evading-responsibility : Duthie On...

In answer to a request from a Democrat in western Pennsylvania to "stop these abortions," Obama reportedly said:

"Look, I got two daughters — 9 years old and 6 years old," he said. "I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby. I don't want them punished with an STD at age 16, so it doesn't make sense to not give them information."

"punished with a baby?" Could it be, perhaps, that part of the reason folks like Obama and his ilk find abortion acceptable is that they're able to say such a thing out loud? Babies are not punishment, nor are they fashion accessories, nor mere inconveniences to be swept away when someone "make[s] a mistake." If Obama thinks it's unfair to "punish" his daughters with a baby for making a mistake (I'm guessing the mistake in Obama's book is in not using protection, as opposed to, I don't know, choosing abstinence), why is it that he feels it's OK to punish the baby with death?

And what does it say for Obama's trust in his daughters (or lack thereof) that he does not believe that he can teach them to refrain from sex in their teens? That he's really concerned about them getting a sexually transmitted disease at age 16?

Beyond that, I'm not aware of any abstinence-only sex ed program anywhere that prevents parents from giving their children whatever information about sex they believe is appropriate. There's no state compulsion preventing you from "giv[ing] them information." Unlike other sex ed programs, which may or may not provide the option for parents to opt out their kids if they disapprove of the curriculum. Funny how the Democrats claim to be pro-choice, except when the choice in question conflicts with the indoctrination or program they want.

Lastly I can't help but be appalled at all of the commenters falling all over themselves congratulating Obama on his great answer to the question. So full of nuance. Sad.

Ben Smith's Blog - Politico.com

So the Pentagon released a report that says, among other things:

One question remains regarding Iraq’s terrorism capability: Is there anything in the captured archives to indicate that Saddam had the will to use his terrorist capabilities directly against United States? Judging from examples of Saddam’s statements (Extract 34) before the 1991 Gulf War with the United tates, the answer is yes.

In the years between the two Gulf Wars, UN sanctions reduced Saddam’s ability to shape regional and world events, steadily draining his military, economic, and military powers. The rise of Islamist fundamentalism in the region gave Saddam the opportunity to make terrorism, one of the few tools remaining in Saddam’s “coercion” toolbox, not only cost effective but a formal instrument of state power. Saddam nurtured this capability with an infrastructure supporting (1) his own particular brand of state terrorism against internal and external threats, (2) the state sponsorship of suicide operations, and (3) organizational relationships and “outreach programs” for terrorist groups. Evidence that was uncovered and analyzed attests to the existence of a terrorist capability and a willingness to use it until the day Saddam was forced to flee Baghdad by Coalition forces.

The New York Times headline, meanwhile, says of the report:

Study Finds No Qaeda-Hussein Tie

Of course, the first line of the article qualifies the headline significantly:

There was no direct operational connection between Saddam Hussein’s government and Al Qaeda before the war in Iraq, says a Pentagon-sponsored study.

The study, meanwhile, found clear connections between Saddam Hussein's IIS security organization and, among others, Egyptian Islamic Jihad, which was run by none other than al Qaeda #2 Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Seems appropriate somehow for the media to be in such denial about the truth of Saddam's support for terrorists, given that denial's not just a river in Egypt.

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Saddam supported at least two al-Qaeda groups: Pentagon Update: What it means

Wow...this just completely turns reality on its head: 

Aug. 22, 2007. Elvira Arellano speaks to the Mexican Congress about her deportation from the United States. Elvira claims the U.S. broke that law first by 'allowing' illegal immigrants to pay taxes.

She may be a senora rather than a senor, but she still has major cojones.

LiveLeak.com - Elvira Arellano Says U.S. 'Broke The Law First'

If only we had effective duct tape laws, this tragedy could have been avoided:

Robbery is a serious problem for retail stores across our region. But the employees of Shamrock Liquors in Ashland, Kentucky, can't stop laughing about what happened last Friday at the store along 13th street.

Police say Kasey Kazee walked in to the store with duct tape wrapped around his head to conceal his face.

What a sad case. Here's a tip, Kasey...if you're a moron you should avoid sticky substances, robbery, and above all, TV interviews.

I want to have some sympathy here, as I'm guessing he may really be a little on the slow side, but...nope. Just nothing there...it all evaporated when he paraded before the camera.

WSAZ - News

It's so hard to find good help any more. First The New Republic has difficulty finding a decent embed for Iraq, and now Reuters gets pwn3d by a 13 year-old kid:

The top-quality fact-checking that can only be achieved by large media corporations is on fine display today, as Reuters is caught by a 13-year old Finnish schoolboy representing still photos from the movie “Titanic” as pictures from the Russian North Pole expedition: Reuters gets that sinking feeling.

lgf: Reuters Busted by a 13-Year Old

Clearly, the network news folks need a remedial course on conducting intelligence gathering operations…either that, or they need to get out of the spy business.

Apparently, a reporter for NBC attempted to go undercover to secretly record attendees at the DefCon security conference, and apparently did so even after having been asked when she arrived if she wanted a press pass, or to review the rules and regs of the conference for press. She refused both, then excused herself to go to the bathroom and set up a pinhole camera in her purse, which she was later seen “panning…around the room.”

Nothing like a little subtlety to help you blend into the background, eh? Full story here:

http://blogs.pcworld.com/staffblog/archives/005078.html

Regardless of your opinion of such events, the reporter clearly broke the rules here, and did so in a pretty obvious way. The reporter got off pretty easy with just the humiliating escort out (which you can see in the video link in the above story).

And now that I think about it…wasn’t it NBC’s Dateline that was sued for fraud relating to their show about exploding GM pickup trucks. Oh yes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Journalistic_fraud#.22Waiting_to_Explode.22.2C_Dateline_NBC_.281992.29

Always good to see when people learn their lesson.

Today @ PC World Undercover Reporter Outed, Flees DefCon Conference

So The New Republic's anonymous correspondent from Iraq is no longer anonymous:

My Diarist, "Shock Troops," and the two other pieces I wrote for the New Republic have stirred more controversy than I could ever have anticipated. They were written under a pseudonym, because I wanted to write honestly about my experiences, without fear of reprisal. Unfortunately, my pseudonym has caused confusion. And there seems to be one major way in which I can clarify the debate over my pieces: I'm willing to stand by the entirety of my articles for the New Republic using my real name.

I am Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp, a member of Alpha Company, 1/18 Infantry, Second Brigade Combat Team, First Infantry Division.

My pieces were always intended to provide my discreet view of the war; they were never intended as a reflection of the entire U.S. Military. I wanted Americans to have one soldier's view of events in Iraq.

It's been maddening, to say the least, to see the plausibility of events that I witnessed questioned by people who have never served in Iraq. I was initially reluctant to take the time out of my already insane schedule fighting an actual war in order to play some role in an ideological battle that I never wanted to join. That being said, my character, my experiences, and those of my comrades in arms have been called into question, and I believe that it is important to stand by my writing under my real name.

--Private Scott Thomas Beauchamp

Neither Beauchamp's letter, nor TNR's accompanying statement, resolves the basic issue of credibility, however. Yes, it demonstrates that the correspondent is indeed a soldier serving in Iraq. But it does nothing to address the numerous questions about his reporting, including:

• The expert statements that driving a Bradley Fighting Vehicle in the way described by Beauchamp is essentially impossible
• The description, by Beauchamp, of a situation requiring soldiers to change a flat tire in a river of sewage, despite the fact that the only vehicles used by the military that have tires use run-flat tires so that they can be driven out of harm's way if necessary. One could be forgiven for assuming that any soldier would drive out of the sewage on the run-flat tire rather than change it in the muck.
• Beauchamp's description of a 9mm "shell casing" "with a square back," followed by a claim that only Glocks use such casings, and only the Iraqi police use Glocks. Not only has the existence of "square back" 9mm casings been widely disputed, but the notion that only the Iraqi police use Glocks doesn't pass the laugh test.

Perhaps even more importantly, Beauchamp doesn't address, nor does TNR ask him to, whether or not he reported the events he "witnessed" to the appropriate authorities. If he did not, why not? This question also goes unanswered. And given that most of his accounts have him participating in some of the abhorrent behavior he describes, why would we trust his account to be accurate? Someone willing to describe himself taunting and insulting a disfigured victim of an IED attack is hardly someone whose character I'd be willing to rely on.

So great, now we have an actual name...which should help resolve at least some of the questions above, since now other media outlets will be able to find and talk to his comrades-in-arms. And until we hear from them, it seems to me that it's a little early to be simply taking TNR or Beauchamp at their word that these stories are true.

The Plank via NRO Media Blog

So how hard was this to predict:

ALBANY, July 23 — Gov. Eliot Spitzer’s aides, including one of his closest advisers, improperly used the State Police to gather information about the governor’s chief rival, Joseph L. Bruno, the State Senate majority leader, in an effort to plant a negative story about Mr. Bruno and damage him politically, according to a report on Monday by the attorney general’s office.

Spitzer aides, chiefly his communications director, Darren Dopp, concocted a false story for why the information was being gathered, saying the governor’s office acted after receiving a press request seeking details of Mr. Bruno’s use of state aircraft, the report said.

...

And fallout from the report may endanger central elements of the agenda that Mr. Spitzer laid out at the beginning of his term. On Monday, some Republican officials signaled their intent to revisit a deal struck with the governor last week to overhaul the state’s campaign finance laws.

At a somber news conference Monday that had the air of a cross-examination — with Mr. Spitzer, a Democrat, in the unaccustomed role of defendant — the governor insisted that he knew nothing about the effort to damage Mr. Bruno, a Republican.

It's no surprise that Spitzer, famous for his by any means necessary style as Attorney General would use whatever power at his disposal to attack his political opponents. Nor is it surprising that he would seek to avoid responsibility by blaming aides for the misconduct. What's surprising is that anyone believes him.

And kudos to the NYT for reporting on this. Although I'm not a big fan of the Times, and continue to believe that they spend an inordinate amount of ink carrying water for Democrats, it's important that they're covering this story.

Spitzer Aides Cited for Use of Police to Tarnish Bruno - New York Times

Apparently, the U.N.'s idea of punishment for sex abuse by its peacekeepers is to send them home:

ABIDJAN, Cote d'Ivoire (Reuters) -- The United Nations said on Saturday it had suspended a Moroccan military contingent from its peacekeeping mission in Cote d'Ivoire while it investigated allegations of widespread sexual abuse.

"It means they don't participate in our operations," said Hamadoun Toure, spokesman for the U.N. mission in Cote d'Ivoire (ONUCI). "Those who are found guilty will be sent back home."

I suppose that beats allowing them to continue to sexually abuse those they are supposed to be protecting, but it's pretty typical of the U.N. to be too busy attacking the U.S. or Israel to be able to do anything serious about fraud and abuse in its ranks.

U.N. suspends peacekeepers amid sex abuse charges - CNN.com

If you haven't been keeping up with it, the New Republic is under fire for some stories that they published by "Scott Thomas," who's supposedly a soldier serving in Baghdad. Thomas recently wrote a piece called "Shock Troops" that described soldiers engaging in a variety of abhorrent behavior, from mocking a woman disfigured by an IED, to running down dogs with a Bradley Fighting Vehicle. The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb has kept an impressive roll call of the soldiers and bloggers calling BS on various parts of the story. One of the things he notes:

The blog at the American Spectator has some great stuff on "Shock Troops." John Tabin finds more suspect information in a previous story by "Scott Thomas". In his second piece for the New Republic titled "Dead of Night," "Thomas" had written,

Someone reached down and picked a shell casing up off the ground. It was 9mm with a square back. Everything suddenly became clear. The only shell casings that look like that belong to Glocks. And the only people who use Glocks are the Iraqi police.

Now I won't claim to be a firearms expert by any means, but it just so happens that I fired a Glock 9mm not two weeks ago at a pistol range, and unless my eyesight is completely busted, the shell casings were round. Given that I reloaded the magazine several times in a row, I'm pretty sure that's the case. Now I suppose it's possible that the Glock 9mm I rented was the round casing model, while the range keeps the square casing model for the more regular customers, but does anyone think that's the likeliest explanation?

The silence from TNR management, particularly given their past experiences with their staff making stuff up, is deafening.

The Weekly Standard

Bob Novak:

I never spoke to Armitage again about Wilson. But he acknowledged to me nearly three months later through his political adviser, lobbyist Ken Duberstein, that he was indeed the primary source for my information about Wilson's wife. Shortly thereafter, he secretly revealed his role to federal authorities investigating the leak of Mrs. Wilson's name but did not inform White House officials, apparently including the president.

After Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago named as a special prosecutor in the case, indicated to me he knew Armitage was my source, I cooperated fully with him. At the special prosecutor's request and on my lawyers' advice, I kept silent about this -- a silence that subjected me to much abuse. I was urged by several friends, including some journalists, to give up my source's name. But I felt bound by the journalist's code to protect his identity.

So now that the columnist whose column began the whole sordid affair that has resulted in the perjury conviction of Scooter Libby has publicly acknowledged what we've all known to be the truth for months, namely that Richard Armitage, not Scooter Libby, leaked Plame's name, and did so in a meeting that was scheduled before Joe Wilson's Times op-ed criticizing the administration appeared, can we expect the Left to drop the baseless assertion that Plame was outed by the Bush administration to punish Wilson?

Of course not...because this was never about the truth. It was about attempting to destroy the Bush administration at any cost. Never mind that the cost increasingly appears to be defeat in Iraq (a defeat that was not inevitable), if the democrats have their way, and possibly defeat in the war on terror. If that's the way it truly shakes out, the price Libby is paying for the left's obsessive Bush Derangement Syndrome is nothing compared to the price the country will likely pay in the future, in lives lost to Islamist terrorism.

CIA leak: Now it can be told :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: Metro & Tri-State

This, sent by a friend, is just a hoot:

Officials at Live Earth Johannesburg have blamed the effects of climate change for poor audience attendance at Saturday's (07Jul07) South African event. Organiser John Langford believes extremely cold weather in the region - it snowed last week (ends06Jul07) for the first time in a quarter of a century - kept people away from the concert, which starred Joss Stone, UB40, Angelique Kidjo and Baaba Maal. Speaking before the event, Langford said, "We're expecting 10,000 here tonight. It's a bit chilly, and we've had a strange winter... is it climate change? We had snow in Jo'burg last week for the first time in 25 years." But critics have blamed poor publicity for the weak turn-out.

OK, so let me get this straight...the globe is warming, and that's causing it to get colder and snow in Johannesburg? Anyone care to offer a scientific explanation of how that phenomenon works?

I think it's just the curse of the Goreacle. Wherever he goes, it gets cold and snows, particularly where he's going to pontificate about climate change. Perhaps, since he was in DC this week, the curse affected Jo-Burg instead, since it's still part of his big concert extravaganza.

But it couldn't be that the low turn-out had to do with people not being especially interested in being hectored about their carbon footprint by a bunch of celebs who's energy consumption easily dwarfs that of most average folks. Nah!

UB40 - LIVE EARTH JOHANNESBURG OFFICIALS BLAME CLIMATE CHANGE FOR POOR TURN-OUT

Once again, anti-poverty-crusader John Edwards is in the news for his largesse on his locks...this time having spent as much as $1,250 for a single cut:

For four decades, Joseph Torrenueva has cut the hair of Hollywood celebrities, from Marlon Brando to Bob Barker, so when a friend told him in 2003 that a presidential candidate needed grooming advice, he agreed to help.

The Beverly Hills hairstylist, a Democrat, said he hit it off with then-Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina at a meeting in Los Angeles that brought several fashion experts together to advise the candidate on his appearance. Since then, Torrenueva has cut Edwards's hair at least 16 times.

At first, the haircuts were free. But because Torrenueva often had to fly somewhere on the campaign trail to meet his client, he began charging $300 to $500 for each cut, plus the cost of airfare and hotels when he had to travel outside California.

Torrenueva said one haircut during the 2004 presidential race cost $1,250 because he traveled to Atlanta and lost two days of work.

The most obnoxious part of the whole haircut thing is Edwards' steadfast refusal to accept any responsibility for making decisions that seem rather incongruous for someone who's claimed eliminating poverty as one of his main campaign themes. For example, there's this from the story:

Asked for a comment, the Edwards campaign said this week that Edwards had arranged for the stylist to give him numerous cuts over the past four years. But it said that a personal assistant handled paying for the haircuts and that Edwards didn't realize how much they cost.

"Breaking news -- John Edwards got some expensive haircuts and probably didn't pay enough attention to the bills," said spokeswoman Colleen Murray. "He didn't lie about weapons of mass destruction or spring Scooter Libby; he just got some expensive haircuts."

So it's someone else's fault that the campaign spent enough on Edwards' hair to feed several families for a year? Please. Part of the reason that there's as much political fallout over this is because of statements like the above, which demonstrate that Edwards has no desire to accept responsibility for even small embarrassments...given that, why would anyone trust him with the responsibility of the Presidency?

Seems to me that Edwards could get a lot of mileage out of a few appearances at Hair Cuttery, or better yet, he should just show up at the local barber shop wherever he is when he needs a trim. Heck, it might even make him seem a bit more manly, using a barber instead of a stylist.

Splitting Hairs, Edwards's Stylist Tells His Side of Story - washingtonpost.com

You gotta figure Al's not thrilled with this, three days before the Live Earth carbon orgy:

LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The 24-year-old son of former Vice President Al Gore was arrested for drug possession on Wednesday after he was stopped for speeding in his hybrid Toyota Prius, a sheriff's official said.

Al Gore III -- whose father is a leading advocate of policies to fight global warming -- was driving his environmentally friendly car at about 100 miles per hour on a freeway south of Los Angeles when he was pulled over by an Orange County sheriff's deputy at about 2:15 a.m.

Maybe, instead of trying to "save the earth" and tell all us rubes how to live our lives, AlGore should try spending a little more time being a father. Then perhaps Al III wouldn't feel quite such a strong need to act out. Anyone with half a brain could recognize that the above is a cry for help. It's easy to see the humor in this regarding Al II's crusading, but on some level you have to feel pity for Al III...it has to suck having a father who appears to be more concerned with the planet (or at least with his own political ambitions and reputation, since that's what this is all really about) than with his own son.

Al Gore's son busted for drugs in hybrid car | U.S. | Reuters

John Fund: 

Last week a federal district judge found direct evidence that the political machine in Noxubee County, Miss., had discriminated against voters with the intent to infringe their rights and that "these abuses have been racially motivated."

Among the abuses catalogued by Judge Tom Lee were the paying of notaries public to visit voters and illegally mark their absentee ballots, manipulation of the registration rolls, importation of illegal candidates to run for county office, and publication of a list of voters, classified by race, who might have their ballots challenged. The judge criticized state political officials for being "remiss" in addressing the abuses. The U.S. Justice Department, which sued Noxubee officials under the Voting Rights Act, has called conditions there "the most extreme case of racial exclusion seen by the [department's] Voting Section in decades."

Explosive stuff, so why haven't you heard about it? Because the Noxubee case doesn't fit the media stereotype for voting rights abuses. The local political machine is run by Ike Brown, a twice-convicted felon. Mr. Brown is black, and the voters who were discriminated against were white.

Judge Lee concluded that Mr. Brown retained his power "by whatever means were necessary." According to the judge, Mr. Brown believed that "blacks, being the majority race in Noxubee County, should hold all elected offices, to the exclusion of whites." (Whites are 30% of the county's 12,500 people, but only two of the 26 elected county officials.) Judge Lee also criticized top officials of the state Democratic Party for "failing to take action to rectify [Mr. Brown's] abuses."

Good thing OpinionJournal covers stuff like this...you know it won't show up in the NYT or the Post.

OpinionJournal - John Fund on the Trail

via Instapundit

Read that last line twice...and the next time someone tells you how ethanol is necessary to combat global warming and save the world's poor from its ill effects, ask them what they're planning to do about the poor who rely on corn as a food staple, who can no longer afford it.

MORE ON WHY ETHANOL FUEL is probably a bad idea:

Congress evidently believes that American energy independence depends, in part, on turning massive quantities of food into fuel. The energy bill being debated in the Senate would mandate that 36 billion gallons of ethanol be produced for transport fuel by 2020. President Bush is more or less on board since he proposed a 35 billion gallon mandate in his last State of the Union speech. This is on top of the 2005 requirement that 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol be produced by 2012. Almost one-third of the U.S. corn crop will be used to produce ethanol in 2012.

Some energy hawks might argue that breaking our dependence on foreign oil is worth higher food prices. After all, on average Americans spend about 10 percent of their incomes on groceries. Doubling that would bring us back to the good old days of the 1950s when families spent about 20 percent of their incomes on food. Doubled food prices would not mean mass starvation for Americans. However, our biofuels frenzy will not only starve oil despots of cash, but it could end up literally starving millions in poor countries.

As far as I can tell, food-based ethanol is just liquid pork. Nonetheless, the idea will probably get traction, because: "the world's poor do not participate in Iowa's presidential caucuses."

Source: Instapundit.com

OK, so I'm thinking perhaps the solution might be smarter employees?

SEATTLE – First, Washington State banned indoor public smoking.

Now, the City of Seattle may ban employees from making microwave popcorn.

No kidding.

A memo from the Fleets and Facilities Department addressed to "Employees at Civic Center Buildings" says there has been several evacuations in recent years due smoke alarms being tripped by burning popcorn.

If your employees aren't smart enough to pop microwave popcorn without setting off fire alarms, it might be time to trade up to a better class of employee. Of course, that would require firing the dumb employees, which isn't exactly a hallmark of most government entities.

So...I guess banning the popcorn, it is!

Source: City of Seattle may ban microwave popcorn | Top Stories | KING5.com | News for Seattle, Washington

See below for a funny truck driver story with an amazing photo: 

Missed It By That Much

My favorite line:

“He told the officers he didn’t know where he was going.”

Right.

Source: Below The Beltway » Blog Archive » Missed It By That Much

That's the only thing I can think of to explain his statement that he "wasn't personally involved" in his recently-reported $400 haircut. Apparently other people arrange these things, and then somehow his hair gets cut without his personal involvement. You just can't make this stuff up.

I have no problem whatsoever with Edwards paying whatever he chooses for a haircut. But it's fascinating watching him blame others for the cost of his haircut, since it highlights how utterly inconsistent his lifestyle is with his "two Americas" rhetoric and his tiresome lectures about what the rest of us should be doing about poverty.

via Politico.com, via The Corner

[2nd in a series]

Kids will do most anything to avoid getting in trouble. Playing dumb is one way they attempt to do this. Another means for evading responsibility is blaming others.

Growing up an only child, I was unable to take full advantage of this technique, which works best when you have a younger sibling. Break a lamp? No problem, just blame your little brother.

This phenomenon was explored recently in the Disney movie Meet the Robinsons, which features a bad guy who says:

Let’s see, take responsibility for my actions or blame you…Ding ding ding! Blame you!

And we also see this all around us, from celebrities who blame their drug abuse or failed marriages on the stress of being famous (rough life), or those who blame crime on poverty.

Unlike playing dumb, which usually fails as a means for evading responsibility, blaming others is all too successful sometimes, particularly as we've become more and more a society that celebrates victimhood. In other words, while kids take the simple approach ("I didn't do it...Jimmy did!"), adults take the more sophisticated approach ("It's not my fault...society made me do it!"). But either way, it's ultimately the same phenomenon, blaming others.

Being a parent, you start to notice the origins of certain types of behaviors.

Kids aren't stupid, and like most of us, their gut instinct when they get in trouble is to figure out how to avoid responsibility for what they've done. This is the first in a series of posts on the rules by which they do this.

The first rule of evading responsibility is to play dumb.

If you're a parent, you've experienced this. Your kid pinches their brother or sister, who starts to cry. You scold the older sibling and ask: "Why did you pinch your brother!?!" The answer, of course, is "I don't know," as if somehow that will let them get away with it.

What's interesting is that even though this tactic rarely works as a kid, we still often use it as adults. While I can't speak for women, I'm sure most men will identify with this:

Picture yourself driving along the highway, in a hurry to get somewhere. You get pulled over by a state trooper, who walks up to your window and says: "Do you have any idea how fast you were going?"

Of course, you answer: "Why no, officer...was I speeding?"

Now you know full well that you were doing 80 in a 65, you just hope that the officer will take pity on such a poor moron as yourself and not ticket you. Unsurprisingly, this tactic works as poorly for adults as it does for kids.