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.