Bad Blog: Comments From Left Field

"Kathy" is one of the main contributors to a trending liberal blog called "Comments from Left Field." Every so often I drop by there to see how liberals think, and to contribute to discussion threads. Unfortunately, it is all too apparent that I will have to keep searching for quality content from the left.

Not that I reached that conclusion only recently. But a recent exchange with Kathy on waterboarding provided such an astounding example of bankrupt thinking that I can't keep CFLF on the Sith blogroll at Sublime Bloviations, and moreover it is time to induct CFLF into the bad blogs list at Bad Blogs' Blood.

I found Kathy's approach to waterboarding typical of the left--in my experience, anyway--and therefore both fascinating and disturbing. Kathy thinks that waterboarding is obviously torture--and her opinion parallels Justice Potter Stewart's famous opinion on obscenity from Jacobellis v. Ohio: "I know it when I see it."

Having read the Bybee and Yoo memos, I was aware that the legal opinion on which the Bush administration relied rested largely on the distinction between "pain" and "extreme pain," the latter representing the concept stated in the Convention Against Torture. Kathy used the Convention Against Torture as her source for the definition of torture, but denied that the CAT definition was ambiguous.

Given the relatively obvious demarcation problem with the CAT definition, I asked Kathy how we should distinguish between "pain" and "extreme pain." Though her posts in the discussion thread contained many errors, her response to that query serves as a clear representation of why a blogging Kathy will serve primarily to uneducate people, and why CFLF belongs on the bad blogs list. At least if she sticks to politics and world events instead of something about which she possesses genuine knowledge.

Enjoy:

Bryan:

Where do we draw the line between “severe” and non-severe? Do you know, since you do not find it the least bit ambiguous?

Kathy:

Common sense, not to mention intellectual honesty, would tell you that severity of suffering is defined by what the victim is feeling, not by what the torturer thinks he is feeling, or decides he will feel if a particular torture is done in a particular way.

As well, common sense would tell you that if the victim is screaming, or crying, or begging for the torture to stop, severe suffering is taking place.

And common sense should tell you that intentionally drowning someone to the point of blacking out and/or death — much less doing it 83 times, or 183 times — will cause severe suffering.

Finally, common sense will tell you that if the purpose of subjecting a person to waterboarding, or to sleep deprivation, or to excruciating stress positions, or to exploitation of phobias, is to force the victim to comply with your request for information or answers to specific questions, then the suffering really should probably be severe, since mild discomfort is probably not going to do the trick.

And yes, all of this IS obvious. Or should be, to a minimally intelligent and reasonable person.

So much so, in fact, that I feel I’ve entered some Alice in Wonderland world just by answering these questions.

Which is why I won’t, anymore.

I expect that most people who seriously follow the news would realize that legal standards based on subjective impressions pose a difficulty. I knew no other way to take a standard based on "what the victim is feeling, not what the torturer thinks he is feeling, or decides he will feel if a particular torture is done in a particular way."

Isn't that type of subjectivity the perfect vehicle for a prisoner lawsuit alleging that confinement apart from his terrorist allies produces intolerable psychological pain? How is one to properly serve Allah as a proper extremist if he is prevented from killing infidels? I chose to illustrate the absurdity of Kathy's position by showing her to be a torturer of the worst sort. In my reply, I complained that Kathy was torturing me.

But that wasn't the end of it, of course. Kathy provided the tools to make a strong case against her. After all, it is the victim's impression of suffering that serves to indicate the degree of torture, not the expectation of the torturer. Kathy's own rationale silenced her objections.

True to form, however, Kathy had somewhat contradicted herself. Though the suffering victim of torture is the arbiter of the degree of torture in her view, "common sense" was supposed to inform us that suffering accompanied by various behaviors of the sufferer would indicate to observers (perhaps even the torturer?--I didn't get around to asking that of Kathy) that the physical or mental pain was "severe pain" rather than mere potentially legal "pain."

It was clear what I had to do. I hit the "Caps Lock" key and begged Kathy to stop torturing me.

I figured I had an airtight case according to Kathy's logic. She didn't mount much of a defense.

Bryan: PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE STOP, KATHY!

Dang. You’re guilty.

And you, Bryan, are an idiot. Draw whatever conclusions you wish: I am through here.

So, Kathy's mental assessment of the legal definition of torture amounts to "It's obvious" or "I know it when I see it." And when called on her shallow-as-a-Slip 'n Slide definition of torture, she reverts to ad hominem and avoidance.

And without a deeper rationale than "It's obvious," there is no way to reason the issue. Sadly.

***

The above portion of the induction ceremony was crossposted to Sublime Bloviations.


Let it be acknowledged that "Kathy" is not the only blogger who posts at Comments From Left Field. But if Kathy's political blogging did not have the effect of lowering a reader's IQ, then other CFLF bloggers such as the ne'er-do-well Tas or the foul-keyboarded "mattbastard" could easily justify adding CFLF to the Bad Blogs' Blood bad blogs blogroll.

Let it be so.

Comedy Gold: Chris Crawford at the CFI discussion forum

The Center for Inquiry discussion board is primarily populated by humanists and skeptics.

Chris Crawford decided months ago to put my posts on ignore. But he can view the response of others to my posts.

And that's where the hilarity emerges. CFI has a policy against engaging in gratuitous personal attacks.

Take it away, Chris!

I realize that I am usurping the responsibilities of our moderators, but I desire to register my objection to the personal nature of your post, Vyazma. While I refuse to interact with Bryan for reasons parallel to your own, I nevertheless feel that this kind of talk lowers the standards of discourse in our little community. I realize that it is frustrating to deal with intellectual dishonesty, but the only civilized option available to you is to ignore Bryan. When I first came here, I engaged Bryan honestly and fairly, and after much wasted effort I realized that honest discussion with Bryan is impossible. I therefore terminated all interaction with him. I recommend that same course of action to you.
(CFI discussion board)

While it's funny enough that Crawford engages in his own personal attack against me (the liar with whom honest discussion is not possible!), the reaction thus far at the forum compounds the comedy. Crawford apparently managed to successfully get his personal attack under the noses of the moderators, but they dutifully removed the post about which he complained.

"Pushing Rope" or "Pushing Dope"?

Blogger Michael Hussey at "Pushing Rope" apparently felt himself vindicated now that the housing bubble has burst, since he was saying that it had burst back in 2006. While 2006 did eventually produce evidence that the housing bubble had popped, Hussey's analysis exhibited no basis in fact while the evidence at the time showed a mere decrease in the rise in home prices.

Hussey even performs plastic surgery on the past in the attempt to improve his looks:

Bryan continues to argue the 2006 housing market was fantastic.

"Do you read your links?"

Of course. What part did you quote that you think translates into the housing market having popped?
The part about decreased confidence about the future?
Does "downward momentum" mean slowing price gains or decreasing prices?

Do you just read into stuff what you want to see, or what?

In 2006, I saw Florida in economic trouble. Bryan, I could ask you if you saw what you wanted to see. But that would be a pointless rhetorical question.

When a person is so illogical that he takes from my comments that the Florida housing market in 2006 was "fantastic" there's little point in trying to use reason. A drop in the rise in prices does not indicate a "fantastic" market for either buyers or sellers. A drop in prices would at least indicate a potentially fantastic market for buyers, but that hadn't happened yet. In short, Hussey lies about what I wrote through the power of ignorance (assuming that it wasn't a lie of the willful type).

With analysis like that, the rope Hussey's pushing might as well be THC-rich hemp.

The curse of being "left" brained, Part 2

Updating the hilarious antics of Kathy (of Comments from Left Field) as noted in my previous BBB post, we find Kathy first insisting that she answered my question, and then reversing herself by claiming that there was no reason to address the question.



Just in case the exchange is tough to read from the screen capture I'll transcribe it minus the wisdom of "Chief":

Bryan: Huh. Kathy didn't answer the question again. The start of a pattern?

Kathy: I answered the question, Bryan. You just don't like the answer.

Bryan: Uh, Kathy, you conspicuously avoided the subject of journalism and whether or not it was your intent to support Hinderaker’s argument. Instead you tried to take issue with whether or not pictures showing progress in Iraq, such as the ones I suggested, would show Iraq as something other than hell.

There’s nothing to like or dislike about your “answer” unless it’s the relative distance from the questions that were asked.

Kathy: Bryan, why would I address the question of whether or not it was my intent to support Hinderaker’s argument? That is *your* spin on what I wrote, *your* way of justifying your position. It’s not something I need to respond to, as if it were a serious point.

Bryan: So since it’s something you didn’t need to respond to were you just being funny when you said you answered the question?
Great stuff, Kathy. I look forward to more.

The curse of being "left" brained

Bad Blogs' Blood hasn't been as active lately because I simply haven't had the time to seek out blogs with the idea of featuring them here. So this blog has evolved into a place where I can dissect commentary from various blogs that I visit, along with potentially inducting the worst blogs into the BBB blogroll of shame.

I very recently put "Comments from Left Field" on the Sith Blogroll over at the Sublime Bloviations blog, and it wasn't long before I recognized that the inimitable Tas blogs there on occasion. Not exactly an equivalent to the Good Housekeeping Seal, if you know what I mean.

So, though I continue to admire the fervor with which the left fielders do their work, some of the commentary is going to end up here.

Blogger "Kathy" responded to a Power Line post regarding the shrinking coverage of the Iraq War. Kathy took issue with John Hinderaker's post ...

What’s truly astounding is that John can put out, and believe, this “no more tears formula” packaging of the war despite the fact that powerful evidence to the contrary is staring him right in the face, at the top of the article, right below the headline. Indeed, John had to scroll down, below that graphic visual evidence, to even begin reading the text of the article. You can’t see the first line of text without scrolling down.

I don't know how Kathy got the impression of a "no more tears formula" for reporting on the war. Hinderaker's point was that the mainstream media prefer to either report with tears on full blast or not report at all. Perhaps Kathy is "left" brained and that explains the odd interpretation. She triumphantly points out to that willfully blind Hinderaker that the story has a picture of tragedy included--how dare he infer that the reporting of the war has gone happy?

I replied in the "comments":

Are you trying to prove Hinderaker’s point, Kathy? That the Times can’t be bothered to publish anything that doesn’t carry the stain of failure attached?

There are plenty of pictures of success. Markets in Basra, Baghdad and even Kirkuk operating like normal everyday markets. Former Sunni insurgents gainfully employed in keeping security in their provinces–fighting al Qaida. Iraq poised to secure oil deals that will help ensure a national income to enable investment in infrastructure–investment severely neglected for thirty years (since Hussein began pouring resources into the Iran-Iraq War–with only a tiny respite between that and the invasion of Kuwait). The Times has access to the traditional defense. Violence sells papers. Stories about happy Iraqi markets do not. The fact that heavy reporting on the success in Iraq would not help Obama is just gravy.

And Kathy worked up a reply (of sorts) of her own:

That market in Baghdad — would that be the same one that David Petraeus drove through in an open unarmed Hummer? Or is it the one that John McCain strolled through in a bullet-proof jacket surrounded by armed troops with helicopters hovering overhead, as he told us that any of us Americans could walk around there without fear?

Gainfully employed? By whom? I guess they must have worked those problems with the U.S. not paying them.

I’m sure you remember that Hussein had a lot of help from the U.S. with those resources he poured into the Iran-Iraq war. Oh, and about the infrastructure: It has been neglected, but not for 30 years. It was fine before 1991, when the U.S. destroyed it in the Gulf War, and over the next 12 years of almost continuous bombing raids. Funny, not much has been done with that infrastructure in the past five years, either. Saddam, as you’ll recall quit his job in 2003.

One final note: Happy Iraqi markets are nice, but they are no substitute for clean water, food, a home, and friends and relatives who aren’t dead. Pictures of happy Iraqi markets make Americans like you happy, but if you were an Iraqi living in Iraq day to day, and having gone through the last five years of war and occupation (not to mention the more than a decade of killer sanctions before that, and before THAT the Gulf War) you would know that Iraq is not a happy place overall. In fact, overall, Iraq is hell.

One should first note that Kathy doesn't answer either of my questions and completely drops the issue of the journalistic coverage of Iraq. That's amazing in and of itself, but there's more amazing stuff there which I will address paragraph by paragraph.

1) I mention markets in three major cities, and Kathy wonders if they are the same market that Petraeus visited (or McCain in armor). I guess Kathy's point is that danger continues in Iraq. Fair point, as far as it goes, but it can't blunt the fact that the markets are operating normally now whereas they formerly did not. Spell that p-r-o-g-r-e-s-s, Kathy.

2) The U.S. is paying the former Sunni insurgents. Kathy apparently seizes on reports like this one (from Feb 200i) in The Washington Post to give her continued hope in failure. Kathy is the sort of person who concludes that a big prison break in Kandahar is a pretty sure sign of a Taliban comeback, mind you.

3) Kathy thinks that Hussein got scads of help from the U.S. during the Iran-Iraq War. That's a common misconception. She also thinks that somehow while Iraq was fighting for its continued existence against Iran and having millions of its people killed that somehow there were plenty of resources with which to sustain Iraq's infrastructure. Oh the wonders of a "left" brain.

It is a curious paradox that chronically indebted and with much of its infrastructure in ruins, Iraq emerged from the war a far more substantial military power than when it invaded Iran in September 1980.
(Amazon.com)

Iraq, as I noted in my comments, had a short period (about three years) to repair infrastructure before the Kuwait invasion and the Gulf War. Kathy is misinformed on this point. She also complains that not much has been done to help the infrastructure since the more recent invasion. On the contrary, much has been done but much has been lost because of insurgent attacks that particularly target oil pipelines and the power grid. In the "left" brain those insurgent attacks are directly the fault of the United States, I suspect. Uh--"almost continuous bombing raids"? Whatever. Hussein steered excess cash into sustaining his personal lifestyle and his armies instead of using it to rebuild infrastructure. He was intent on holding onto his power even if his people had to suffer for it. Again, the "left" brain may well see that as the natural outworking of U.S. policy.

4) In her last paragraph, Kathy essentially repeats her point from her first paragraph that Iraq is still in bad shape. Iraq may be "hell," as Kathy puts it, but it's getting better all the time since the surge strategy was implemented. For Kathy, that probably means it's time to sound the horns of retreat--and probably any reason would be good enough for that for one with a "left" powered brain such as hers.

Another "Ramblings" update then on to other things

The most recent post over at "Ramblings" helps confirm that Fran doesn't have more than a rudimentary clue about the oil economy. Big oil company profits when the price of oil spikes supposedly indicates that the war in Iraq was the idea of the oil companies. I wonder how the face of the nation would change if voters had to get a passing grade on an oil economy test? Could Dennis Kucinich get a single vote?

The bad content remains the secondary issue with this blog, however. The outstanding problem remains the nutty handling of commentary. I think I've figured out what it takes to have a comment stick, however, by using a carefully graduated string of responses. Red will indicate that the post was removed. Green will indicate apparent acceptance of the comment.

I remain curious about tension between letting the Iraqis settle things themselves and sending in foreign peacekeepers who are not us (U.S.). I'm also sincerely interested in any plausible evidence that apologizing is a useful foreign policy technique.
(screenshot of the post before it was removed)

Apparently too inflammatory, so I went for something shorter more along the lines of objective reporting the next time.

Democrats in Congress would have tabled Kucinich's bill if not for Republican support.
(screenshot of the post before it was removed)

Not the kind of truth Fran wants in front of the eyes of her readers, evidently.
I decided to drift to the other side of neutrality.

What a nice post.
(screenshot taken shortly after posting)

Bingo! It's been up ever since (and remains as of this writing).


I didn't sink to facetiousness, either. Fran's post was a respectful and relatively even-handed entry about a war memorial. Unfortunately the blog remains crap, on balance.

Maybe it'll improve with time (cue Wayne Campbell's infamous phrase).

"Ramblings" update

Fran offered another example of her zeal to suppress. This one is especially funny.

Fran and company wonder how vets can warrant arrest for disrupting a veterans' ceremony. I supplied the answer with an explanation rooted in legal precedent.



But by the next day the information was gone. Can't have people knowing what the law says about it, can we?




The last post (as of this moment) by "Spadoman" allowed this to tumble from both sides of his mouth:

It is wrong to disallow a faction, especially Veterans on Veterans Day, because they carry a message different than the organizers intended. On the other hand, what did the organizers intend? I believe the Veterans for Peace also have the right to organize a parade. Getting permits would be the problem.

Maybe they're close to figuring it out on their own, now (assuming they're not pretending to have it figured out based on what I already told them!

Let's say they organize a World Peace parade and one of the factions in favor of World Peace wants peace via military jihad? And they stand in front of the podium while the event organizers are trying to do their thing?

Of course my favorite part is host Fran asking "No dissent allowed?" right before she quashes ... well, not dissent exactly. She just quashes the voice she doesn't want to hear, apparently irrespective of content.

Hold the fanfare, just a quick and utilitarian induction ceremony

I've visited some appallingly bad blogs over the years. Perhaps only the sands of time protect some of them from BBB induction. But this morning's induction stands as perhaps the saddest thus far. While visiting the blog "Ramblings" as hosted by "Fran" I experienced craven commentary management that I haven't seen since the Amanda Marcotte moment.

Not that the regulation of commentary is the only weakness of this blog. The opinions, protected from intellectual insight just as effectively as they are protected from outside criticism, represent the type of thing that results in the worst liberal stereotypes.

But the screening of commentary does serve as the overriding reason for BBB induction.

A blogger who won't tolerate a one-sentence statement of fact (with accompanying URL) is pathetic in a sobering way. No fanfare. This one calls for a dirge.

BBB welcomes Ramblings to its blogroll of dishonor.

Read the history here and here if you're interested.