Department of Self-Innocence

If the diametric opposite of self-knowledge is self-innocence, then Howard Kurtz must be pure as the driven snow.

He wants the media to keep the issue of “the gun issue” front and center.  He wants a “media agenda.”  Not to take sides, of course, but in earnest agreement with those famously unbiased gas-bags Michael Bloomberg and Rupert Murdoch (both surrounded by armed security details 24/7, and both of whom have refused to state the caliber, make, or magazine capacities of the weapons their protectors carry), he thinks the MSM needs to keep harping on it lead a national conversation.  Until when?  What do they propose to change with this “conversation”?  What do they propose to stop by talking (if talking could stop violence, then the Japanese, with whom we were talking literally until the planes were in the air, would never have bombed Pearl Harbor)?  I’ve yet to hear Li’l Mike B. talk about changing the laws relating to the incurably lunatic (this is a guy for whom “change” means he’s going to take away your jumbo soft drink, by the way).  I can’t recall hearing any of the people Howie quotes wanting to change the laws so that more people, in more circumstances, have a greater ability to defend themselves.

No:  Kurtz doesn’t say as much, because he doesn’t have to, but the stopping point in his proposed “conversation” is that the rights of law-abiding Americans, who have never shot up a school, a movie theater, a church, or a mall — and who have no desire to do so — are to be diminished.  As Glenn Reynolds allows over at Instapundit, “The problem, Howard is that we don’t trust you guys.”

What I especially like is how Kurtz, piously staring off into the clouds, declaims that his proposed “media agenda” is not supposed to take sides.  You really have to admire how precious are statements like:  “But since when does the press have to wait for a president’s cue to cover a story?”  He said that; he really did.  This is from an industry that gave us Journolist, and which repeatedly has been caught coordinating and parrotting Dear Leader’s administration’s talking points, has been documented as suppressing news stories which might be damaging to their favored candidates’ chances.  What, you say?  It’s just a pure coincidence that magically every major media outlet (except Fox News) just happens to start talking about a specific “issue” within hours after some administration drone just happens to mention it?  It’s got nothing to do with “taking sides” that bad economic news, which for eight years was so obviously foreseeable as to be nearly self-evidently the result of a specific White House’s policy preferences (even though only for four of those years did that White House have a cooperative Congress), suddenly, on January 20, 2009, becomes universally “unexpected”?  Go on believing that, if you please.

“And the press should be fair to all sides.”  He says this as if it would be a novelty.  Which it would be.  He says this in an article in which he quotes Dear Leader’s call for “meaningful action”; quotes Bloomberg’s calls to de-arm everyone except billionaires who can afford their own private security details; quotes Rupert Murdoch’s ignorant rhetorical question about when we will finally ban “automatic weapons” (answer: 1934).  He does not quote any actual statistics for violent crimes in general or gun crimes in particular or even more especially mass shootings over the past quarter-century (they’ve been declining and are still declining, four years into the Great Recession).  He does not quote John Lott, whose ground-breaking studies actually attempted to ask and answer the question whether there is any statistically demonstrable correlation between rates of violent crime in a specific state and changes in that state’s gun laws. He does not quote anyone from the NRA, in any capacity, or even refer to that organization other than to make ominous reference to its “legendary clout on Capitol Hill.”  [cue everyone to duck and cover]  He does not quote any statistics on where the 70+ mass shootings of the last 20 or so years have occurred, relative to those locations’ status as a “gun-free zone.”  This is the man who is proposing to be fair to all sides.

With all possible good faith for Kurtz and his colleagues, this savors more than slightly of Richard II’s willingness to meet with Wat Tyler and his rebels.  How’d that work out, again?  “Villeins ye are, and villeins ye shall remain.”  Whereupon the executions began.

In fairness to Kurtz, he does make one throw-away reference to the crux of the matter:  “Sometimes the possession of guns enables those under fire to defend themselves.”  Left unspoken is the MSM’s revulsion at that statement.  That’s the whole point:  People, ordinary people, the “little people,” should not be able to defend themselves while actually under fire.  People who can defend themselves are that much less beholden to people like Dear Leader and Mayor Mike.  They are that much more difficult to bugger around.  Dear Leader and Mayor Mike have that much less to threaten to withdraw for politically disagreeable behavior.  Your precinct didn’t vote the right way last time; guess y’all don’t need all those police officers hanging around, do you now?  Don’t think that’s something that would happen?  Take a look at the spending patterns of the 2009 Porkulus Bill on a per capita basis in states that voted Democrat in 2008 relative to those that did not.  Ask the victims in the 2008 Philadelphia voter intimidation case, which was dismissed after the government had already won it.  Listen to Dear Leader encourage his ethnic voter bases to vote for revenge.  Look at the political giving patterns of those Chrysler and GM dealers whose franchises got pulled versus those whose weren’t.  And tell me that police protection of a defenseless population is something that would not be scaled up or down depending upon the political reliability of that population.

In Mayor Nanny’s Bloomberg’s world individuals have no right to defend themselves with the same sorts of resources as his own personal security detail.  Security from personal, physical violence is a beneficence bestowed by an enlightened government (run by the right sorts of people, of course) upon people who ought to be grateful (dammit!) to their benefactors.  When under attack, they should wait upon the police to arrive; the police — the governmental power — will swoop down to safeguard them.

Just like the police stopped Adam Lanza in time.

Leave a Reply