Friday, October 10, 2008
A underground video of the RNC and DNC conventions put out by Pepperspray Productions and subMedia. It provides more of an anarchist perspective on the protests and, though I may not agree with everything in the videos it at least provides a different perspective then taken by the mainstream media. It provides a broader range of the media spectrum.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
USA: Palin's Witchhunting Pastor
Despite all the major things going on in US politics right now the Economy crashing and, the Presidential debates last night there is something about Sarah Palin that fell through the cracks but worries me. Normally I wouldn't focus as much on a US VP candidate though, the possibility of Sarah Palin being President of the United States I have to admit scares me. The latest in the scandles surrounding her is her witch hunting pastor.
When I say witch hunting that is not a euphemism. Sarah Palin was blessed by Kenyan Bishop Thomas Muthee who stated "In the name of Jesus, in the name of Jesus, every form of witchcraft is what you rebuke. In the name of Jesus, in the name of Jesus, father make away now." while behind then Mayor Palin with his arm on her. Bishop Muthee got his start actually persecuting a woman in Kenya as a witch. He and his wife after six months of prayer were told by God that a local woman was the cause of crime, deaths and, what he referred to as "spiritual warfare". He led his congregation in praying against the woman and convinced most of the town that she was a witch and needed to be run out of town. When three people died in a car accident in front of the woman's residence, the residents wanted to stone her to death in retaliation. Police entered her home and shot what they thought was a demon, which was actually her pet snake. After that the woman left town for her own safety.
This incident however, became a bragging point for Muthee who said that crime afterwards went down and that he did God's work. Independent reports however, note that there was no change in crime due to the woman leaving town. Palin's church the Wasilla Assembly of God also took note of this and saw it as a major shining point of Muthee's career. For those who thought witch hunting was gone, apperently that was a mistake. Sarah Palin believes has called US soldiers going to Iraq as "God's Soldiers" and, was prayed into office by a witch hunting Bishop. That cannot bode well for the division of Church and State, let alone those of other religions in the United States especially actual Pagans and Witches.
Below is the video of Muthee praying for Sarah Palin.
When I say witch hunting that is not a euphemism. Sarah Palin was blessed by Kenyan Bishop Thomas Muthee who stated "In the name of Jesus, in the name of Jesus, every form of witchcraft is what you rebuke. In the name of Jesus, in the name of Jesus, father make away now." while behind then Mayor Palin with his arm on her. Bishop Muthee got his start actually persecuting a woman in Kenya as a witch. He and his wife after six months of prayer were told by God that a local woman was the cause of crime, deaths and, what he referred to as "spiritual warfare". He led his congregation in praying against the woman and convinced most of the town that she was a witch and needed to be run out of town. When three people died in a car accident in front of the woman's residence, the residents wanted to stone her to death in retaliation. Police entered her home and shot what they thought was a demon, which was actually her pet snake. After that the woman left town for her own safety.
This incident however, became a bragging point for Muthee who said that crime afterwards went down and that he did God's work. Independent reports however, note that there was no change in crime due to the woman leaving town. Palin's church the Wasilla Assembly of God also took note of this and saw it as a major shining point of Muthee's career. For those who thought witch hunting was gone, apperently that was a mistake. Sarah Palin believes has called US soldiers going to Iraq as "God's Soldiers" and, was prayed into office by a witch hunting Bishop. That cannot bode well for the division of Church and State, let alone those of other religions in the United States especially actual Pagans and Witches.
Below is the video of Muthee praying for Sarah Palin.
Labels: elections, religion, USA, video, witchcraft
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Canada: 3 BC NDP candidates withdraw
It seems the NDP is having trouble with its candidates in British Columbia. In the past week three NDP candidates in the ridings of West Vancouver-Sunshine Coast, Vancouver-Quadra and, Saanich-Gulf Islands. The first candidate Dana Larsen dropped out of the race last week due to being in Pot TV video where he was on LSD and was doing marijuana. Mr. Larsen though now a member of the NDP was the cofounder of the BC Marijuana party. The second candidate Kirk Tousaw dropped out of the race two days later also for being seen in a video smoking marijuana. Marc Emery leader of the Marijuana Party has come out and stated that the NDP and the Marijuana Party made an agreement, which Jack Layton denies.The third candidate who dropped out of the race this week has a very different story. Julian West candidate for Saanich-Gulf Islands has now dropped out of the race over allegations that he had stood naked in front of a group of 14 to 17 year old girls while aroused at an environmental retreat in 1996. He was formerly a Green Party candidate and had been removed from the party. Now running for the NDP the allegations have come up again resulting in him dropping out of the race. Though, West dropped out too late, so his name will still be on the ballot and may still garner quite a number of votes.
Labels: Canada, drugs, elections, Green Party, NDP
Sunday, September 21, 2008
Friday, September 19, 2008
Canada: Polling and the elections
I used to work on doing polling so, I'm always interested in looking at polls especially when it comes to our election season. Those of us who work in politics put a lot of stock in polling. However, those who have also worked in polling and follow them closely see how inaccurate they are. Below is an example of three different polling firms from the same day from Nodice.ca:

Within the same day the range of the Bloq is 7-8%, Conservatives 36-39%, Green 6-12%, Liberal 24-30% and, NDP 16-18%. Though we get rough estimates in cases such as the Greens and Liberals there are large margins of discrepancy.
The methods of polling are also generally inaccurate. Depending on the poll the question of "Will you vote on October 14th?" isn't asked. The questions asked are usually along the lines of "If the election were today which party would you vote for?" Instead of "Who will you be voting for October 14th?" and allow for undecided voters.
Another major factor is, that most polling uses only home phones. This usually biases questions towards older homeowners as many youth use cell phones instead of a home phone. How they decide on who answer the questions can also skew the survey. Homes of one adult will always be chosen and, where there are multiple people in the home they may not be in political agreement.
Polling is quite unreliable and should be understood as such. I'm not saying do away with them completely, but be aware of the inaccuracies within them.

Within the same day the range of the Bloq is 7-8%, Conservatives 36-39%, Green 6-12%, Liberal 24-30% and, NDP 16-18%. Though we get rough estimates in cases such as the Greens and Liberals there are large margins of discrepancy.
The methods of polling are also generally inaccurate. Depending on the poll the question of "Will you vote on October 14th?" isn't asked. The questions asked are usually along the lines of "If the election were today which party would you vote for?" Instead of "Who will you be voting for October 14th?" and allow for undecided voters.
Another major factor is, that most polling uses only home phones. This usually biases questions towards older homeowners as many youth use cell phones instead of a home phone. How they decide on who answer the questions can also skew the survey. Homes of one adult will always be chosen and, where there are multiple people in the home they may not be in political agreement.
Polling is quite unreliable and should be understood as such. I'm not saying do away with them completely, but be aware of the inaccuracies within them.
Labels: Canada, Conservatives, elections, Green Party, Liberals, NDP, Opinion
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Opinion: Community Organizing
Last week Barrack Obama US Democratic Party Presidential nominee was criticized for being a Community Organizer. It was if it were a joke by both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin who made fun of his community organizing during their speeches. This just shows how out of touch they are with real people. "I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities"(Palin). Perhaps Sarah Palin doesn't understand the value of community organizing due to being the mayor of a remote town of 9000 people, but to those of us who live in major centers community organizing is a major part of life.
