National Police Week
Michelle Malkin reflected on the jobs police officers do on behalf of all of us, despite generally negative media attitudes and reporting. It's a good topic for National Police Week (May 15 - 21). She said:
As Jan Golab writes in a cover story for the American Enterprise magazine this month on how political correctness undermines policing: "Today, cops all across the United States battle a foe as destructive as crime itself: the presumption of common prejudice. ... This view has been fanned by a media elite which has made 'diversity' its virtual religion."
The anti-cop bias, Mr. Golab notes, comes through the national mainstream media's "sins of omission -- the stories never told. Propaganda, as Orwell said, is in what gets left out." Thus, we'll be subjected to wall-to-wall coverage of the Tasered pregnant lady and the shot-out SUV.
But you won't see Peter Jennings reporting on the tragic loss of Denver Detective Donald R. Young. The married father of two and a recipient of the Police Medal of Honor was shot three times from behind last weekend in a coldblooded ambush. Police believe the tattooed young assailant, a suspected illegal alien, has fled to Mexico. Detective Young received many awards in his 12 years on the Denver police force. He was awarded the police department's Medal of Honor and a Distinguished Service Cross.
And you won't see Larry King talking about the murder of undercover vice Sgt. Gerald Vick in St. Paul, Minn., by a reputed gang member of the Vice Lords. Sgt. Vick was a Medal of Valor winner who had rescued two children in a raging house fire in 1990.
It's disheartening to see some people constantly criticize those who serve and protect them. It seems to be the result of a perverted ideology, which holds that anything associated with governmental power must be bad, and a misguided class prejudice, which holds that those with assumed superior intellectual gifts are obligated to sneer at those who serve. And it's doubly disheartening to see this prejudice as what it has become--part of a political paradigm in which liberals are expected to be critics and conservatives are expected to be defenders.
The next time you see a police officer--or a soldier, for that matter--take a moment to thank him or her. They serve in ways most people won't, or can't, and they deserve your respect and gratitude.
As Jan Golab writes in a cover story for the American Enterprise magazine this month on how political correctness undermines policing: "Today, cops all across the United States battle a foe as destructive as crime itself: the presumption of common prejudice. ... This view has been fanned by a media elite which has made 'diversity' its virtual religion."
The anti-cop bias, Mr. Golab notes, comes through the national mainstream media's "sins of omission -- the stories never told. Propaganda, as Orwell said, is in what gets left out." Thus, we'll be subjected to wall-to-wall coverage of the Tasered pregnant lady and the shot-out SUV.
But you won't see Peter Jennings reporting on the tragic loss of Denver Detective Donald R. Young. The married father of two and a recipient of the Police Medal of Honor was shot three times from behind last weekend in a coldblooded ambush. Police believe the tattooed young assailant, a suspected illegal alien, has fled to Mexico. Detective Young received many awards in his 12 years on the Denver police force. He was awarded the police department's Medal of Honor and a Distinguished Service Cross.
And you won't see Larry King talking about the murder of undercover vice Sgt. Gerald Vick in St. Paul, Minn., by a reputed gang member of the Vice Lords. Sgt. Vick was a Medal of Valor winner who had rescued two children in a raging house fire in 1990.
It's disheartening to see some people constantly criticize those who serve and protect them. It seems to be the result of a perverted ideology, which holds that anything associated with governmental power must be bad, and a misguided class prejudice, which holds that those with assumed superior intellectual gifts are obligated to sneer at those who serve. And it's doubly disheartening to see this prejudice as what it has become--part of a political paradigm in which liberals are expected to be critics and conservatives are expected to be defenders.
The next time you see a police officer--or a soldier, for that matter--take a moment to thank him or her. They serve in ways most people won't, or can't, and they deserve your respect and gratitude.
15 Comments:
I always find myself in a bit of 'chicken-and-the-egg' quandry when it comes to those who approvingly cite Ms. Maglalang.
IOW, who's more delusional? Ms. Maglalang and her bizarre attempts to 'work the refs' when it comes to the media--or those who would agree with her.
There simply is no evidence to support the notion there's some media conspiracy to smear law enforcement. When a police officer abuses society's trust--should not those transgressions be reported?
No, this is just more conserative posturing; style over substance. If conservatives were really concerned about law enforcement (or the military, for that fact), they'd be enacting policies that would have positive impacts on pay envelopes and benefits. They wouldn't have a GOP Governor who refers to police and firefighters as "another special interest group."
They wouldn't be making law enforcement's job more dangerous by refusing to implement even the slightest hint of gun control.
Gun control doesn't keep law enforcement safe. Desperate people who resort to life as criminals are desperate enough to procure guns, or any lethal force, regardless of the legality of guns.
On the other hand, I haven't sensed any media bias against law enforcement aside from occasional innuendoes about race playing a role in how the law is enforced. I hardly consider these sort of media inquiries "bias" anyway, just journalists doing their jobs.
Scott: Gun control hasn't been tried, so saying it doesn't work in protecting law enforcement is somewhat disingenuous.
But when the various police unions and law enforcement associations militate against the easy access to firearms--one should take note.
It's not disingenuous at all, jadegold. Gun control hasn't been tried simply in the U.S. Gun control exists in Great Britain and criminals there have acquired guns in stunningly high numbers over the last few years.
Liberals don't get it on this issue. Gun control in various forms (hunting aside) only take guns away from law-abiding citizens and proprietors who can be terrorized by criminals who procure guns illegally. The number of criminals with guns who are a direct threat to the police is the same with or without gun control. The availability of guns doesn't encourage criminality.
Most importantly, unfettered gun ownership provides a deterrent to criminals. They don't know who owns guns, as opposed to knowing that no one owns them, so they can't terrorize at will. The police can't be everywhere at once.
As for celebrating national police week, I'm all for it. My father served 22 years in the FBI and risked his life repeatedly in service to this country.
Jadegold, are you trying to say something about Michelle Malkin by using her maiden name? I would hope it doesn't reflect a bias on your part regarding her family's Filipino heritage. That would be unfortunate. She uses her married name for everything except certain legal purposes, which isn't at all unusual, and her preference deserves respect. Just as she deserves respect, even if you disagree with her.
I explained my support for gun control here.
Scott: Do you really wish to compare annual per capita rates of gun violence and homicide in the UK vs. US? I'd be pleased to accommodate you on the issue.
Additionally, would you care to compare the number of police shot and killed in the line of duty in the US and UK annually? I'll give you a clue: typically, in the UK, fewer than 3-4 police are shot and killed in the line of duty in the UK in a given year. Several years have seen zero police officers shot and killed. Now, compare that to a typical US city.
Conservatives complain that liberals don't 'get' the issue. I'd suggest it's the other way around--conservatives seem willing to live with a gun homicide/crime rate that is comparable to those in third world nations.
The above comment was mine; must have hit the wrong button or something.
Jadegold, are you trying to say something about Michelle Malkin by using her maiden name? I would hope it doesn't reflect a bias on your part regarding her family's Filipino heritage.
TC: During the recent election, Ms. Maglalang demanded John Kerry's wife use her former married name. It should be noted Ms. Maglalang's written works are copyrighted in the name of Michelle Maglalng.
Good for the goose, etc.
Gun control is but one aspect of the subject issue; conservatives seem pretty big on highlighting 'media bias'--even when it doesn't exist. Yet, they don't seem to show up for those they claim to support when it calls for actual policies that might help law enforcement (or the military.)
jadegold - I'm not a conservative, I just don't hold a "liberal" position on gun ownership. I wasn't name-calling you as a liberal, just that you hold a liberal position on this issue.
