Monday, April 8, 2013
The Fortune Article on the Topic of Operation Fast and Furious
The Fortune Article promises to be better reading than Katie's book. Read it here: http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2012/06/27/fast-and-furious-truth/
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Chapter Ten: Connecting the Dots
The conclusion of the book. I read another review of the book which implied that evidence should have been presented and then conclusions afterward. From the perspective of that individual, Sherlock's quote, "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."
The book doesn't fulfill the pretended goal of providing news. I did, however, achieve other goals. Propaganda distribution, book sales, and appearances on Fox News. The claims made by the book deserve some critical scrutiny. I understand, however, that a more fact-checking sort of publication would not have served the author's interests as well. Only conservatives felt a need to buy such a book; liberals understood the trial as a political stunt. Moderates didn't feel vested enough in the issue to put money in the author's pocket. If you are only writing to a conservative base, then you want to appear on Fox News to push your book. To do that, you'll have to say what Fox News wants to hear.
Recently, a professor had this to say about Fox News
You may like Fox News, but you are not really getting news when the reporting is so biased. What you are getting is what you are essentially paying for: Republican propaganda. In order to appear on Fox News, all Katie had to do was provide the type of propaganda that would appeal to them. It's kind of like going to a strip club for a lap dance. (The chick isn't paying attention to you; she's exploiting you.)
But what about liberal media? Ah, well, you'd have a point there. Just as soon as you exercise some critical thinking and discernment about your Fox News, we'll move on to an intelligent and critical discussion of these liberal media pundits. Bias can appear on either side of the issues. In my experience, the liberal media tends to focus less on anger, fear, and riling people up. The tend to present evidence and employ reasoning. You may not agree with their reasoning or like their evidence.
I believe I am a political moderate. However, when I talk to conservatives they tell me I am liberal. I suspect that's a nice way to pigeonhole and dismiss anything I might say. What I am saying to you now is that I will fact-check even liberals. However, my time spend on such fact-checking websites like fact-check.org and politifact.com tends to support my assessment of Fox News. It is easier to listen to liberal media and check the facts than to do so for conservative media. Especially, this particular book where every fact would need verification. (And some of the footnotes refute the text where they are placed -- as already harped on.)
Now, in this chapter, Katie talks about attending a fund-raiser for Border patrol Agent Brian Terry's family. We also hear of Jay Dobyns attending, in particular a reference to drinking half a large bottle of Jack Daniels. This does make it seem as if Jay were really feeling the family's pain. Maybe. For all I know he drinks hard all the time. I'm not so sure Jay attends fund-raisers for all the border patrol Agents who die. Certainly, Katie Pavlich doesn't. I'm afraid, the description of attending the Fundraiser sounds like an insincere stunt. My suspicion is they attended to further their own political and private agendas. I suppose I'm suspicious that way.
She has something to say here, a perspective to paint. This isn't really connecting the dots yet, it is more of the same thing we've seen previously. For example, she mentions Tom Atteberry. She's careful to immediately portray him as an outsider. She describes the "rest of us" in jeans and cowboy boots. She describes him as 'dressed to the nines' with a suit, tie, and ATF lapel pin. If you haven't seen pictures of Katie Pavlich, you might want to consider doing a quick google search. As you should expect, she is a young lady that 'dresses to the nines' in her own way frequently.
She doesn't tell you who Tom Atteberry is. If you don't already know or can't quite remember, what she's done is suggestive without directly being false. (Inaccurate, not false, to make an allusion to an earlier exchange between Issa and Holder.) Reminding us of Jay, describing whistleblowers at the bar in cowboy boots, and mentioning the lapel pin might remind you of the division between the old guard and new execs and wiz-kids that Jay lambasted in his introduction to the book.
Now, if you are going to a benefit for a border patrol agent's family, you should probably be expected to dress respectfully. A suit, a tie, and a lapel pin in support of the ATF seem appropriate. However, there is a difference between being dressed professionally and being done up to the nines. I just can't give Katie Pavlich enough credit for responsible reporting to accept her assessment.
Her description makes him seem like one of the new execs working at the ATF. Perhaps some of the people responsible for Operation Fast and Furious. This isn't stated, of course, merely something people might believe based on their reading of the book up to this point. I hadn't remembered him yet. The appendix in the back lists his first appearnace in the book as page 141. Ah, this page! Shouldn't you tell me something about who he is?
What she's doing is painting a scene where the reader is predisposed to think of Tom Atteberry in a negative light. She describes him as chatting with a woman who had flown from Anchorage, Alaska for the fundraiser. The woman conveniently asks Tom a question about Andrew Traver. Katie Pavlich is quick to insert a negative image of Traver immediately. She says he was a wall-known opponent of gun ownership rights. Given Katie's feelings towards Fox News and the NRA, any person who is in favor of reasonable or sane gun control laws could possibly be described by her this way. She's not a "just the facts, ma'am" kind of author. She uses Atteberry's response of "he's a stand-up guy" in order to paint him in a negative light. For all we know, Traver is a stand up guy who happens to have political views Katie Pavlich doesn't like.
Katie continues to describe the woman inquiring of Atteberry about the "long gun reporting measures being implemented through the Justice Department without the consent of Congress." The Justice Department has certain powers they can exercise without going through Congress. This has something to do with the checks and balances of the three departments and is a rather central concept in the functioning of our form of government. Saying things in this way, after already taking care to pain a negative picture, further enables Katie Pavlich to lead the reader by the nose into what she wants him (or her) to believe. This is persuasive writing, not informational writing. This is how propaganda works.
This is how reading this entire book worked. Katie Pavlich knows her audience and uses buzz words, catch phrases, and other red flags to catch the attention of her reader. The book reads like a version of porn for gun lovers and Teapublicans.
The issues at the border do involve gun sales and both waiting periods, background checks, and additional scrutiny of people making multiple purchases within a short time period are steps that can be taken. Are they the best steps? Will they work? I don't know. I do know that doing nothing will not work and "nothing" is exactly what the NRA wants done. The NRA and those authors like Katie Pavlich who churn out propaganda mill material for them are not a part of the solution to this problem. All they will tell you is that nothing can be done.
Some gun shop owners were doing their job. These were gun shop owners who probably knew the ATF was watching them and knew better than to hide gun sales. Some gun shop owners will be less ethical. In their search for the dollar, they will see what they want to see. Just like we've seen Katie Pavlich do repeatedly in the book. They will look at evidence but only perceive it in a way that allows them to make a sale. Straw purchasers (meth addicts) can be sent to every gun shop until they find one that is less scrupulous. They will then go there for all their gun purchases. Find the weak point and exploit it, in other words. The gun shop owner will be making lots of money, will be happy, and will really not want their gravy train to stop. Not every gun shop owner would do this, but the cartels have the advantage of working the numbers and fishing for the shop that serves them best. Meth addicts are, after all, a dime-bag a dozen. (Pardon the pun, and I know dime-bags are pot not meth.)
NRA members, just like Katie Pavlich and the gun shop owner I portrayed above, also do this selective-vision trick whereby the evidence says what the need it to say. Any evidence or thoughts at odds with what they want to believe is quickly pigeonholed as liberal and dismissed out of hand. Oh, yes, Fox News is one of the most biased media outlets and they always seem to be blaming the rest of the media for a leftward bias. Oh, the pot is calling the kettle black again!
Any time the NRA sees an effort at gun control or gun violence prevention, they treat it as if it is some holy crusade against gun ownership. Reagan might have said you don't need an assault weapon to defend your home or hunt, but they will quietly ignore their Saint's saying on this matter when convenient. Any efforts and any attempts, no matter how small, to control the straw purchaser problem in places like Arizona is portrayed as an attack on gun rights.
