It’s Only Been a Day and Don Pogreba has a Hard-On For Us

It seems we have ruffled the liberal feathers of Dan Pogreba (henceforth lovingly referred to as “Pogie”) with our recent writings. Initially we planned on adhering to the advice in Mark Twain’s quote “never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference”*, but we felt it necessary to call out some of the more egregious assertions of dear Pogie.

Let us start with the post titled “Oh Look! Another Dying Anonymous Conservative Montana Blog (Or Two)“. The authors drivel begins with the assertion we are “anonymous, fact-free, and likely short-lived” going on to state “these young guns are more interested in protecting the privacy of their cell phones than the privacy of women seeking medical care should come as no surprise.”. We can ignore the opening potshot against our blog; its the non sequitur comment on women seeking medical care which baffles us. We have never written on women’s health nor was it topical to the post — yet somehow Pogie found cause to make this an issue. Perhaps he’s also angry at us not writing about how underfunded mental health is, or the Billings NDO ordinance being pushed by Hilltop Public Solutions, or our thoughts on a top two primary (wait, we have written on this), or … we ran out of examples as the next few pages of Pogie’s blog turn into a Zinke-hating, John Lewis Bromance. Our point is, Pogie’s non sequitur made no sense, and we commented on his blog saying the following: “Regarding our comment on privacy, we’re simply asking that there be an option for Montana citizens to operate in the 21st century while still being afforded the societal respect of privacy. Your following comment regarding women’s (or do you prefer to spell it womyn?) rights isn’t really germane to our post. We aren’t really saying it isn’t important, but it is shoddy commentary that works to distract the reader and create a talking point where there doesn’t need to be.”

We thought the scuffle might end there but it seems Pogie found the energy to write an essay for a blog he earlier (and prematurely) called dead.  We’re going to post a section of his writing and our thoughts while doing our best to not insult Pogie’s lack of journalistic research skills.

There’s been nothing more amusing in recent American politics than the effort of some Republicans to position themselves as champions of privacy. Only after the deeply unpopular revelations about the NSA became public, and during the Obama Administration, not before, did Republicans decide that privacy, something often mocked as not worthy of constitutional protection by the GOP, was an issue they believed in.

Privacy isn’t a recent revelation for the party.  Representative Daniel Zolnikov presented an excellent, albeit ambitious, bill to add privacy protections for Montana Citizens.  Please note that Representative Zolnikov introduced the bill text on 02/06/2013, whereas Edword Snowden hadn’t leaked any documents until 06/05/2013.

The truth, unfortunately, is that these calls for privacy reflect the privileged worldview of a party not interested in the rights of women and others they’re not concerned about.

First, that these “young guns” are in a party that doesn’t believe people should be able to enter into private relationships with the person they love or that racial profiling is immoral seems not to trouble these privacy champions, who are more concerned that they have the right to Snapchat than protecting liberties that are threatened every day in communities they just don’t care about. Want to defend the right to privacy in America? Instead of worrying about the NSA intercepting information about your next Young Guns meeting, real advocates of privacy should spend their energy fighting for privacy rights that are often literally questions of life and death.+

Grab a pitchfork, for the pretty prose is a pile of bullshit waiting to be moved.

Starting form the top; Advocating for privacy makes us privileged?  Privacy is included in the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights.  We as Americans have a constitutional right to privacy.  Privacy is seen as a basic human right and we advocate for ALL humans right to live their life free from unnecessary intrusion.  Why do you keep saying we don’t care about the “rights of women and others”?  Don’t you feel a tad presumptuous, pretentious, and/or pompous for your wrong and generalized statements?  We ask these questions rhetorically because we know you cannot answer with substantive answers, only shrill rhetoric.

It’s early in your post, but at this point we’d like to call you out for having arguments all over the place.  If you’re going to attack someone at least lay your thoughts out logically so we can write an accurate response.  In one sentence you attack us as if we embodied the worst portions of our party  (see Big Tent Politics). You cover: gay marriage, racial profiling, and assume we hate on “communities”.  Pick a topic.

Most troublingly, they repeatedly diminish the importance of privacy rights on the health of women.

What?  We looked at our blog and couldn’t find the words women, woman, or womyn anywhere. Also, now you’re a fan of privacy?  Earlier you called us “privileged” for advocating for universal privacy and now suddenly you’re the hero of women’s privacy?  Let us slip on some flip flops.

Consider this. When I called out the latest manifestation of anonymous Republican bloggery for its failure to consider the rights of women, I received this response:

women’s (or do you prefer to spell it womyn?) rights isn’t really germane to our post. We aren’t really saying it isn’t important, but it is shoddy commentary that works to distract the reader and create a talking point where there doesn’t need to be.
It takes a stunning degree of self-important privilege to argue that privacy rights for women seeking access to healthcare is a “talking point” less deserving of protection than the right of a conservative to use his GPS to plan his next trip to a frat party. To discuss the rights of women is not a distraction, not a talking point, but critically important, as those rights are under siege in the United States today: mainstream Republican candidates for President questioned the Griswold decision that allowed women to access birth control; Republican Congressmen and legislators are working to make contraception methods illegal and criminalize miscarriages; Montana Republican legislators are pushing for laws to mandate invasive ultrasounds before women can seek abortions. Hell, they’re celebrating a Supreme Court decision that lets massive corporations decide what medication and health services a woman should be able to access with her insurance.

Seriously Pogie, you keep jumping to privacy rights for women when we were talking about technology privacy, a la illegal NSA surveillance.  We have never written anything about a woman’s right to privacy for or against. Saying something isn’t germane is not equivalent to saying it is unimportant.  You seem to jump at any opportunity to expel liberal diatribe.  As for our spelling of woman, you got us, we were making fun of you using the feminist spelling.

We’re skipping a few sections as it seems Pogie just likes repeating himself.  [ed: Dear God I hope this last comment isn’t seen as “making woman’s privacy issues second” or “Now we’re ignoring the issue”]

Bro, it’s really upsetting that some communities might put up traffic cameras to stop speeding. I agree with you about that. But to argue that the core battle over privacy in the United States over the past forty years isn’t important or worthy of discussion is simply meant to camouflage the truth: the so-called champions of privacy in the Montana Republican Party don’t believe in autonomy for Montana’s women—and certainly don’t believe in their right to privacy.

Broseph Stalin, it’s really upsetting that you’re an emotional political hack. Thanks Pogie for letting us know how much you care about women’s privacy.  We do too.  We also care that our government is illegally spying on US citizens domestically.  We wrote on the latter and you chose to make it a commentary on the former.  Next time you write on Zinke, as you’re prone to do, we’ll pick a related yet arbitrary topic and have another go with you.  In the meanwhile our only request is that you walk over to a history class and take a seat.  It seems you have an issue preferring self invented generalizations versus researched facts.
* It was a tossup between dropping some Twain or getting biblical up in here. For those who prefer scripture references please see Proverbs 26:4

12 comments

  1. I am neither Democrat or Republican, but I repeat myself. I’ve long wondered how the Republican Party hangs on – it’s a ragtag coalition and has only survived due to the cunning and craft of its PR people. they have pulled rabbits out of the hat, aligning the party with Christian fundamentalists and segregationists and playing wedge issue to the hilt.

    But I like the sound of your words here, as you seem to want to appeal to some basic conservative ideals, privacy just one. I’d add an end to aggressive wars, fiscal sanity, leaving people alone everywhere, changing only slowly and with great caution, and end to “free trade” and other cloaks for imperialism … I feel more conservative than liberal, and wish there were an American political party that espoused conservative notions.

    I would only distance myself it’s conservative ideas on taxation, as I think it must be progressive and steep and that estates must be broken up to preserve self-governance. That’s a serious difference, but otherwise I think there is a great opportunity for a Conservative party in this country. Ross Perot tapped the vein and then left it cold.

    You’re wasting your time with Pogie. He’s impenetrable. He’ll harp on one point, never letting go, until he drives you to distraction.

  2. IMHO, Don is not ruffled. He is toying with you. Your rebuttal belongs at his blog. Aspire to keep your blog classy, relevant, and on the issues..

    1. One thing more perhaps consider giving a nod back to James Connor since he welcomed you at his blog.

  3. I’ll try again.

    Does the right to privacy guarantee the right to seek an abortion? Pretty straightforward question for champions of privacy, I’d think.

  4. Hey, welcome, rightwing wacko dudes! Please DO stick around. And I’ll post here if you let me, for I like to have fun too! I would recommend that you allow anyone to post. Prohibiting the free-for -all give and take is what kills blogs. But IF you allow all comments that aren’t libelous or threatening, your readership will greatly increase! I know. I’ve done this for a long time now.

    Ya know, there is a lot of wisdom in the ordinary citizenry out there. Give them a voice whether you agree with what they say or not. I have been kicked off every blog in Montana now at least once, but still, many people like what I have to say.

    So I say a hearty welcome to you, rightwing wacko dudes! So far, I have seen you post nothing too offensive. Put it out there and let us take a shot at you. That’s the ONLY way to have a serious discussion and flesh out ideas. Welcome to the sphere, the BLOGO sphere! I look forward to shredding your arguments and watching you shrink from the field of battle!

    1. Sorry for the late approval Larry. We’re a bit slow on approving comments and will work to fix that. Thanks for the welcome!

  5. Anything or anyone who doesn’t have a (D) behind their name ruffles Pogie’s feathers.

    But after a person kicks sand in his face a thousand times it gets a little boring.

    You’re better off ignoring him – LOL

  6. Thank you all for your comments. Expect this to be one of the few writings on this blog directly engaging with Don or other Liberal bloggers. We felt a rebuttal was due, but have since realized we like George Carlins quote relating to this situation the best, “Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” Your comments are heard and we will go back to writing our thoughts on the party/issues versus wandering into the already full arena of hacks shouting at each other.

    1. Marcus, your insult directed to Don was unnecessary, and possibly very counterproductive. He is many things, but an idiot and a hack he is not. Given your defensive reaction, look for further posts at lib sites mocking you. Thicken your hide.

    2. Still haven’t decided if the collective believes that abortion is protected by privacy rights? It makes sense that all you’ve got is ad hominem attacks.

      1. The Supreme Court used that argument in it’s Roe v. Wade decision, but I think it was an overreach – as Justice Rehnquist said;
        “To reach its result, the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment.”

        1. Thanks Eric, you said what I was thinking. How did abortion ever become legal under the heading of right to privacy? The child should have the right to live, and that should trump any and all other rights.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *