« If the children are the future, then we're in big, big trouble | Main | Some Thoughts On the Democrats' Plan for Retreat »

"I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you."*

Recently, I've come to an insight on one of the reasons I dislike the Left. It's one of those things that, in hindsight, is flagrantly obvious, but I don't recall anyone ever pointing it out.

When something bad happens, or something goes wrong, it is human instinct to try to affix blame. To find out just what happened, and do what they can to make sure it doesn't happen again. It's not always the most productive reaction, but it is natural.

The left, though, takes it a bit further. When there are two sides involved, they almost always assign blame to the side that is trying to do the right thing, and utterly exonerates those who actually commit the wrongdoing.

We see that in Iraq. Every day we hear about more bombings, more murders, more attacks, and every single time, the reaction from the left is the same: it's the United States' fault. Never mind that we aren't the ones setting the bombs, we're the ones trying to capture or kill those setting the bombs. The notion that the people who do the killing might bare even the slightest trace of responsibility for their deeds never comes up. It's as if they don't count as human beings, with free will; they might as well be dumb animals or forces of nature -- the only side that can be shouldered with any responsibility for the carnage is the side that is trying to stop it.

That observation was crystallized for me this morning, when I read this editorial in today's Boston Globe. Recently, officials raided a company and rounded up a whole host of suspected illegal aliens. The owners of the company were released, but the workers are, for the most part, still being detained.

This might seem unfair, but that's how the system works. The owners's citizenship is unquestioned, and authorities are fairly comfortable that they will show up for their date in court. The workers, however, are far more likely to quietly disappear, then turn up somewhere else under new identities. It happens every day.

Well, that bothers the Globe. It seems that a lot of those workers have children, and now the state is scrambling to find caretakers for them.

To the Globe, this is a failing of the government. They should have anticipated the complications of the children, and made the arrangements in advance -- or simply not acted at all.

Here's where I commit heresy: I say that the responsibility for the children's situation is not the government's, but the parents themselves.

The government did not bring the parents into this country illegally. It did not compel them to violate numerous laws and take jobs. And it certainly did not encourage them to bring their children with them into this country (or have them once they arrived), in full knowledge that their ability to care for those children hung on the slenderest thread -- the thread that the parents would not get caught.

I'd like to see every illegal alien who brings children with them charged with child endangerment whenever they get caught, for placing their kids in that kind of peril, as well as the standard charges they already face. To violate the nation's laws is, in and of itself, abhorrent. But to make one's children accomplices to the deeds, and inflict upon them the consequences of that violation, is truly abhorrent.

But it's just so much easier to just blame the ones fighting for law and order. After all, if we simply let them do what they wish -- blow each other up, flow freely across the borders, and the like -- then eventually everything would be just nice and happy and peaceful.

I wonder what color the sky is in Boston Globe Land. I'm thinking reddish-pink.

*(Title shamelessly stolen from a stick-it notepad I saw recently)


Listed below are links to weblogs that reference "I didn't say it was your fault, I said I was going to blame you."*:

» Maggie's Farm linked with Friday Morning Links

Comments (29)

Blaming the U.S. government... (Below threshold)

Blaming the U.S. government for everything tends to be indicative of some on the left's preoccupation with "sticking it to the man" or rooting for the underdog.
This of course extends to world affairs, in much the way you described Jay.

How DARE you hold parents a... (Below threshold)

How DARE you hold parents accountable for what happens to their children!

"When there are two sides i... (Below threshold)

"When there are two sides involved, they almost always assign blame to the side that is trying to do the right thing..."

Really? You still think invading Iraq was "the right thing?"

Curious, when did the left,... (Below threshold)

Curious, when did the left, so enamored by JFKenedy, forget about:

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country


Indeed, jp2, the proper thi... (Below threshold)

Indeed, jp2, the proper thing for us to do is politely wait for fascist dictators to die of old age. If Castro's anything to go by, the people of Iraq would only have about 30-40 years of brutal oppression to go. If they disappear into a state dungeon for saying the wrong thing in the mean time, well who really cares?

Oh, and yes, definitely.</p... (Below threshold)

Oh, and yes, definitely.

You still think invading Iraq was "the right thing?"

I also think that the Dems using the vote for authorization, and their subsequent stepping away from that for blatant political gain is disgusting.

As well as their desires to piss of the President with their micro-management of this endeavor.

jp2,Reall... (Below threshold)


Really? You still think invading Iraq was "the right thing?"

I'll highlight the operative word in his sentence that might help you to phrase your evasive question better:

"When there are two sides involved, they almost always assign blame to the side that is trying to do the right thing..."