After the end of some NRA propaganda, Tom Atteberry told the woman from Alaska that he thought the long gun reporting measures made, "perfect sense." From his perspective, which is pretty much the perspective of anyone who isn't a paranoid gun-loving NRA Teapublican, I'm sure the measures made perfect sense compared to any other measure on the table at the moment. I've tried to tell my gun-loving friends that I would seriously consider any legislation or measure presented by a conservative source and measure it against the liberal's ideas. I would certainly give you time to say your piece.
But they don't have anything.... an that's the problem. Agent Brian Terry was shot, in part, because of the NRA's opposition to sane gun control. They say that criminals will not obey the rules and will find guns no matter what.... blah, blah, blah. Ok, that's rhetoric and propaganda. Here's fact: Mexico has more restrictive gun laws and drug cartel members there have to smuggle guns out of places like Arizona. With more restrictive gun laws, American guns would not be acquired by Straw Purchasers and smuggled over the border. People there would not be facing heavily armed drug cartels and those heavily armed drug cartels would not be crawling across the border and wandering around armed to the teeth on American soil, either. Without that backdrop, Operation Fast and Furious would never even have happened.
Physician, heal thyself.
NRA, I get that you love your guns and I would love to allow law abiding Americans to possess weapons for sport, for hunting, and for self-defense. I think every psychologically cleared soldier to come home from serving in war should be given an assault weapon as a thank you and sign of respect for their service. However, your very restrictive views have created a problem. The problem with gun violence in America can be traced back to your attitudes and your policies. So, your members want to protect themselves from gun violence and buy guns but the lax mechanisms in place due to your obstruction has actually created the situation that gives them cause to fear. Especially along the Mexican border.
That's not opinion, that's not perspective, that is truth. You can take steps to reduce gun violence in American and still protect the rights of Americans to have the weaponry they enjoy. I encourage you to start working with the rest of America instead of against them. Guns are tools. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. People with guns kill people easily and quickly. Let's be reasonable and take reasonable steps.
Show some loyalty to the rest of America. Loyalty to America isn't found in asking for what you want. It is found in sacrificing some of what you want to see to the needs of other Americans. Everyone will ask for what they want; just as Jesus said sinners will love those who love them. The meaningful virtue of loyalty to your country does not come from asking what your country can do for you; but rather from looking for what you can do to make your country better. This is what we need; not more of the same from you.
By the way, Tom Atteberry is just used as a cardboard cutout for a supposed Alaska woman to ask questions. The last mention in the book still doesn't tell you anything about him. He may be this guy[1][2][3]. If he's an ATF member, as insinuated, I've seen no indication of it. He seems to be a financial person, a banker, an economist. Yeah, just the guy you'd expect to be dressed in a suit and tie. Or, he could have been any person named Tom Atteberry in the country or even someone hired by Katie Pavlich to pretend to be Tom and give out his name when asked. I really don't have much faith in the author. An expert on financial matters that predicted the crash isn't exactly an expert on guns. He certainly isn't an ATF exec.
Fast and Furious, despite page 147 assertion, wasn't Barack Obama's Iran-Contra Affair. During the Iran-Contra Affair, the administration actually did something and the investigations pretty much sounded like Issa's crusade. Except, of course, that the Reagan Administration was found to have, actually, done something wrong.
Eric Holder was exonerated. The Justice Department didn't find any evidence that the ATF knowingly allowed guns to walk. This is what Operation Fast and Furious was, according to the eye of history. And, with the likelihood of failure in their attempted witch-hunt, the NRA cronies don't just whine about whistleblowers being afraid of coming forward despite protections for Whistleblowers found in the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2012 originally sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii. Forces from their side of the issue go on a paranoid rant that Operation Fast and Furious was planned to fail in order to provide support for additional gun control measures. Yup, they planned for a big investigation during an election cycle year just because... well, I don't have any idea why that makes sense.
There is no solid reporting in this book. There is no connecting the dots. Maybe Eric Holder and all those ATF officials did something criminal. If so, they should be held accountable. However, reporting such as found in this book is not ever going to be a path to discovery. In order to discover the truth you have to start with a question; gather evidence; formulate a theory; and test your theory. You have to allow for the possible option that the thought that initial leaps out of your head may not be a divinely inspired truth delivered by God directly to you.
