{"id":35,"date":"2014-07-11T07:24:41","date_gmt":"2014-07-11T14:24:41","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/coppercommando.com\/?p=35"},"modified":"2014-07-11T07:24:41","modified_gmt":"2014-07-11T14:24:41","slug":"its-only-been-a-day-and-don-pogreba-has-a-hard-on-for-us","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/www.coppercommando.com\/?p=35","title":{"rendered":"It’s Only Been a Day and Don Pogreba has a Hard-On For Us"},"content":{"rendered":"

It seems we have ruffled the liberal feathers of Dan Pogreba<\/a> (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.<\/p>\n

Let us start with the post titled “Oh Look! Another Dying Anonymous Conservative Montana Blog (Or Two)<\/a>“. 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<\/a>), or …\u00a0we ran out of examples as the next few pages of Pogie’s\u00a0blog 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.”<\/p>\n

We thought the scuffle\u00a0might end there but it seems Pogie found the energy\u00a0to write an essay<\/a> for a blog he earlier (and prematurely) called dead. \u00a0We’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.<\/p>\n

There\u2019s 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Privacy isn’t a recent revelation for the party. \u00a0Representative Daniel Zolnikov presented an excellent,\u00a0albeit ambitious, bill to add privacy protections for Montana Citizens<\/a>. \u00a0Please note that Representative Zolnikov introduced the bill text on 02\/06\/2013, whereas Edword Snowden hadn’t leaked any documents until 06\/05\/2013<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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\u2019re not concerned about.<\/p>\n

First, that these \u201cyoung guns\u201d are in a party that doesn\u2019t 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\u2019t 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.+<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Grab a pitchfork, for the pretty prose is a pile of bullshit waiting to be moved.<\/p>\n

Starting form the top; Advocating for privacy makes us privileged? \u00a0Privacy is included in the United Nations\u00a0Universal Declaration of Human Rights<\/a>. \u00a0We as Americans have a constitutional right to privacy<\/a>. \u00a0Privacy is seen as a basic human right and we advocate for ALL humans right to live their life free from unnecessary intrusion. \u00a0Why do you keep saying we don’t care about the “rights of women and others”? \u00a0Don’t you feel a tad presumptuous, pretentious,\u00a0and\/or pompous for your wrong and generalized statements? \u00a0We ask these questions rhetorically because we know you cannot answer with\u00a0substantive answers, only shrill rhetoric.<\/p>\n

It’s early in your post, but at this point\u00a0we’d like to call you out for having arguments all over the place. \u00a0If you’re going to attack someone at least lay your thoughts out logically so we can write an accurate response. \u00a0In one sentence you attack us as if we embodied the worst portions of our party \u00a0(see Big Tent Politics<\/a>). You cover:\u00a0gay marriage, racial profiling, and assume we hate on “communities”. \u00a0Pick a topic.<\/p>\n

Most troublingly, they repeatedly diminish the importance of privacy rights on the health of women.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

What? \u00a0We looked at our blog and couldn’t find the words women, woman, or womyn anywhere. Also, now you’re a fan of privacy? \u00a0Earlier you called us “privileged” for advocating for universal privacy and now suddenly you’re the hero of women’s privacy? \u00a0Let us slip on some flip flops<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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:<\/p>\n

women\u2019s (or do you prefer to spell it womyn?) rights isn\u2019t really germane to our post. We aren\u2019t really saying it isn\u2019t important, but it is shoddy commentary that works to distract the reader and create a talking point where there doesn\u2019t need to be.
\nIt takes a stunning degree of self-important privilege to argue that privacy rights for women seeking access to healthcare is a \u201ctalking point\u201d 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\u2019re 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Seriously Pogie, you keep jumping to privacy rights for women\u00a0when we were talking about technology privacy, a la illegal NSA surveillance. \u00a0We\u00a0have never written anything\u00a0about a woman’s right to privacy for or against. Saying something isn’t germane is not equivalent to saying it is unimportant. \u00a0You seem to jump at any opportunity to expel\u00a0liberal diatribe. \u00a0As for our spelling of woman, you got us, we were making fun of you using the feminist spelling.<\/a><\/p>\n

We’re skipping a few sections as it seems Pogie just likes repeating himself. \u00a0[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”]<\/p>\n

Bro, it\u2019s 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\u2019t important or worthy of discussion is simply meant to camouflage the truth: the so-called champions of privacy in the Montana Republican Party don\u2019t believe in autonomy for Montana\u2019s women\u2014and certainly don\u2019t believe in their right to privacy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Broseph Stalin, it’s really upsetting that you’re an emotional political hack<\/a>. Thanks Pogie for letting us know how much you care about women’s privacy. \u00a0We do too. \u00a0We also care that our government is illegally spying on US citizens domestically. \u00a0We wrote on the latter and you chose to make it a commentary on the former. \u00a0Next time you write on Zinke, as you’re prone to do,\u00a0we’ll pick a related yet arbitrary topic and have another go with you. \u00a0In the meanwhile our only request is that you walk over to a history class and take a seat. \u00a0It seems you have an issue preferring self invented generalizations versus researched facts.
\n* It was a tossup between dropping some Twain or getting biblical up in here. For those who prefer\u00a0scripture\u00a0references please see Proverbs 26:4<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-35","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-uncategorized"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.coppercommando.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.coppercommando.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.coppercommando.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.coppercommando.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.coppercommando.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=35"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"http:\/\/www.coppercommando.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/35\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"http:\/\/www.coppercommando.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=35"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.coppercommando.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=35"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"http:\/\/www.coppercommando.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=35"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}