The abject transparency of Faytene

DAMMIT JANET! - which is, according to this, a filthy-speaking and vulgar blogsite - has been watching the self-aggrandizing antics of Faytene Kryskow Grasseschi for awhile now.

Bene Diction Blogs On has a co-blogger who dedicates himself to the scrutiny of the minutia of Faytene's MASSIVE dramatics evangelical outpourings.

DJ! is more interested in how she manipulates folks and profitably manages her career to The Greater Good of Faytene. At an event entitled "Forgiven" two years ago, which was ostensibly organized by Former Cree chief Kenny Blacksmith to ‘accept’ the apology PMSHithead made in the House of Commons to Canada’s Aboriginal people, but orchestrated by the same deep pockets that financially supported the Harper Regime©™ rise to power, I noted:

A lot of money was on display, in the state-of-the-art television recording and broadcasting installations. Before the religious pageant started, Faytene Kryskow sauntered through our seating area, in not-kewl hoi polloi territory. Apparently the group sitting in the seats below us had not been given the VIP status they deserved.

David Mainse established the nation's first Christian television show, Crossroads, in 1963. In 1977 he launched 100 Huntley Street, now Canada's longest-running Christian TV program.

As Faytene led Mainse and the dozen or so people in his entourage to reserved seats close to the stage, she apologized for the oversight, blurting out that the Aboriginal volunteers involved in the organization of the event "did not know who the important people were".

Oh really, Faytene? Shouldn't Jesus be the Most Important One to know?

Snort.

And now: Twitter opp!

Ugh. Contempt Party leader hit a new low with this kind of opportunism. And, if the above was a genuine interaction, why the complicated staging and framing for the benefit of the astro-turf purported grass-roots supporters (I believe that the Contempt Party is compensating those *real* people who show up at its campaign events) and the media.

From here:

There’s a second conversation going on between the political parties and their direct audiences — the thousands of potential voters who are “following” — or reading — them.

At times, that appears to be an intimate conversation: Conservative Leader Stephen Harper tweeted on Day 1 of the campaign to his son Ben. “Ben, Great win! And against older guys! The team must be excited. Congratulate them all for me. Dad.”

Yet, even the intimacy was no doubt meant for the broader audience. A photo on the Conservative party website shows Harper on the campaign plane, typing the in-flight tweet to Ben on his iPad after Ben’s “team had just won a volleyball tournament.”

But never fear, Contempt Party leader. Someone who "knows who the important people are" claims she's got Stevie UnSpiteful's number. Scroll down to get the ZOMG quote.

"Bring in the wedges, boys, and drive them hard."

Yet another revolting quote from the odious Mr 'Kicking Abortion's Ass', The Fetus©™ fetishizing, christofascist John "Sperm Holocaust" Pacheco.

The story of Roxanne Fernando (the woman whose beating and murder - claimed by Rod Bruinooge to have inspired his private member's bill) is one that's familiar to feminists who led the fight to reform institutions and laws in order to protect battered women and their children from violent domestic partners.

And now the abortion criminalizers are playing this "opportunity", also known as the circumstances that led to the brutal slaying of Fernando, to re-introduce another bill to limit choice.

Notice how Harper's Con jobs never demand better laws to defend the right to safety and the right to life for women like Joan Paget and Gail Saltel as well as their children? Strange how ReformaTories do not vigorously support shelters for the hundreds of Canadian women and children whose kidneys as well as their lives are not valued by rightwing, patriarcal religious zealots.


Un grand merci to JJ, who provided the link to the FD thread and to the venal 'Paycheck' comment, typical of a certain kind of rightwing religious zealot male.

Jack and Me

*sigh* I guess a pol is a pol is a pol. They can't help themselves.

Yesterday it was Iggy. Today it's Jack.

This is the message he sent out to NDP members:

Friends –

Three weeks ago, Stephen Harper locked the doors of Parliament and shut out your elected representatives.
Canadians are sick of the secrecy and arrogance. They’re tired of the old politics of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives.

