Sunday, June 24, 2007

Pacheco and other illnesses.

You know, there's some people that spew filth, spite and intolerance and they do so under the guise of some greater moral, spiritual or ethical calling. Some of these folks do so in the fullest of faith, that what they speak and believe is pure and right. They are so sure in their beliefs that they never question and are startled when they find that other people bridle under their ministrations. They are shocked that their surety might ever be questioned. In the depths of their puddle deep hearts, they actually do mean well. They're probably nice people, more or less, they're just ignorant, blinkered and dim.

And then there are people that wrap themselves in pious cloaks and brandish their crosses like cudgels. Only too happy to spit their hatred in the face of any that dare question their pocket crusades. There is no hurt too deep for them to exploit, no life too private for their interference, no vitriol too bitter to share. My late mom had a term for these sorts of folks, she called them god-botherers. Petty little people with mean hearts and nasty tongues, full of vengeance and judgement for any and all. These creatures snipe and crow about your sins, your flaws and your failings and they relish the opportunity to point their little fingers. And all the while they hold themselves up as examples of virtue and righteousness, for they and they alone know the ways and wants of the lord.

And should you dare to question them or suggest that their vision fails the hopes and hearts of others, why, then they roll up their sleeves and clutch their bibles and cry woe. How sadly oppressed they are, how their very lives are portraits of martyrdom. How can we not let them dictate from their bully pulpits and still call ourselves free? For these manipulative, squalling bastards, freedom is what they choose to inflict. Your freedom to choose your own fate, your choice of partner and dominion over your own body is somehow an infringement on their precious freedom to abuse you and to demonize you. All of the bibles in christendom could not stack high enough to conceal their corruption.

John Pacheco traffics in such corruptions. He is a bigot. He is a misogynist. He is a liar and an enemy of freedom, liberty and honour. No sooner does Belinda Stronach's unfortunate bout with cancer make the news, than this vulgar little snake coils around it to spread his poison, his innuendo and lies. After a brief clipping detailing Ms. Stronach's misfortune, this disturbed little man appends the following:

"Please pray for Belinda.

We must still admit that for women taking oral contraceptives and having abortions, there is an increase in the risk of breast cancer. Check it out here. Keep scrolling down for the ABC link.

Posted by John Pacheco at 6/23/2007 07:11:00 AM

Labels: LifeStyle Choices"

It's not quite ten years since I lost my mom to complications from breast cancer. She went to her grave believing that there was a god waiting with the promise of peace and respite from the suffering. Were she alive today, there is no doubt in my mind, that if she were stood in front of Mr. Pacheco she would reach out with her Irish Catholic hand and slap his face. There is no excuse for the smug actions of this pathetic man. Somehow, Pacheco, you rotten guttersnipe, I don't think you should be using the familiar in addressing Ms. Stronach. Given that you are casting your unwelcome judgements upon her, given that she is a successful person and you are a failed and failing wannabe, that never was and never will be, it seems only fitting that you address your remarks in the formal and with the appropriate respect. Given that your prayers are as false as your heart, allow me to suggest you keep them to yourself. And as for your innuendo that somehow this cancer is the result of some lifestyle choices to which you are not privy, welcome nor entitled to share, allow me to suggest that you take your false piety back to your two-bit hovel and polish up your next set of blandishments for the ignorant and others of your ilk. Your false facts have been roundly debunked by the experts in the field. Your link is a lie and your prayers are the sort one scrapes from the bottoms of their shoe.

Be aware Mr. Pacheco, that your lies are not unnoticed, there are those that will haul your carcass into the light of day and expose you for the filth that you are.

Tip of the hat to: Alison at Creekside1 and JJ at Unrepentant Old Hippie.


Pacheco has issued a fauxpology for his original post:

"I have apologized for the original post. My original comments were insensitive and uncharitable. That's why I amended them.

I hardly think I have "lied" about anything. I don't lie, unlike former pro-aborts, who admitted lying to get abortion legal in the U.S.

However, the substance of my points remain:

1) There is a link between OCs, abortion, and breast cancer.