To be right about anything, you have to consider the option that you might be wrong. That's why Katie Pavlich fails as a reporter. That's why Fox News fails as.. a source of news. And that's why the NRA cannot be a part of the solution to gun violence in this country or gun smuggling from here into another country. All of these people get an idea in their head and will twist, turn, distort, or torture the truth until it gives them what they want.
But they don't "stand for the truth" to draw a comparison to the dedication line at the front of Katie's book. Those who have the courage to stand for the truth must also have the courage to stand back from their own beliefs if they are not supported by evidence. They just can't bring themselves to do that.
Finis!
The book doesn't fulfill the pretended goal of providing news. I did, however, achieve other goals. Propaganda distribution, book sales, and appearances on Fox News. The claims made by the book deserve some critical scrutiny. I understand, however, that a more fact-checking sort of publication would not have served the author's interests as well. Only conservatives felt a need to buy such a book; liberals understood the trial as a political stunt. Moderates didn't feel vested enough in the issue to put money in the author's pocket. If you are only writing to a conservative base, then you want to appear on Fox News to push your book. To do that, you'll have to say what Fox News wants to hear.
Recently, a professor had this to say about Fox News
"The tagline “Fox News” makes me cringe. Please do not subject me to this biased news station. I would almost rather you print off an article from the Onion." ~~ Stephanie Wolfe
You may like Fox News, but you are not really getting news when the reporting is so biased. What you are getting is what you are essentially paying for: Republican propaganda. In order to appear on Fox News, all Katie had to do was provide the type of propaganda that would appeal to them. It's kind of like going to a strip club for a lap dance. (The chick isn't paying attention to you; she's exploiting you.)
But what about liberal media? Ah, well, you'd have a point there. Just as soon as you exercise some critical thinking and discernment about your Fox News, we'll move on to an intelligent and critical discussion of these liberal media pundits. Bias can appear on either side of the issues. In my experience, the liberal media tends to focus less on anger, fear, and riling people up. The tend to present evidence and employ reasoning. You may not agree with their reasoning or like their evidence.
I believe I am a political moderate. However, when I talk to conservatives they tell me I am liberal. I suspect that's a nice way to pigeonhole and dismiss anything I might say. What I am saying to you now is that I will fact-check even liberals. However, my time spend on such fact-checking websites like fact-check.org and politifact.com tends to support my assessment of Fox News. It is easier to listen to liberal media and check the facts than to do so for conservative media. Especially, this particular book where every fact would need verification. (And some of the footnotes refute the text where they are placed -- as already harped on.)
Now, in this chapter, Katie talks about attending a fund-raiser for Border patrol Agent Brian Terry's family. We also hear of Jay Dobyns attending, in particular a reference to drinking half a large bottle of Jack Daniels. This does make it seem as if Jay were really feeling the family's pain. Maybe. For all I know he drinks hard all the time. I'm not so sure Jay attends fund-raisers for all the border patrol Agents who die. Certainly, Katie Pavlich doesn't. I'm afraid, the description of attending the Fundraiser sounds like an insincere stunt. My suspicion is they attended to further their own political and private agendas. I suppose I'm suspicious that way.
She has something to say here, a perspective to paint. This isn't really connecting the dots yet, it is more of the same thing we've seen previously. For example, she mentions Tom Atteberry. She's careful to immediately portray him as an outsider. She describes the "rest of us" in jeans and cowboy boots. She describes him as 'dressed to the nines' with a suit, tie, and ATF lapel pin. If you haven't seen pictures of Katie Pavlich, you might want to consider doing a quick google search. As you should expect, she is a young lady that 'dresses to the nines' in her own way frequently.
She doesn't tell you who Tom Atteberry is. If you don't already know or can't quite remember, what she's done is suggestive without directly being false. (Inaccurate, not false, to make an allusion to an earlier exchange between Issa and Holder.) Reminding us of Jay, describing whistleblowers at the bar in cowboy boots, and mentioning the lapel pin might remind you of the division between the old guard and new execs and wiz-kids that Jay lambasted in his introduction to the book.
Now, if you are going to a benefit for a border patrol agent's family, you should probably be expected to dress respectfully. A suit, a tie, and a lapel pin in support of the ATF seem appropriate. However, there is a difference between being dressed professionally and being done up to the nines. I just can't give Katie Pavlich enough credit for responsible reporting to accept her assessment.
Her description makes him seem like one of the new execs working at the ATF. Perhaps some of the people responsible for Operation Fast and Furious. This isn't stated, of course, merely something people might believe based on their reading of the book up to this point. I hadn't remembered him yet. The appendix in the back lists his first appearnace in the book as page 141. Ah, this page! Shouldn't you tell me something about who he is?
What she's doing is painting a scene where the reader is predisposed to think of Tom Atteberry in a negative light. She describes him as chatting with a woman who had flown from Anchorage, Alaska for the fundraiser. The woman conveniently asks Tom a question about Andrew Traver. Katie Pavlich is quick to insert a negative image of Traver immediately. She says he was a wall-known opponent of gun ownership rights. Given Katie's feelings towards Fox News and the NRA, any person who is in favor of reasonable or sane gun control laws could possibly be described by her this way. She's not a "just the facts, ma'am" kind of author. She uses Atteberry's response of "he's a stand-up guy" in order to paint him in a negative light. For all we know, Traver is a stand up guy who happens to have political views Katie Pavlich doesn't like.
Katie continues to describe the woman inquiring of Atteberry about the "long gun reporting measures being implemented through the Justice Department without the consent of Congress." The Justice Department has certain powers they can exercise without going through Congress. This has something to do with the checks and balances of the three departments and is a rather central concept in the functioning of our form of government. Saying things in this way, after already taking care to pain a negative picture, further enables Katie Pavlich to lead the reader by the nose into what she wants him (or her) to believe. This is persuasive writing, not informational writing. This is how propaganda works.
This is how reading this entire book worked. Katie Pavlich knows her audience and uses buzz words, catch phrases, and other red flags to catch the attention of her reader. The book reads like a version of porn for gun lovers and Teapublicans.
The issues at the border do involve gun sales and both waiting periods, background checks, and additional scrutiny of people making multiple purchases within a short time period are steps that can be taken. Are they the best steps? Will they work? I don't know. I do know that doing nothing will not work and "nothing" is exactly what the NRA wants done. The NRA and those authors like Katie Pavlich who churn out propaganda mill material for them are not a part of the solution to this problem. All they will tell you is that nothing can be done.
Some gun shop owners were doing their job. These were gun shop owners who probably knew the ATF was watching them and knew better than to hide gun sales. Some gun shop owners will be less ethical. In their search for the dollar, they will see what they want to see. Just like we've seen Katie Pavlich do repeatedly in the book. They will look at evidence but only perceive it in a way that allows them to make a sale. Straw purchasers (meth addicts) can be sent to every gun shop until they find one that is less scrupulous. They will then go there for all their gun purchases. Find the weak point and exploit it, in other words. The gun shop owner will be making lots of money, will be happy, and will really not want their gravy train to stop. Not every gun shop owner would do this, but the cartels have the advantage of working the numbers and fishing for the shop that serves them best. Meth addicts are, after all, a dime-bag a dozen. (Pardon the pun, and I know dime-bags are pot not meth.)
NRA members, just like Katie Pavlich and the gun shop owner I portrayed above, also do this selective-vision trick whereby the evidence says what the need it to say. Any evidence or thoughts at odds with what they want to believe is quickly pigeonholed as liberal and dismissed out of hand. Oh, yes, Fox News is one of the most biased media outlets and they always seem to be blaming the rest of the media for a leftward bias. Oh, the pot is calling the kettle black again!