It is through community organizing that people have been able to advocate for rights. Community organizers work on a direct level to help alleviate the barriers to those who are disadvantaged well being. It is through them that people fight to keep jobs, that we protect local environments, that programs are implemented to help the homeless and those struggling with addiction issues. Community organizers work to improve society and help those who are truly in need at their level. US Community Organizers started a blog: http://organizersfightback.wordpress.com/As a Social Worker I have a particular bias. That bias comes with the origin of social work which was with organizing new immigrants and eventually expanding into all sections of society. Community Organizing is the legacy of Martin Luther King jr., Ghandi, César Chávez, Abbie Hoffman, and more. Especially for Ms. Palin as has been stated by many before Jesus was a community organizer, the person who ordered his death was a Governor.
Here is a rebuttal by Obama:
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Canada: Let the Greens in Already..
There has been an argument over letting the Green Party into the federal debate. In Canada with our plurality of parties, allowing the Green Party to participate makes a lot of sense. Last election the Greens were not even added to the CBC website as one of the federal parties. I can understand not allowing every party in existence into the federal debates with 16 political parties currently registered ranging from the Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party of Canada, to the Marijuana Party, to the Western Block Party, to the Neo Rhinos who actually state they don't have a platform they have a happyform it would be slightly absurd to include all parties. The Greens however, have become a viable party.
The Greens unlike the many interesting other parties do compete and organize on a national stage like the Conservatives, Liberals and, NDP. The Greens put viable candidates in pretty much all ridings across the country and in certain ridings are even more organized then some of the other parties. Last election they brought in 6.6% of the popular vote and are currently polling closer to 9% on a national scale. However, due to our first-past-the post system it is difficult to have enough regional concentration to win proportional seats.
The Greens now have their first MP Blair Wilson-West Vancouver. Wilson was formerly a Liberal but left the party and became an independent just recently joining the Green Party. Some see this issue with contention however, the switching of parties has become more frequent within Canadian Politics.
With candidates across the country, their first MP, an established and recognized leader and, a viable National party platform the Greens should be participating in the debates. They are being barred from participating most likely due to the work of the Conservatives and NDP. The Conservatives cite that they shouldn't be allowed because, of a promise of by the Greens and Liberals to not run candidates in their leaders' ridings, something that has actually happened before in Canadian Politics. The NDP essentially have cited the same incident but it is more likely due to a worry of lost votes of left-leaning voters who would "go Green" so to speak. It is even reported that the Stephen Harper and Jack Layton told stations they would refuse to participate in debates if Elizabeth May was included. To me any party that viable should be included. The Bloc despite not running outside Quebec is included and the Progressive Conservatives when they lost all but two seats were included. What are you really scared of about including the Greens.
Elizabeth May talking about the Election Debates:
The Greens unlike the many interesting other parties do compete and organize on a national stage like the Conservatives, Liberals and, NDP. The Greens put viable candidates in pretty much all ridings across the country and in certain ridings are even more organized then some of the other parties. Last election they brought in 6.6% of the popular vote and are currently polling closer to 9% on a national scale. However, due to our first-past-the post system it is difficult to have enough regional concentration to win proportional seats.The Greens now have their first MP Blair Wilson-West Vancouver. Wilson was formerly a Liberal but left the party and became an independent just recently joining the Green Party. Some see this issue with contention however, the switching of parties has become more frequent within Canadian Politics.
With candidates across the country, their first MP, an established and recognized leader and, a viable National party platform the Greens should be participating in the debates. They are being barred from participating most likely due to the work of the Conservatives and NDP. The Conservatives cite that they shouldn't be allowed because, of a promise of by the Greens and Liberals to not run candidates in their leaders' ridings, something that has actually happened before in Canadian Politics. The NDP essentially have cited the same incident but it is more likely due to a worry of lost votes of left-leaning voters who would "go Green" so to speak. It is even reported that the Stephen Harper and Jack Layton told stations they would refuse to participate in debates if Elizabeth May was included. To me any party that viable should be included. The Bloc despite not running outside Quebec is included and the Progressive Conservatives when they lost all but two seats were included. What are you really scared of about including the Greens.
Elizabeth May talking about the Election Debates:
Labels: Canada, democracy, elections, Green Party, NDP, Parliament, video
Sunday, September 07, 2008
Canada: Canadians going to the Polls Oct 14th
It seems Canadians will be going back to the federal polls on October 14th for another election. To many of us this is not at all a surprise. I started to see a new wave of political advertisements and in my district the Conservatives were already building their campaign office as early as at least 10 days ago.
Unfortunately due to apathy and none of the parties truly being innovative or standing out we will probably wind up with another minority government with the seats shifted slightly. The Conservatives according to polls are doing the best currently, but with many Canadians distrustful of their social policies as well as economic it is unlikely they will get a majority. The Liberals are still a fractured party with a leader who does not capture the majority of Canadians. The NDP will probably stay relatively where they are. A major fight will be for the Greens who now have their first member of parliament and are trying to get Elizabeth May included in the leaders debates.
So, Canadians here we go again. Will anything be accomplished by these elections? This independent doubts it.
Unfortunately due to apathy and none of the parties truly being innovative or standing out we will probably wind up with another minority government with the seats shifted slightly. The Conservatives according to polls are doing the best currently, but with many Canadians distrustful of their social policies as well as economic it is unlikely they will get a majority. The Liberals are still a fractured party with a leader who does not capture the majority of Canadians. The NDP will probably stay relatively where they are. A major fight will be for the Greens who now have their first member of parliament and are trying to get Elizabeth May included in the leaders debates.
So, Canadians here we go again. Will anything be accomplished by these elections? This independent doubts it.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
USA: Presidential Politics and the War
Usually I stay out of US electoral politics, but after the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq and the occupation going into the sixth year and a large number of Americans who watch my site I decided to comment. I hear a lot about ending the war by both the Democratic candidates. When in reality none of the presidential candidates are truly for ending the war despite the widespread opposition to the continued occupation throughout the United States. Below I will detail the three candidates and their actual policies.
John McCain - Republican
John McCain of the three candidates is probably the most honest about his position on the war. He has taken the quintessential stance of the current Republican leadership that the war should have been fought and the policy title on his website is "Strategy for Victory in Iraq". John McCain is an interesting candidate in that he previously had spoken out against the administration on torture, actually served in Vietnam and, had in the past talked out against those on the strong religious right. This resulted in him being liked by people such as Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. During this election that however, changed resulting in him falling in line with the hard Republican and religious right.
McCain currently wishes for more funding for security forces and reconstruction. He wants to keep senior officials in place instead of rotating them, put pressure on Syria and Iran, convince the American people that it is important to stay in Iraq called "Win the homefront" on his website and, ultimately has no plan for ever withdrawing unless the Iraqi's 'stand up'. Which at the moment they seem to be doing just against each other and against US rule.
Hillary Clinton - Democrat
Clinton's website may be very against the war with the title "Ending the War in Iraq" and quotes such as "Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today." These seem like more rhetoric then anything as her end to the war would still include tens of thousands of troops left in Iraq.
Clinton's campaign has been run on that she is the candidate with experience. When we look at her experience we also see a telling history. Clinton while her husband was President always supported his actions including bombings of Iraq and sanctions that resulted in the deaths of untold Iraqis. When she was acting as a Senator of New York she voted for the invasion and has not once truly apologized for that action. She sat on the Armed Services Committee during that time and, rarely created real opposition to the continuing occupation and, up until recently had not even acknowledged private military contractors. Clinton since a statement by the Obama team has now joined legislation to ban private contractors including groups such as Blackwater, but this has been a obviously political move not one based on ethics.
Barack Obama - Democrat
Obama has been touted by many to be the anti-war candidate. He made a speech against the invasion of Iraq prior to the invasion and in comparison to the other two candidates has a fairly clear history. Obama is believed to be a bridge due to his ethnic background, eloquent persona and, relative blank slate. Although, he has been better then the other candidates on the issue of Iraq, but is not anti-war. He may have the rhetoric of ending the war.