2) Sexual choices have consequences.

Thanks for giving me the unexpected publicity on an issue that would have otherwise passed under the radar.

Much appreciated.

I hope we can move on to discuss the facts that you and the rest of the liberal clique find so uncomfortable."

What a piece of, um, work. He 'apologizes' for being a completely transparent asshole and has backed off to a position as a merely transluscent asshole. So, where to point of fact, Pacheco never apologized for the original post (a screen-cap of which is available at JJ's in the link above), he just changed the post. That would be, what do they call that, oh yes, a lie. Then his substantive points, one, that there's a link between oral contraceptives, abortion and the incidence of breast cancer. Sure there's a link, a false link that has been debunked and refuted by the medical establishment. He offers no such facts to discuss, beyond his ridiculous and unfounded assertion, which in itself is the promotion of a lie. His characterization of people as "pro-aborts" is also a lie. I and many other people support the right to self determination and bodily autonomy. I am not pro-abortion and I know of no one that is, I and many, many people are, however, pro-choice. If Pacheco and his fellow cultists don't like abortions, then it behooves them not to avail themselves of the procedure. It remains none of their business what anyone else does with their own reproductive system. I think it is safe to assert that Pacheco is a liar, whether he realizes it or not.

Second, he insists that sexual choices have consequences. Which continues in the insinuation that Belinda Stronach's medical condition is the result of either the pill or of abortion or both. I find it unseemly that this creepy individual is spending his time impugning the personal and private, sexual health and history of a woman who is currently facing the very real and traumatic hardship of cancer. I guess when you are as smug and mean spirited as Pacheco, it's all just fine to blame the victim. But let's just take this matter of consequences under consideration for a moment.

Let us stipulate that indeed, sexual choices have consequences. Therefore, one has at least as much, if not more, evidence indicating that abstinence as a sexual choice has consequences. Further that the long term choice of abstinence in adult males has serious consequences and that when abstinent adult males are sequestered in a patriarchal and hierarchical system, that the consequence of that sexual choice results in a high incidence of pedophilia. By Pacheco's logic, we should seriously question the wisdom of allowing that choice to be made. In fact, for the safety and betterment of society, the Catholic church should be outlawed and stripped of tax exempt status unless it agrees to allow priests to marry and for women to be ordained. That would be the only sane thing to do regarding this serious matter of public health and safety.

Think of the children Mr. Pacheco.


Anonymous said...

Ooh, outrage of the day!

M@ said...

Ooh, asshole of the day!

JJ said...

"Sexual choices have consequences" -- translation: any woman who dares to be anything but a baby cannon must be punished.

Nicely fricasseed, PSA.;)

Anonymous said...

"Sexual choices have consequences"

Meaning any pleasure you girls might experience 'belong to us'. We, who decide whether you can have any control over your own reproductive health and physical wellbeing. We, who have decided that it is for your own infinite good physically and spiritually to expell another human from your uterus as often as you can until menopause sets in and retires the offspring factory the way their god intended.

There is nothing about that post that wasn't deplorable, but the worst part is that he is publicly condemning a woman without having personal knowledge of her medical history. It's just another opportunity to spread the mentally diseased conservative message via someone else's suffering, no different than the asshole who used Steve Irwin's death as a way of getting people to wonder if he would be going to heaven, then eventually to wonder if they themselves would. It's all a means of pressing the message and gaining control over a woman's body.

Anonymous said...

And would your dear sainted Irish Catholic momma be pleased with her child standing mute while his colleague calls a woman a "cunt" because he disagrees with her? Really, your outrage over Pacheco's ham-fisted comments about Belinda Stronach, and women in general by implication, would not ring so false if you had also stood up to your dickhead co-blogger when he verbally assaulted a woman on a page with your name on it.

Maybe your momma would have slapped your face, too?

Anonymous said...

Now there's a first rate dressing down if I ever heard one.
Well written and said,damn that was good

Rev.Paperboy said...

Of course sexual choices have consequences, just like any other choices, but unless you get your rocks off by having plutomium smeared all over you during foreplay, breast cancer is most emphatically not one of those consequensces.
There is no link between abortion or contraception and breast cancer. There is however a clear link between asking people "to pray for" someone as a means of moral condemnation as being a fucking jackass.

Alison said...

Kick ass, absolutely kick ass.

I felt rather mean going after someone who is so obviously whack but that of his post was just so low.

I'm going to bother you with one of those Thinking Blogger thingies when I can get the post together. Yeah I know but as JJ said when she handed it off to me a month or so ago, you can go ahead and ignore it if you want.
Think of it as a belated thank you for your terrific posts on the McClelland smear and the Olympics shenanigans.

Lindsay Stewart said...

dear anonymous,

for the record, i prefer not to use the term "cunt" for the reason that it distracts from the argument. i haven't been around very much over the last weeks but i do recall seeing the word in a post and shaking my head. i don't recall the context it was used in or who it was used to describe. that said, it is a cuss word that tends to amplify outrage. but i don't think it is really all that much worse than any number of other disparaging bodily references. yes it is mean and demeaning. but so is cocksucker, motherfucker or your selection "dickhead" etc.etc. i'm willing to wager that as coarse as cc's reference was, that it was not made in an attempt to use a person's serious illness to hit a political point.

as for your snotty take on my "sainted irish momma", well, i get to remember the years of crippling pain that closed out her life. i get to recall feeling utterly powerless to protect her from the ravages of a terrible illness, the physical and emotional distress of two radical mastectomies and the wasting effects of chemo and radiation therapy. i'm going to live out my days with the sincere hope that her fate doesn't befall anyone else, regardless of political or social agenda and that neither you nor any other sons or daughters should have those awful last memories of their mom.

so forgive me, anonymous, if my outrage at a sanctimonious bastard like pacheco rings false to you. breast cancer put my mom in her grave. i can see how my reaction to someone exploiting that disease for a quick smear would seem overblown to you. after all, and i'm speculating here, you are a snivelling cunt.

Anonymous said...

My "snotty take" was directed at you, son, not your mother. You held her up as an example of a woman who would brook no nonsense from a prig like Pacheco. I was noting your lack of comment on a much more vigorously-worded attack on a woman by your fellow blogger and wondering if you did not see the possibility that your behaviour might also fall below the standard that you tell us your mother held.

Lindsay Stewart said...

well anon,

if you want to slam me fine, do your best. but i call bullshit on the above. "your dear sainted Irish Catholic momma", strikes me as a smug little snipe. the same kind of back handed crap that pacheco employs in his 'pray for belinda' screed.

to be sure, my mom took no crap off me or anyone else. more than a few times she questioned my choice of friends. but she never slapped me, literally or otherwise for what someone else did or said. cc is a big boy, this is his blog and i am here at his invitation. we've disagreed on things before and likely will again.

my point remains that pacheco's attempt to score smear points off someone's cancer is deplorable. it is not even in the same realm of behaviour as the use of a vaginal pejorative. cc can have a foul mouth but what pacheco did is reprehensible. there's just no comparison. it isn't the harshness of the wording that matters, it is the intent. cc was trying to maximize his rudeness to someone he considered worthy of such scorn. pacheco was trying to exploit a life threatening illness to prop up a lie and score a political point.

if you can't figure that out, you can take your condescending crap elsewhere, son.

Ti-Guy said...

I must say that using the word "cunt" does tend to flush out the hypocrites, the *real* moral relativists and the truly ignorant wastes of time.

Seriously...people can call for Holocausts in the politest of language and go completely uncriticised; but use the C-word, and we all get to see the wrath the dangerous moralisers are capable of.

By their reaction to the c-word, ye shall know them. It'll be a good test when deciding who needs to be sent to the re-education camps.

Anonymous said...


"dear"...because all mothers are dear to their children, in my opinion.

"sainted" my opinion, because she has died.

"Irish Catholic"... because you said so. And, again in my opinion, this also supports my use of the word "sainted" in the context I employed it.

This has gone off the rails: my intention was to bring the incongruity, as I saw it, in your comments to light. This was never meant to be an insult against your mother. That I was not skillful enough to make that distinction clear, and for subsequently causing you pain, not reflection, with my words, I apologize.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Pacheco apparently believes that my fundamentalist Christian mother, who has had 11 children, always breastfed, and never used oral contraceptives should have been immune to breast cancer.

Alas that he is wrong.

Nonny said...


You've wasted your breath on these people, but your words are still a joy to read. So, thanks for contributing.

The problem with these special children is that they think that "fuck," "asshole," and "cunt" actually add to their arguments, not subtract from them.

Except Ti-Guy. He just can't help it. Tourette's, I guess.

Lindsay Stewart said...

i'll take you at your word. no apology required though the gesture is gratefully accepted.

as far as the incongruity that you point out, i see it as a case of false equivalence. as a blog crime, what cc is guilty of is high vulgarity. pacheco is guilty of a far worse act, the use of an illness to attack someone's personal life. i can accept that the occasional potty tone here, might be upsetting to some. those more sensitive readers can happily go to more gentile blogs. ms. stronach and other sufferers of breast cancer cannot simply walk away from their trouble.

coarse though it may be, cc's use of the term in question was blatant. he was front and center making his statement. pacheco first went for the slime, back pedaled, pretended to apologize and still leaves his innuendos and insinuations intact.

in turn, you have my apologies for losing my cool. given my family's experience of terminal breast cancer, i take this sort of issue a bit personally.

and nonny, somewhere there's a vacancy sign just made for you.

M@ said...

The problem with these special children is that they think that "fuck," "asshole," and "cunt" actually add to their arguments, not subtract from them.

The problem with the various anonymi hereabouts is that they actually need to have an argument before they can start to subtract from it.

And "oo! no! he said a swear!" isn't an argument. Sorry.

Ti-Guy said...

The problem with these special children is that they think that "fuck," "asshole," and "cunt" actually add to their arguments, not subtract from them.

What's all this adding and subtracting about? If a valid argument is presented, no element of style is going to add to it or subtract from it.

How unlettered...

Nonny said...

"If a valid argument is presented ...." Ti-Guy.

Well. Now that's part of the problem with all of you here. Isn't it?

How unfortunate.

Nonny said...

Tell me, Pretty Shaved Ape, how calling someone an asshole or a cunt makes you any more convincing? Really, what is your problem? Why use it? Why do you deem it necessary? I think it's because your arguments (rarely actually put forward) are weak. So you need to punctuate whatever you have to say with a "what a fucking asshole" or two ... or three. Secondly, it has been my experience that, not only do people with weak arguments too easily default to mindless invective and childish profanity, but people who are also insecure and concerned with appearing tough tend to overuse profanity. This is symptomatic with the left. PSA, the vacancy sign is for YOU.

M@: You are a particualarly pathetic case. Early in your blog you said you would not tolerate profanity. Yet here you are ... engaging in it yourself. Funny.

Lindsay Stewart said...

so nonny, where is your "valid argument"? you don't appear to have much to offer beyond sticking your thumbs in your ears, waggling your fingers and sticking your tongue out. in fact, your entire sojourn here has been content free. have you more to contribute beyond calling people 'children' or 'special'? or are you just another unfortunate, seeking self-validation by currying the scorn of others? speak troll, where is your signal or is there nothing to you but noise?

Nonny said...

"[W]here is your "valid argument"?

I just made it, PSA. The topic I was discussing was your absurd and childish use of profanity. Please reread my last comment to you.


Lindsay Stewart said...

Thus speaketh nonny,

"Nonny Thinks You Are Special
Even you Canadians are special to Nonny. Even the leftists among you. You are the most special people of all."

"Nonny really does think Canadians are special. He appreciates how special people make up worlds to live in; it brings a sense of security and pride – albeit false security and misplaced pride. Nonny will have to teach you special people the truth, for only the truth brings true security and real pride"

So that is pretty much the sum total content of the nonny blog. You tell me nonny, how is your juvenilia superior to the local profanity? At least when the cussing starts around here it is generally attached to some form of argument, there is a point being made or at least the attempt is there. Your entire schtick would seem to be bereft of content because the content of the statement means nothing to you. Why trouble yourself with making an argument when you can blow raspberries.

"I think it's because your arguments (rarely actually put forward) are weak."

I invite you to stroll through the archives here nonny, when I have a point to make I put it forward. It's easy enough to just spit out that sort of assertion but where is your argument, your validation for that assertion? Surprise! You don't have one. Your charge is baseless. This thread alone refutes your claim. Right or wrong, I have presented my argument. Pure or profane, I've stated my case. Where I crossed a line, I've qualified my reasoning and apologized.

"not only do people with weak arguments too easily default to mindless invective and childish profanity"

Which is really rich coming from a troll whose only rhetorical tool is to call people children and special. You have yet to present any sort of argument nonny, cogent or otherwise. Address the issues not the style, after all, you are squatting in the comments of a site that advertises sarcasm and snark right up front. Seems pretty vapid to go and complain about the tone, offer nothing at all to refute the arguments made and then puff up your chest as though you've declared mission accomplished.

Nonny said...

Boy! You sure did a lot of work, PSA, in posting that comment.

But ... why didn't you quote these comments of mine which preceded those you did quote?

“I'm glad you're so happy about what you perceive as a US failure, CC, but what you refuse to realize (and CNN hardly acknowledges) is that the US military has just begun a huge offensive operation against al Qaeda. The hint is right there in CNN's first sentence.

"It tells something about your military aptitude that you would expect no casualties in such a circumstance. Or is it true that you just want to celebrate US deaths ... well ... because the US is the enemy? And is is true that you have no knowledge of the new offensive?”

Or this?

“Who knows? All I said is that there is a reason for the increase in casualties recently, an increase that was expected because of the offensive actions taken by the US.

As far as the other 3,500 deaths since 2003, I am not troubled by them since they are so low -- except insofar as Americans overreact to them and want to retreat from Iraq.

As far as non-Americans like you are concerned, the only rational explanation for your views is that you are eager for a US loss. I know you don't give a damn about 3,500 US deaths, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Or this?

“You have it exactly backward, M@. My CONCERN about the deaths is political (but only partly) in nature. As I said, I am concerned that Americans will want to retreat as a result of the 3,500 deaths. My LACK of concern about the deaths is MILITARY in nature. 3,500 deaths do not diminish our ability to fight. Please read more carefully.”

You may not agree with it, PSA but it’s hardly “sticking [my] thumbs in [my] ears, waggling [my] fingers and sticking [my] tongue out.” But omitting these comments and my earlier comment to you in the thread DOES have the advantage of bolstering your weak case. Too bad it’s dishonest.

Lindsay Stewart said...

Last words for you nonny,
the arguments that you've fetched above amount to little more than an excuse to cast aspersions upon the host(s) of this site.

For noting that American strategy has failed and is failing, in a war that should never have occurred, you brand CC an enemy of America. Well, the thing is nonny, the majority of Americans are now enemies of America by your reckoning. A growing majority of Americans are waking up to the fact that they were lied to and theat their fears and grief were exploited by the far right.

You bring up your cavalier statements about the 'low' American death toll in Iraq. Well nonny, you go and speak to the families of veterans and let them know that their sacrifice is no skin off your back. I'm sure they'll appreciate it. I grew up in a military family, I know fiirst hand the damage that ptsd does. The only rational explanation for my views is that I look at the misery that has been wrought on so many families and I hate that it was done for no good reason, for no just cause and I weep for all of those kids that will face the loss of their parents or the absolute fundamental change that will be wrought in those parents that return.

Your fatuous nonsense aside nonny, your ability to completely overlook and dismiss all of the arguments made in my writings on this blog fails to bolster your paper thin case. And indeed, it is too bad that you are so willfully blind and intentionally dishonest.

You may return your thumbs to your ears now nonny. I'm done with you.

Ti-Guy said...

Nonny's that perennial Canadian blog fixture/recurring STD nomennovum...a psychotic whose churlishness is matched only by his obsessiveness.

M@ said...

M@: You are a particualarly pathetic case. Early in your blog you said you would not tolerate profanity. Yet here you are ... engaging in it yourself. Funny.

I'm not sure where you read that I would not tolerate profanity, but it certainly doesn't sound like me. I am somehow immune to teh swearing -- it doesn't bother me nearly as much as it seems to bother you. Maybe I was being sarcastic or something? I'd be interested to know.

Then again, let's not even get into this, lest we start up another sandbox poo-fight. Your views on Iraq are still idiotic, and no amount of politely calling others "children" and "pathetic" will make your views more valid or correct.

By the way, how is calling someone "pathetic" any different from calling them an "asshole", other than the vocabulary? Maybe you should re-evaluate your standards of what makes a good or poor argument.

Nonny said...

Maybe you should re-read your blog, M@.

Nonny said...

Ti-Guy, keep guessing.

(Who was here it that guessed I was Richard?)

Nonny said...

"You bring up your cavalier statements about the 'low' American death toll in Iraq. Well nonny, you go and speak to the families of veterans and let them know that their sacrifice is no skin off your back."

PSA, I see you're insisting on bringing up the topic as a way to deflect my presentation of evidence of your ... dishonesty in cherry-picking quotes. You haven't gotten away with it, but ... whatever.

What you have demonstrated is the time-worn debating style of personalizing an argument.

I have no interest in defending myself against charges that I don't care about a soldier's death and pain it causes to his family. Why state my feelings on this when such feelings are perfectly human and universal? Do you think you are somehow unique in this regard because YOU personally have a military member in your family? What family does not, for crying out loud? Just as you attacked anon. for his perceived lack of caring about cancer sufferers because YOU had a mother who suffered from a deadly and painful disease, you think your personaly knowing someone makes you some kind of moral arbiter. Whatever makes you think I don't know soldiers who have fought a died in their service? Why would that make any difference anyway? I have empathy. I don't need to be a soldier myself to know how they would feel or their loved ones would feel.

Well, its not all about you and it's not all about how YOU think I should express my emotions to YOU. That I fail to give the required liberal disclaimer that "of course it's a tragedy that so many young lives have been lost and so many patents are mourning the deaths of their children, but ...." Making such statement is self-serving. For me to make it is a waste of time. Of course, I am saddened. Who wouldn't be? For you (or thwap or M@) to bring it up is just a cheap and cowardly debating tactic. Congratulations, though, on being such a caring and feeling human being. Really.

Well, I won't play the game. Make your accusations of my supposed lack of feeling. I don't care, because only I know how I feel.

As to Iraq ... well, let's just say I think I am right. OK? As to my accusation that you are the "enemy," let's just say that you are constructively on the side of America's enemies, in my opinion. As far as the many Americans who are against the war are concerned, let me say that I've read your blog, I have seen Ti-Guy's many comments, and I know most Americans do not agree with you. Wanting out of Iraq is not the same thing as being a rabid, left-wing, knee-jerk anti-American. I can tell the difference even if you cannot.

M@ said...

Make your accusations of my supposed lack of feeling.

Actually, no one was accusing you. We were pointing out that you admitted it. Bit of a difference, there.

I don't care, because only I know how I feel.

And how others feel. And what others are really thinking. As you've reminded us many times.

Wanting out of Iraq is not the same thing as being a rabid, left-wing, knee-jerk anti-American.

First intelligent thing you've said so--

I can tell the difference even if you cannot.

-- oh, wait. Maybe not.

Ti-Guy said...

Ti-Guy, keep guessing.

The obsessiveness, the crack about Tourette's, the sadism, the psycho-sexual hysteria at the mere mention of the word "cunt"...

If I'm wrong, I can't be faulted. There are 15% of 300 million people who are just like you, after all. You remember the 15% statistic, I'm sure...

Anonymous said...

Nonny, Nonny, Nonny.
Your shtick went out with my old mormon aunt when she died of the uglies.