Jay, in the following paragraph, illustrates this point through the mention of bombings and sectarian violence. Trying to do the right thing refers to stopping those who would carry out those acts.

Now, what didn't you understand?

"Ask not what your country ... (Below threshold)

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."

I think Milton Friedman said this one best - this quote (slightly out of context) is actually pretty poor for a system of government.

"The free man will ask neither what his country can do for him nor what he can do for his country. He will ask rather 'what can I and my compatriotes do through government' to help us discharge our shared goals and purposes, and above all to protect our freedom? And he will accompany this question with another: how can we keep the government we create from becoming a Frankenstein that will destroy the very freedom we establish it to protect."

So you really believe that the US was "trying" to do the right thing? To be honest, with all the incompetence and corruption, I don't think anyone was "trying" at all. This administration has become Frankenstein.

jp2 said:Really... (Below threshold)

jp2 said:

Really? You still think invading Iraq was "the right thing?"

Here we go again. Remember, one of the mantras on the left is, "If we leave these poor misunderstood terrorists alone, they will respond in kind (kumbaya)."

So, given that template, invading Iraq certainly wasn't the "right thing" to do in their eyes.

Oh. I forgot. If we had done nothing and the terrorists had returned to our shores with a bigger sequel to what happened on 9/11, who would the Left have blamed for that "oversight"? I'll give you a hint: it's the same guy they're blaming right now for doing the "wrong thing."

Again, comments like jp2's above merely confirm the truth of what Jay Tea asserted. Unfortunately.


Alright jp ..., good though... (Below threshold)

Alright jp ..., good thought fodder, and I completely agree with you, and Friedman (lassie faire, byotch ;)


1 - My point of the JFK quote was to, in my mind, convey either the hypocrisy of the left or their collective, selective memory.

2 - I don't think this administration more or less Frankenstein than any other.

The gig on #2 being that the left has put this administration under the type of scrutiny that NO administration could come away from looking clean.

Look at FDR's 2nd term. If not for WWII, he'd have gone right down the tubes, legacy-wise.

Look at Carter ... the less said about that, the better.

Look at Reagen ... Iran/Contra was nothing compared to the lambasting of this admin.

It seems to me that the left has been gunning for (R) Presidents the day they got Nixon (and they got him good. I'll give them that), fairly, or not.

They control the media, essentially, and believe that they know what is best for the rest of us ... as long as it's liberal minded.

But I digress ...

A huge bitch point of the left being that the right continually compare the Bush and Clinton admins. Clinton went through hell, but could you possibly imagine how much worse it could have been if they held Clinton to the same standards as Bush ..., or moreso, could Clinton have survived with the prevalence of blogs?

Is the right ANY better than the left on these counts? Meh ... it's arguable; however, what isn't arguable is the infantile mentality displayed by the left with their incessant catterwalling and completely undeniable loads of hypocrisy they endlessly try to shovel down the throats of Americans.

I give you Nancy Pelosi vis a vi Wlm Jefferson.

Barney Frank vis a vi Foley.

John Murtha vis a vi anything military.

John Kerry vis a vi SF180.

I challenge you to load up, comprehensively, a right wing counterpart to those folks and make it stick.

I'd like to see every il... (Below threshold)

I'd like to see every illegal alien who brings children with them charged with child endangerment whenever they get caught, for placing their kids in that kind of peril, as well as the standard charges they already face.

I'm curious how you think bringing more charges--charges legally unrelated to immigration laws--against the parents will improve the situation vis a vis their children and the state. If they are deported and take their children with them, ok fine (and yes I know that law enforcement very often does not deport illegals who are arrested, but that's beside the point at the moment), but how would being incarcerated here for a longer period of time help? Don't you think that would, "inflict upon [the children] the consequences of that violation" even more? It just sounds like you're saying, "out of concern for the children of illegals caught up in this situation, we will punish those children even further."

Or do you think it would act as a deterrent for people looking to come here illegally? I'm just confused as to what the perceived benefit of your plan would be.

I love your way of thinking... (Below threshold)

I love your way of thinking and I enjoy every post that you make.

Imagine requiring parents to be responsible for their children.

I really can't imagine this type of arrangement since we require the government to provide so much for our precious wee ones. Such amazing things are provided, abortions for under age girls without consent, textbooks blatantly supporting the homosexual lifestyle, no dodgeball on playgrounds~ too dangerous.

I am so surprised that your thinking hasn't caused you to be censored!!!