Of all the candidates Obama has probably the most comprehensive policy on foreign policy, but that includes being staunchly pro-Isreal, enlarging the US military, sending more forces to Afghanistan and, keeping 'residual forces' in Iraq. These residual forces would include 40-80 thousand forces as well as keeping in place the private contractors of which there are currently around 180 thousand which are not accurately kept in line. The US Embassy (which is less an embassy and more a giant military Americanized zone) and the green zone would still be kept in place under Obama's plan.
Ultimately I would like it to be understood that the rhetoric put out in the media about ending the war is anything but true by these candidates. Though Senator Obama seems to have the most comprehensive foreign policy plan he too is not anti-war and that should be understood. I ultimately do not support any candidate nor do I think a Canadian has the need to do so or not, but sadly what happens in those elections will effect Canada, Iraq, Afghanistan and, the rest of the world.
John McCain - Republican
John McCain of the three candidates is probably the most honest about his position on the war. He has taken the quintessential stance of the current Republican leadership that the war should have been fought and the policy title on his website is "Strategy for Victory in Iraq". John McCain is an interesting candidate in that he previously had spoken out against the administration on torture, actually served in Vietnam and, had in the past talked out against those on the strong religious right. This resulted in him being liked by people such as Jon Stewart and Bill Maher. During this election that however, changed resulting in him falling in line with the hard Republican and religious right.McCain currently wishes for more funding for security forces and reconstruction. He wants to keep senior officials in place instead of rotating them, put pressure on Syria and Iran, convince the American people that it is important to stay in Iraq called "Win the homefront" on his website and, ultimately has no plan for ever withdrawing unless the Iraqi's 'stand up'. Which at the moment they seem to be doing just against each other and against US rule.
Hillary Clinton - Democrat
Clinton's website may be very against the war with the title "Ending the War in Iraq" and quotes such as "Our message to the president is clear. It is time to begin ending this war -- not next year, not next month -- but today." These seem like more rhetoric then anything as her end to the war would still include tens of thousands of troops left in Iraq. Clinton's campaign has been run on that she is the candidate with experience. When we look at her experience we also see a telling history. Clinton while her husband was President always supported his actions including bombings of Iraq and sanctions that resulted in the deaths of untold Iraqis. When she was acting as a Senator of New York she voted for the invasion and has not once truly apologized for that action. She sat on the Armed Services Committee during that time and, rarely created real opposition to the continuing occupation and, up until recently had not even acknowledged private military contractors. Clinton since a statement by the Obama team has now joined legislation to ban private contractors including groups such as Blackwater, but this has been a obviously political move not one based on ethics.
Barack Obama - Democrat
Obama has been touted by many to be the anti-war candidate. He made a speech against the invasion of Iraq prior to the invasion and in comparison to the other two candidates has a fairly clear history. Obama is believed to be a bridge due to his ethnic background, eloquent persona and, relative blank slate. Although, he has been better then the other candidates on the issue of Iraq, but is not anti-war. He may have the rhetoric of ending the war.Of all the candidates Obama has probably the most comprehensive policy on foreign policy, but that includes being staunchly pro-Isreal, enlarging the US military, sending more forces to Afghanistan and, keeping 'residual forces' in Iraq. These residual forces would include 40-80 thousand forces as well as keeping in place the private contractors of which there are currently around 180 thousand which are not accurately kept in line. The US Embassy (which is less an embassy and more a giant military Americanized zone) and the green zone would still be kept in place under Obama's plan.
Ultimately I would like it to be understood that the rhetoric put out in the media about ending the war is anything but true by these candidates. Though Senator Obama seems to have the most comprehensive foreign policy plan he too is not anti-war and that should be understood. I ultimately do not support any candidate nor do I think a Canadian has the need to do so or not, but sadly what happens in those elections will effect Canada, Iraq, Afghanistan and, the rest of the world.