Canadians are turning to a new kind of politics. A grassroots politics on Facebook and in neighbourhoods, at town halls and rallies. The new politics is New Democrat politics.

Join our movement today.

Our solution to prorogation is simple. Prorogation should only happen after a vote in the House of Commons. We’ll work to make that the law.

And you can help New Democrats stand up to Harper. This Saturday, join us at one of dozens of anti-prorogation rallies across Canada.

Together we’ll send Stephen Harper a clear message – democracy works.
Jack Layton

Um, NOOOOO! The new politics is NOT NDP politics. The anti-prorogue movement is NOT your movement.

Retract it, Jack. And apologize for seeming to appropriate a grassrooots, non-partisan citizens' movement.

Or else you look as opportunistic as Iggy and the Libs.

And that ain't pretty.

P.S. You are welcome to join us tomorrow, though.

(I just sent Jack and Olivia -- my MP -- emails that say pretty much that. I'll report if/when I get a response.)

Iggy and Me

OK. I admit it. Michael Ignatieff and I have a troubled relationship. (We are related by marriage, but I don't think he knows that.) I have tried to be nice and even supportive.

But today, after promising he never ever no-how no-way do that again, he did it again.

In a totally typical and predictable Liberal way, he and his handlers have opportunistically tried to hi-jack another grassroots group -- Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament.

After his open letter to CAPP evincing support and bum-kisses, his on-line town hall today, supposedly to address CAPPers' issues, was a TOTAL FUCKING JOKE.

I give you the bits that have anything REMOTELY to do with CAPP's issues.

[Comment From Wendy Perry Wendy Perry : ]
Mr. Ignatieff,will you be attending one of the CAPP rallies?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:00 Wendy Perry
3:00

Michael Ignatieff:
Thank you Wendy for your question. Yes, I will talk at the Ottawa rally on Saturday.
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:00 Michael Ignatieff
3:00


[Comment From Ian Perkins Ian Perkins : ]
Mr. Igantieff can you explain why Canadians are upset with the prorougation of Parliament?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:00 Ian Perkins
3:01

Michael Ignatieff:
Ian, Canadians want their MPs back at work and they want their Prime Minister to be accountable to Parliament.
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:01 Michael Ignatieff
3:01


[Comment From Jeff Jedras Jeff Jedras : ]
I'd like to ask about democratic reform. Many Canadians feel the current First Past the Post system doesn't fairly value or reflect their votes. Do you believe we should consider a new voting system, and what do you think that system should look like?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:01 Jeff Jedras
3:02

Michael Ignatieff:
Im prepared to look at reform of our voting system provided that reform doesnt fragment the country and weaken the ability of national parties to hold the country together.
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:02 Michael Ignatieff
3:03

Michael Ignatieff:
Whats important is getting more Canadians to turn out at elections. Our participation rate is now below 60 percent. We need to get more people involved.

Mario Lagüe (moderator):
3:02 [Brad Bossack] -
Greetings, as a member of CAPP (Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament), I wish[...] to speak of changing the currant democratic structure to providing and endorsing more participation within the process decision making. As you have seen, there are many Canadians who are feeling very disenfranchised, and are rallying to be heard in a new way. What are your feelings and idea's on democratic renewal in this country?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:09 Mario Lagüe (moderator)
3:10

Michael Ignatieff:
Politicians need to get out on the road and answer tough questions face to face with voters. there:s a hunger for direct participation and involvement. Thats what I discovered on my tour of colleges and universitiesand I want to keep on going with town halls in every Canadian community I can get to.

Comment From Alan Goodhall Alan Goodhall : ]
Thank you for this forum Mr. Ignatieff. Yesterday Mr. Layton stated to the media that the NDP would propose legislation to limit the power of a prime minister to prorogue the house. Do you feel legislation is required or is this more a question of ethics of the party in power and best left to the public to decide through the ballot box?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:39 Alan Goodhall
3:40

Michael Ignatieff:
Provided a Prime Minister respects Parliament and its authority, legislation isnt needed. Mr. Harper used prorogation to duck a confidence vote and to evade tough questions in the House. That;s wrong. Ive already pledged not to use prorogation that way. The problem is not the power itself, so much as its abuse.
Mr. Harper has abused his power.

Comment From Glynn Pearson Glynn Pearson : ]
I am very concerned about your response about prorogation. Harper was elected on promises of accountability and transparency after a debacle with the Liberals of the day (including a long prorogation). I don't know you and I don't want you to feel disparaged but it has been demonstrated that we cannot trust the person in power to act with the public's best interests in mind. Would a new Liberal government consider committing to legislation to ensure the responsible use of prorogation?
Thursday January 21, 2010 3:55 Glynn Pearson
3:57

Michael Ignatieff:
As a great writer once said, rules are for people with no character. Meaning, that you need to legislate when you cant trust the people who hold power. My view is that we dont need to legislate limits on prorogation. We just need to return to the basic understanding that used to limit prerogative power, namely that you dont use it to duck tough questions in parliament and you dont use it to duck a confidence vote. harper used it this way and it was wrong, and Canadians are telling him dont ever do that again.

Faff, faff, and more faff. (Go to the link for some really gagsome slo-pitches about his favourite part of the job, for example.)

Insulting, the whole damn exercise. We, the grassrooty CAPPers, got all moisty-panty, thinking, 'Wow, party leader takes note of discontent, wants to address us.'

Ha. Iggy and his handlers bethought themselves: 'Hoho, a ready-made huge audience. We'll deign to talk to them -- showing off our super-duper webby skills -- and they'll all join Iggy's Facebook page.'

In short, it was a better handled version of the attempted co-option of the feminist 'Left Wing Fringe' movement.

I sent in a question, which, needless to say, did not make the cut. It was:
Mr. Ignatieff [moi being polite], would you work with the NDP and the Bloc to form a coalition that would represent the majority of Canadians and work cooperatively on the pressing problems of the day?

So. Sorta-cousin-in-law Iggy, FUCK YOU.

Compare and contrast: reason and zealotry.

It's not every day that you get a chance to observe up close the clumsy cogs of the fundamentalist religious zealot "thinking" grind and slip.

This offers an excellent opportunity to do so.

Blob Blogging Wingnut attempts to deconstruct and refute Jacob M. Appel's arguments. It would be comical, were it not more of the same-old same-old witless wombie zombie dissembling. Appel writes about Stephanie Gray - yes, that Canadian fetus fetishizing propaganda queen who claimed there there was an "open season on prolifers" shortly after an Operation Rescue acolyte publicly executed Dr Tiller in his church.

The reality is that few (if any) sane people, however strong their views regarding the morality of abortion, sincerely believe that abortion clinics are like death camps. They just say they are, because it's easier - and far more dramatic - than explaining what they really mean. I have witnessed surgical terminations. I have also seen the mounds of human hair and baby shoes at the Holocaust Museum in Washington. Most strikingly, I have heard first-hand horror narratives of deportation and starvation from elderly survivors, stories that my own relatives never survived to share. Any reasonable person who has any knowledge of the Nazi death machine should find the comparison of Planned Parenthood to Auschwitz-Birkenau an unacceptable affront to common decency. This is not to say that the legacy of the Holocaust needs to be preserved as "unique": To my thinking, those who try to finesse the argument that the slaughter of Europe's Jews was somehow morally distinct from the Cambodian or Armenian genocides, for example, have lost the forest for the trees. But that does not mean that any perceived moral wrong can reasonably be described in such terms. ...

I do not mean to suggest that abortion opponents have no legal right to use such incendiary analogies. But if these activists want to be taken seriously, and if they wish for a meaningful place in the public discourse, then they should eschew them. Ms. Gray has questioned why many reproductive rights supporters refuse to debate her. I assure her that it is not because we fear her ideas or public engagement -- but because some forms of argument are too repugnant to be indulged. Nobody questions Gray's entitlement to believe that abortion should be illegal or to further her case in the marketplace of ideas. As far as I'm concerned, she can believe that the earth is flat and roam the streets preaching platygaeanism. The hallmark of an enlightened society, after all, is agreeing to disagree.

Go read all of Appel's thoughtful, lucid, fact-based and empathetic opinion piece. It helped flush from my brain the ludicrous twists and snarls SHE posted.

Honour Killing - sadly for rightwingnutz, it's not Rifqa Bary

In August we wrote about Rifqa Bary and how rightwing christian fundamentalists in the US were exploiting her.


Bene Diction Blogs On updates the story this month, with links to serious media and blogs who went digging for real information beyond the FauxNews hyperbole. Other christians express caution, with regard to the political manipulation - here, for example.


And as for the blatant "honour" killing of Julie Crocker, her throat allegedly slashed by her estranged husband, where's all the shrieeeking from 'tough on crime' rightwing neocons like Naomi Lakritz?

Chris Little tracked his former wife with a GPS device. ... He even bought a product called Check Mate from a spy store to test her clothing for semen, a jury heard. [...] the Crown painted the 37-year-old Toronto-area fibreglass salesman as a jilted, obsessed ex-husband who killed his ex-wife and a second woman, then made a clumsy attempt to portray it as a murder-suicide.

Oh wait. Chris Little isn't a moozlim, is he?

Spin Never Sleeps

JJ at unrepentant old hippie did a superb job of taking a couple of Stephanie Gray’s points, smacking the hypocrisy around and kicking it to the curb. But there is more, much more to Gray’s depraved, dissembling pronouncements.

As I wrote here, given the essentialist, women-despising ideology at the core of their abortion-criminalizing premise, zygote zealots try to elevate their discourse by using two tactics over and over.

1) They claim that abortion is the same, if not WORSE! than the Nazi-enforced Holocaust against European Jews, homosexuals, Roma and other target populations.

2) They say that their campaign to criminalize health care practitioners who terminate pregnancies and women who seek their services is the same, if not BETTER! than the US civil rights movement.

From Stephanie Gray's screed:

With Cosh's rhetoric, I am reminded of the clergymen who were critical of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.'s controversial approach. In his Letter from Birmingham Jail, King responded by saying, "In your statement you assert that our actions, even though peaceful, must be condemned because they precipitate violence. But is this a logical assertion? Isn't this like condemning a robbed man because his possession of money precipitated the evil act of robbery? ...We must come to see that ... it is wrong to urge an individual to cease his efforts to gain his basic constitutional rights because the quest may precipitate violence. Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber."

This is rank opportunism and a putrid distortion of MLK's inspiring words. As I noted two years ago:

... those who would enforce compulsory pregnancy divert criticism away from their goal of controlling women’s reproductive capacity, by proclaiming they are as pure in their thoughts and actions as those white folks who championed civil rights. Fetus fetishizers are draping themselves in the flag of the modern martyr and demanding the same respect as white civil rights workers who were excoriated for the assistance they gave to Martin Luther King and to the descendants of enslaved Black people. Quite the sleight of hand, is it not? Those who supported the civil rights movement did not set off bombs nor assassinate anyone.

If you have a strong stomach, take a look at the KKK website and observe how the language of 'white racialism' ressembles the language of anti-abortion websites.

"Society must protect the robbed and punish the robber." The logical and correct analogy here, given the escalation in violent strategies and discourse used by a significant number of individuals in abortion-criminalizing organizations that are similar to that used by individuals and organizations opposed to civil rights, would be that “Abortion criminalizers are the 21st century’s Jim Crow segregationists”.

Edited to add: With regard to point 1), here's more from the Pro-Choice Action Network regarding Stephanie Gray's claims about what she calls "open season on pro-lifers". Open season = 3 pro-choice activists allegedly vandalized a G.A.P. display ... got hyperbole?