Yes, gun violence is lower in the UK. What enables higher crime is not the accessibility of guns as gun control proponents claim, but a mindset of criminality whose factors are mental or economic instability, and laws that make it easier for those with lethal force to take advantage of those who don't. I'd argue the UK is a more civilized and, yes, mentally/economically stable country than the US, for a number of reasons; hence Britons have less of a proclivity to criminality. If you want to argue guns are the reason we have more criminality, go for it, but I don't buy it.
Jadegold, Michelle Malkin simply posted a number of quotes, including this one: "My legal name is still Teresa Heinz. Teresa Heinz Kerry is my name . . . for politics." A bunch of liberals then jumped on her about using her maiden name for limited legal reasons, which in no way resembles Heinz' cynical tacking-on of Kerry's name "for politics." Malkin's reaction to the liberal attacks is here.
As far as I can determine, Malkin never "demanded John Kerry's wife use her former married name." In any case, I think it's more mature to respond to those you disagree with by citing facts than resorting to ad hominem arguments.
TC: No ad hominem argument is used.
http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2004_12_01_isthatlegal_archive.html#110209214049929875
If Ms. Maglalang wishes to throw stones, she ought not do it from her glass house.
I think my cite was inadvertantly truncated.
It may be found here.
BTW, those believing Ms. Maglalang deserves some respect should read the In Defense of Internment Debate. It might open a few eyes.
What enables higher crime is not the accessibility of guns as gun control proponents claim, but a mindset of criminality whose factors are mental or economic instability, and laws that make it easier for those with lethal force to take advantage of those who don't. I'd argue the UK is a more civilized and, yes, mentally/economically stable country than the US, for a number of reasons; hence Britons have less of a proclivity to criminality. If you want to argue guns are the reason we have more criminality, go for it, but I don't buy it.
Scott, it is generally accepted crime is a function of a number of factors, with economic conditions being a large factor. In this regard, the US should have far lower crime because we enjoy a generally more stable economy than the UK's--where unemployment often hits double digits.
Otherwise, the UK and US are relatively mirror images of one another. Add Canada to the mix.
Yet, we have a firearm homicide rates that is exponentially higher--why? What's the difference?
The US and UK/Canada look the same on paper, but I am of the opinion our country is very different from those two because we are not as civilized as those countries. I think economics much less important to crime than do many. What we have in the US are deep-rooted problems that the UK/Canada do not have to anywhere near the same degree: both subtle and overt racism, destructive, arrogant, and a vain popular culture, lack of a real sense of community, and some others. In the end, these contribute tremendously to the mental component of crime.
The existence of greater U.S. gun violence doesn't mean guns are the problem -- I believe it's our culture that hasn't caught up with Canada and western Europe.
Jadegold, the source you provided (and links from it) does not in any way support your contention that Malkin "demanded" that Heinz-Kerry use one name or another. Still leaves me wondering about your real reason for insisting on using her maiden name.
As far as her book on internment of Japanese Americans is concerned, I haven't read it. I've read reviews, though, pro and con, and I've read numerous other sources on the subject. I'm not sure what your point is in referring to it, but the issue is far from black-and-white.
I'm sure you expect me and others to show you a proper amount of respect even if we disagree with you. Why can't you do the same thing?
TC: You're of course free to speculate as to my motivations but the link I provided plainly demonstrates Ms. Maglalang has some difficulty with the pronunciation of Teresa Kerry's name as well as the fact Ms. Kerry doesn't use her former married name to Ms. Magalalang's satisfaction.
I've read reviews, though, pro and con, and I've read numerous other sources on the subject. I'm not sure what your point is in referring to it, but the issue is far from black-and-white.
No. The issue isn't in dispute. I daresay you'd be hardpressed to find a reputable historian who believes Ms. Maglalang presented a credible case to support her thesis.
I referred to the debate because it provides a number of crystal clear examples of the utter dishonesty of Ms. Maglalang.
Such dishonesty by Ms. Maglalang continues recently
Post a Comment
<< Home