Jay, like a few others, I'... (Below threshold)
Steve Crickmore:

Jay, like a few others, I'm not sure I understand your logic on Iraq. You are fixing the blame squarely on the terrorists, or the insurgents..because 'we are trying to stop the carnage'..after initiating the hostilities by using enormous firepower to topple Saddam, because we thought this would be the most effective way to neutralise Iraq and make the world a less dangerous place, with the advantage that Iraq could be client state with friendly oil contracts and hugh permanent American bases. So the terrorists or insurgents or Iraqis take the blame for prolonging this occupation, and not the Administration who as you have said in a previous column, to paraphrase, were just trying to stir the Middle East up..Doesn't responsibility come with power, including the responsibility not to underestimate the enemy? Otherwise we are going to have endless wars because no one on our side, will ever take the blame when a war goes pear-shaped, because it wasn't the responsibilty of the war achitects that such good intentions could go so fatlly wrong, when they met with the reality on the ground.

mantis,Kind of rem... (Below threshold)


Kind of reminds me of a bank in terms of an overdraft. If you don't have enough money in your account to cover the charges placed on it, you are, as a penalty, charged more money.

Obviously this wasn't instituted as a correctional measure...but as a deterrent to future overdrafts and to (possibly) cover the costs involved in accounting.

"to paraphrase, were just t... (Below threshold)

"to paraphrase, were just trying to stir the Middle East up.."

Precisely what is wrong with the liberal argument. The desire to transform the middle east into free states gets paraphrased in an assenine manner, on purpose, to try and show how the current administration is a bunch of evil robber-barons.

Also, we didn't "initiate hostilities," it just took us 12 years to respond to the Saddams repeated attempts to initiate them.

Obviously this wasn't in... (Below threshold)

Obviously this wasn't instituted as a correctional measure...but as a deterrent to future overdrafts and to (possibly) cover the costs involved in accounting.

And it works! I overdrew my account a couple times when I was younger, and I never made that mistake again. But when the bank charged me 30 bucks or whatever on top of my overdraw, they didn't have to deal with my kids while I made the money to cover it.

So is the intention to deter other would-be illegal immigrants, or to deter those arrested and (presumably) deported from coming back?

And don't get me wrong, I agree with Jay's heretical, "the responsibility for the children's situation is not the government's, but the parents themselves." However, since we do not live in an ideal world where parents, illegal immigrant or not, are very responsible or make the right choices for their children, sometimes the state has to deal with the mess. Unfortunately.

Here's where I com... (Below threshold)
Here's where I commit heresy: I say that the responsibility for the children's situation is not the government's, but the parents themselves.
Exactly. While I do feel badly for these kids, as what their parents have done to them sucks, in the end its a good lesson about what happens when you flout the law, and how such an action hurts your kids.

Perhaps it will make the parents think twice about putting their kids in such a terrible situation.

I know: fat chance!

As always, your blantant an... (Below threshold)

As always, your blantant and flagrant use of commen sense frightens me.

mantis,Unfortunate... (Below threshold)


Unfortunately, yes, the analogy is not complete as there is another person involved that could suffer because of the penalty.

As a deterring factor, I think it would be effective for newcomers and for repeat offenders, as it should be something made widely known when instituted.

I agree with the responsibility issue, though in reality, I can't entirley square it with my conscience due to the fact that it may further endanger the child.

Never mind that we aren'... (Below threshold)

Never mind that we aren't the ones setting the bombs, we're the ones trying to capture or kill those setting the bombs.

Jay, if you repeatedly call someone names, and they repeatedly punch you in the nose each time, what would you do? You have only a few choices. You can walk away, and they won't be able to punch you anymore. Or you can kill them once and for all, and they won't be able to punch you anymore. Or, you can just stand there and let them keep punching you, injuring yourself and making yourself look stupid and impotent to all those who are watching.

In all cases, while no one is "blaming" you for getting punched, you do have real choices and actions that you can take to end the punching. If you decline to exercise any of your options, it's legitimate to point out your failure to act. And if you just stand there whining "hey, cut that out!" then you can tell people you're "trying" to do the right thing, after all.

By the way, I think the Globe was stupid on this also. By taking their editorial and citing it for why you "dislike the left" just shows how desperate and partisan you are (despite your humorous claims of political neutrality). I bet when you burn your toast you attribute that to "the left" also.

"Hey, I wanted that baby de... (Below threshold)

"Hey, I wanted that baby dead, din'ya hear me Doc?"

"Hold the carcas up here so I can git a lil picture of me and the glump of cells."

"45 is wayyy the hell too old to be havin kids, I gotta party!"

"Really? You still think ... (Below threshold)
Rob LA Ca.:

"Really? You still think invading Iraq was "the right thing?"

HEY STUPID, WE DEPOSED SADDAM HUSSEIN. Just like every democrat was demanding. Iraq Liberation Act (BJ Clinton).

What you and your criminal Party are pissed off about is that BJ just couldn't shake those girlies off his lap.

The Globe's logic reminds m... (Below threshold)

The Globe's logic reminds me of the example of the young man who killed his parents and then asked the court for mercy because he was an orphan.

Jay,I agree with you... (Below threshold)

I agree with you 100% on the illegals. One question I have, if it is proven they are here illegally, the hell with any court procedures. Just load them on the bus and ship them back to the border.

The amount of taxpayers money spent to pamper them is enormous, that money could be going to the VA for veterans, schools for American children, etc.

Of course the left leaning wingnuts will try and tell everyone different, and will want to raise taxes on the poor and middle income(what's left of it) to pay for them. Well, fuck the illegals, deport them all.

And quit slapping the owners of the companies on the wrist, fine the shit out of them and some serious jail time. Watch how fast the illegal problems would slow down if that would happen.

What you and your crimin... (Below threshold)

What you and your criminal Party are pissed off about is that BJ just couldn't shake those girlies off his lap.

Hey, hansel2 was right... all you do is bring up Clinton! I'm sure he'd send you a picture if you asked. Perhaps even with girlies on his lap.

Being simultaneously left a... (Below threshold)

Being simultaneously left and right on many things, I frequently get tossed out of both camps. But here goes: I am very sympathetic to illegal immigrants. AND I am very supportive of our government's efforts in Iraq. Illegal immigrants: The right says they "take" American jobs. They take nothing that is not freely offered. The right generally supports LEGAL immigration. They rant about how they are all in favor of that, and then turn on illegals as if the breaking of immigration law was somehow on the level of evil of rape or murder. People, the only difference is paperwork: one has a stamped document in hand, the other doesn't. Entering the nation illegaly is the same category of horrible, degenerate evil as adding a bedroom above your garage without the construction permit. It's doing something NORMAL but without the proper bureaucratic approvals, that's all. Yes, some are criminals. So are some legal immigrants. So are some native born citizens.
And you know, if I was born in some third world rat hole, wanted to make something of my life, heard about a land where courage and effort and willpower can take you far, but my entry was barred because I didn't have enough cash for the Visa bribe, I might sneak in too. The world is full of adventurous, opportunistic, hard working souls who are American at heart, but just weren't lucky enough to be born here.

Meanwhile, Iraq: this is the Mother of All Hostage Rescue Operations. We are basically trying to free a people from the vile and heartless clutches of a very, very, large gang of thugs. That's why they called it "Operation Iraqi Freedom" and not "Operation Let's Get Those Iraqi Chemical Weapons". The Thugs are fighting back- sometimes, against us, mostly, by blowing innocent people- the hostages- to bits. So, in the face of this kind of Evil, the proper thing to is quit? Tell the thugs "Do what the hell you want to them, but leave us alone!" Good farking lord they are setting off car bombs in markets and playgrounds and schools and temples. We are supposed to WANT to stop that! That is evil, it's WRONG! The question is not "why are we in Iraq?" the question is "why is everyone else NOT?" This is not some peaceful tranquil nation we ruined, this was a nation in which a brutal, violent minority used murder, torture, terror, and rape to oppress the majority- and is still trying to! Without us, it would be another Darfur- speeches, petitions, resolution, but nothing to actually stop the hundreds of thousands of deaths.


Trackbacked by The Thunder ... (Below threshold)

Trackbacked by The Thunder Run - Web Reconnaissance for 03/08/2007
A short recon of what's out there that might draw your attention.

The LeftI am not qui... (Below threshold)

The Left
I am not quite sure what you mean by that. Do you mean all Democrats ?
Do you mean the Americans that have gone from overwhelming approving of Bush when he was most popular (90%) to his dismal 28% approval rating that he currently holds ? Please pray tell who are THE LEFT ? Are they the 87% of the Jewish vote that went to the Democrats ? Who exactly are the despised Left?

I think the Charlie Rangles... (Below threshold)
Zsa Zsa:

I think the Charlie Rangles & the Nancy Pelosis bother me most about the left. Wait a minute! No, the Clintons & the Janet Renos are pretty bad too. Uh, actually there are too many to list & the choices they want to stick us & our future generations are just bad! I reeeeally hate the thought of the Clintons again! It is very depressing.






Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile


Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links


Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login

Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy