. Mike Huckabee is a former G.O.P candidate and Pastor, who brought a very insightful comment on the fiasco.
Now no matter what happens with Wright, it will never affect my vote. At this point, Obama supporters realize it is far removed from Barack Obama, and this spectacle is something that surely contradicts every expectation Obama had of his former pastor.

Huckabee reduces Rev. Wright’s press tout, and insistent refute of his comments and stance on the Black church to the fact that he needs to be right. Finally, Rev. Wright has the national stage to glorify the issues that he has been preaching on for years. If you ask me, that attention and opportunity went to his head and he’s discussing and forcing issues that are not only irrelevant but totally damaging to his cause.

Here is the link to the article (International Herald Tribune).
While I don’t believe that Rev. Wright wants Obama to lose the election so Rev. Wright can be proven right about all of his judged ‘prejudices’ and ‘outlandish comments’, I do believe that he is deathly afraid that his argument will lose strength, and in the process he will have lost a close friend and ally in his plight.

If Barack Obama wins, it will be a victory in so many ways. He has truly humble beginnings, he ran a progressive campaign that revolutionized how presidential campaigns could work, and he also championed those ‘racial attitudes’ we all keep bringing up.
He’ll also be living proof that there is hope, and that divide truly isn’t as large as we feel in our own lives sometimes, day-to-day.
That has potential to diminish Rev. Wright’s base for his comments, his outrage, and disposition.
At this point, he is only concerned about getting the attention he feels he deserves, and asking America “Can you handle the truth?”.

We know there is a divide. We know that even if Obama makes into office there will still be social segregation and racist attitudes. He’s worried that the less-involved American will breath a sigh of relief and forget those tensions, and even if they do, it doesn’t matter, because so many of us won’t. He needs to relax and reflect right now.

See, Wright is more concerned about being self-righteous and proven right, than making change or embracing hope. In that respect, he’s the opposition.

I hope Americans come to understand this.

Howard Zinn: Be apart of your country’s Democracy

Everyone should vote. Furthermore, everyone should be educated and active in the process.

This is really far beyond Howard Zinn, as Zinn is just a figure in American activism and academics who has really exemplified the type of attitudes we rarely see today. He was one of those people arrested on numerous occasions, taking risks most of us are unfamiliar with, and all for people other than himself, really. I guess there is an understood correlation that civic engagement translates into greater good even if the concentrated effort is for only one group at the time.

I guess its decently elementary that if you’re fighting for a minority’s civil rights, that in turn that establishes the standpoint that you deserve yours, because the basis is that everyone does.

Zinn’s point that I think carries over to modern democracy is the fact that you, as an individual, having a voice is democracy. The fact you have a system you can act within, is democracy. The fact that you don’t, means that you are responsible for handing it over to the people who do.

This also goes along the lines of Reverend Wright. While there is the overwhelming fact that those demographics sheltered from this sect of the Black community are shocked out of ignorance. They truly do not understand the context of Wright’s words against America and even that ‘white oppression”.
To add to that mix, as Michael Eric Dyson pointed out in his commentary on NPR, that these beliefs are widespread in the community and Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. most certainly made equally as disruptive statements about the white community and state of our nation.
I always say this, but after working with at-risk youth in Pittsburgh Public Schools, 95% African American, I can say that no, those attitudes are not evaporated from our society. Whether that oppression is just left-over angst from generations past or there is true persecution, the fact is that Rev. Wright is not anti-American.

Also as Dyson so truly pointed out, Patriotism is taking pride in your country and working toward it’s utmost potential. Blind worship of your country, and rejection of criticism, is dogmatic Nationalism.
Rev. Wright obviously speaks from an impassioned, empathetic stance that correlates with the emotion and struggle of the most Urban of communities; whether that is fully accurate or right, is debatable, but perception is reality. The reality for those communities is something most of us outside of it can’t fully put into context.
Furthermore, just as a side note, Rev. Wright wasn’t DAMING America. He’s a Reverend, for crying out loud; that’s straight up blasphemy. He was saying that America is not clean, and its not pure, and it’s corruption has harmed many Urban populations. He associated the dynamic of America’s corruption to that of us all being damned for our ways. (“our” being a bit subjective)

EXAMPLE: Did you know that Pittsburgh City Schools has a 50% drop out rate? (Our city schools are about 80% Black, just for an idea) When these urban kids begin to fail, COUNSELORS are urging them TO DROP OUT.

WHY? Because as the current education system is set up, along with No Child Left Behind, school funding is based on group performance.
This isn’t that bizarre, if you are actually familiar with depressed, urban areas. If your child was told to drop out of school, and they had to resort to street life, you might have a different perspective on where community leaders like Rev. Wright are coming from.
His sentiment is not much different than any skeptic, whether it be a Libertarian or Anarchist, criticizing America’s negligence to people, and allegiance to big business and bought interests.

Obama was living and working in a community with many walks of life, and he tried to be helpful to many, and salvage those who had resorted to ‘other ways’. Was he supposed to turn his back and reject a great man, and people with potential, because of these inbittered things they were saying? He couldn’t. Because he knew deep down, Rev. Wright’s heart was in the right place.
Rev. Wright is concerned about the fate of our society.

People like Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. inspired many, but had more enemies, and was not a popular man.  Barack Obama’s stance on our United States is not the most popular one. Any true change, especially a good one, has come out of taking a stance that was right no matter its popularity, and be willing to make sacrifices.
He believes we should be making sacrifices if we truly want to reform our biggest social woes, whether it be war or education.  He recognizes this isn’t easy, as does his counterparts.

By running for office you can be sure that Obama is willing to die for this cause, just as many great leaders before him predicted and went through that fate. We all hope it won’t come to that; but the fact he is putting his entire future career on the line, putting his ideals on the line, and virtually his life, he is showing us he’s ready to make sacrifices.

I guess that is what compels me to volunteer for his campaign. We can’t keep living a life of ignorance and excess if we plan on implementing policies and morals for the better of our society.
To those people who don’t feel compelled to volunteer, I wonder if they still feel it is okay to complain about the events in our country, in our world. For those who do more for themselves than anyone else, I wonder if they realize that there are people who have died for them.
I wonder if they know what our nation lost the day our greatest leaders of the 20th century were killed.
Do they know what its like to be a soldier that has decided to give up their life for these ideals that we take for granted back home.

Every time I get incredibly discouraged, one rude voter after the next, I have to challenge myself to think about these things. I have to remember that in Venezuela people wait in line 7 hours to vote, in Kenya they are dying so they can have fair elections, and in Tibet they are rioting so they have the right to practice their own culture.

Even on our worst day, we’re lucky.

Democracy isn’t voting, it’s the right to have a voice, whether in social work or a union hall.  No matter what it is, I hope you get involved.

Those are my thoughts for now

Cheers

Canvassing: Not for you?

Truth be told: I am not a salesperson.
I don’t just mean that this is not my profession, but in the fact that it is not in my make up to attempt to sell people my ideas, opinions, or my identity. I used to think this was a decently good thing, but as you grow up and those rosey glasses fade away, you realize so much of the world is…sales.

I have really begun to reflect on this because as you get more involved in a political campaign, you really have to start ‘selling’ your candidate. It doesn’t make it less genuine- there is just sometimes a limited amount of interaction that requires a strong elevator pitch.
That might be the only contact they have with the campaign (as much as we try to prevent that).

Out of all the things I do for the campaign, my least favorite is canvassing. While this is great face-to-face interaction, I think I’m just poorly represent the campaign.
For starters, I am younger than I look, and I feel a lot of older voters, especially predispositioned old-school Democrats, see me as just that: young.
While I’ve gotten better at going without a script, remembering talking points, and not being so entirely awkward, I am a soft sell at best.
When they look like they are being bothered, or might react negatively if pressured too much… I don’t challenge that.
Reflecting on that, I went out much more determined today.
This morning I walked up the slopes, sans coche, and proceeded to go through “Clinton Country”. A lot of door slamming. A lot of snide remarks. However, the one woman who told me she was genuinely torn, and very educated, I let her carry on the conversation, and actually did try to make a sell. By the end she seemed leeeeaning our way. Uh, high five we maybe potentially will get this woman to vote Obama?

We have gotten new volunteers and certainly new voter registration out of canvassing (whats the figure? about 9 in 10 new voters vote Obama?), and even if only 2% of people we talk to are receptive, that’s 2% we might not have had. The foundation of this campaign is that everyone counts; it sounds trite, but we want to mobilize communities to empower them in their politics.
It’s working, but  there is a lot of uncovered ground and so much at stake.

The moral of the story, is that there is a lot of work to do in Pennsylvania, and even our neighborhoods. I’d really love to hear from people who aren’t voting for Obama, or, aren’t voting at all, OR, they are voting and don’t see the need to volunteer.
I’ve met quite a few people that fall into this latter group; I’m not talking people who just don’t have time, but the people who are reluctant to volunteer and make any effort.
It’s curious, and if you have any thoughts, please feel free to send them my way.

For those of you even slightly interested in the campaign, even if you don’t live in Southside, if you have undecided friends, OR you waiting to volunteer and you don’t know how, these are some events we have coming up:
Southside Canvasses for Change:
Saturday, April 5th
10 Am & 2 Pm
123 17th St, off of East Carson

Sunday, April 6th
2 pm 7 4Pm
Location TBD (email me for info)

Obama House Party!
Sunday, April 6th
6:30 PM
Southside Works Common’s Clubhouse

Obama Volunteer Happy Hour
Wednesday, April 9th
6 PM
Library Bar & Restaurant @ 2304 East Carson

Obama vs Hillary Debate Watching Party
Wednesday, April 16th
The Library Bar & Restaurant @ 2304 East Carson
7:30 PM

Obama vs Hillary Debate Watching Party
Wednesday, April 16th
@The Library Bar & Grill
7:30 PM

RSVP by checking out The Southside Events Page on barackobama.com
Let me know if you are interested in these or other events.

If you are interested in helping out please contact me however you can, and I will let you know both volunteer efforts as well as less-time consuming ways you can contribute to the campaign.
If you aren’t voting in the Primary, or the Presidential campaign, again I’d love to hear why.

Next Issue: Howard Zinn &  The Poor Man’s Analysis of the PA Primary

Cheers

Superdelegates are not so Super after all

 

Super delegates are party delegates that are either former high ranking party officials, current office holders, or even past presidents. They hold more clout within the party, and for good reason have been labeled as the possible deciding factor of the Democratic Party nomination.
This undermines the democracy that we are supposed to be protecting. Instead super delegates, I believe would be protecting their vested interests which reside in the current political system; if Obama wins there is going to be a completely new perspective introduced to American politics that will empower citizens. The truth is that the system as it stands is not truly democratic and the moment it is many ‘agendas’ will not only be at stake but the familiar structure these super delegates have gotten to know and become fond of. Of course I speak in generalities. In any case super delegates are meant to provide direction for the party in times like these, when the party could very well be split, but what is the point if they are only resorting back to the politics that have done us little good the past ten years? I am not saying the current system is useless, but it is most definitely flawed and fighting perception and habit is the first and largest fight. Wouldn’t a super delegate nominee be just that? A candidate chosen by the powerful, those with the most at stake? We’ve already gone too many elections where are votes felt uncounted, and our system inept. Even if the votes are in account of a true conviction for a candidate, not an agenda, it will still remove the confidence of the American public, and send all those voters back into apathy.

That, or, in the best case scenario, French-style street rioting. No one can argue that despite its negative repercussions it has rendered results for the communities. I think the American public would be surprised what they could accomplish if their concerns and complaints were funneled into education and motivation.

 

“It’s in a total contradiction of the way the Democrats have set up their primary process, with all this proportional representation,” said CNN political analyst Amy Holmes. “The whole point of it was that no one could walk away with the elites. And if this is decided by superdelegates, I think the Democratic Party morally is going to be looking at each other and say, ‘What did we just do?’ “

Droppin’ the Ball

Congratulations to Barack Obama and his team on winning Wisconsin and Hawai’i.

In other news:

An article was cirrculated that Hillary Clinton has failed to file the full list of PA Delegates. I know that here in Western Pennsylvania we were running around collecting signatures for all of our delegates and being sure to get Barack Obama on the ballot for all the Congressional Districts.

The author of the reference article points out, that not only is this not good for their strategy to take as many delegates as possible, it seems to contradict Hillary’s claim to have extensive political experience and to be “ready to lead on day 1″.

However, what no one seemed to mention, is if the delegates left out were strategic in the fact they knew they did not have time to get signatures for everyone, so the eliminated those endorsing Obama. No matter, she still should have covered all her bases, and perhaps they underestimated the importance of Pennsylvania as a primary state.

She is really backing herself into a corner with Texas and Ohio.
My German friend has asked me to write a political blog on Obama and the Presidential campaign for those on his side of the pond, and in turn he’ll be sharing his enthusiasm and hopes for the next American President, so that will be in the coming weeks.

Cheers & Dears