Any time the NRA sees an effort at gun control or gun violence prevention, they treat it as if it is some holy crusade against gun ownership. Reagan might have said you don't need an assault weapon to defend your home or hunt, but they will quietly ignore their Saint's saying on this matter when convenient. Any efforts and any attempts, no matter how small, to control the straw purchaser problem in places like Arizona is portrayed as an attack on gun rights.
After the end of some NRA propaganda, Tom Atteberry told the woman from Alaska that he thought the long gun reporting measures made, "perfect sense." From his perspective, which is pretty much the perspective of anyone who isn't a paranoid gun-loving NRA Teapublican, I'm sure the measures made perfect sense compared to any other measure on the table at the moment. I've tried to tell my gun-loving friends that I would seriously consider any legislation or measure presented by a conservative source and measure it against the liberal's ideas. I would certainly give you time to say your piece.
But they don't have anything.... an that's the problem. Agent Brian Terry was shot, in part, because of the NRA's opposition to sane gun control. They say that criminals will not obey the rules and will find guns no matter what.... blah, blah, blah. Ok, that's rhetoric and propaganda. Here's fact: Mexico has more restrictive gun laws and drug cartel members there have to smuggle guns out of places like Arizona. With more restrictive gun laws, American guns would not be acquired by Straw Purchasers and smuggled over the border. People there would not be facing heavily armed drug cartels and those heavily armed drug cartels would not be crawling across the border and wandering around armed to the teeth on American soil, either. Without that backdrop, Operation Fast and Furious would never even have happened.
Physician, heal thyself.
NRA, I get that you love your guns and I would love to allow law abiding Americans to possess weapons for sport, for hunting, and for self-defense. I think every psychologically cleared soldier to come home from serving in war should be given an assault weapon as a thank you and sign of respect for their service. However, your very restrictive views have created a problem. The problem with gun violence in America can be traced back to your attitudes and your policies. So, your members want to protect themselves from gun violence and buy guns but the lax mechanisms in place due to your obstruction has actually created the situation that gives them cause to fear. Especially along the Mexican border.
That's not opinion, that's not perspective, that is truth. You can take steps to reduce gun violence in American and still protect the rights of Americans to have the weaponry they enjoy. I encourage you to start working with the rest of America instead of against them. Guns are tools. Guns don't kill people; people kill people. People with guns kill people easily and quickly. Let's be reasonable and take reasonable steps.
Show some loyalty to the rest of America. Loyalty to America isn't found in asking for what you want. It is found in sacrificing some of what you want to see to the needs of other Americans. Everyone will ask for what they want; just as Jesus said sinners will love those who love them. The meaningful virtue of loyalty to your country does not come from asking what your country can do for you; but rather from looking for what you can do to make your country better. This is what we need; not more of the same from you.
By the way, Tom Atteberry is just used as a cardboard cutout for a supposed Alaska woman to ask questions. The last mention in the book still doesn't tell you anything about him. He may be this guy[1][2][3]. If he's an ATF member, as insinuated, I've seen no indication of it. He seems to be a financial person, a banker, an economist. Yeah, just the guy you'd expect to be dressed in a suit and tie. Or, he could have been any person named Tom Atteberry in the country or even someone hired by Katie Pavlich to pretend to be Tom and give out his name when asked. I really don't have much faith in the author. An expert on financial matters that predicted the crash isn't exactly an expert on guns. He certainly isn't an ATF exec.
Fast and Furious, despite page 147 assertion, wasn't Barack Obama's Iran-Contra Affair. During the Iran-Contra Affair, the administration actually did something and the investigations pretty much sounded like Issa's crusade. Except, of course, that the Reagan Administration was found to have, actually, done something wrong.
Eric Holder was exonerated. The Justice Department didn't find any evidence that the ATF knowingly allowed guns to walk. This is what Operation Fast and Furious was, according to the eye of history. And, with the likelihood of failure in their attempted witch-hunt, the NRA cronies don't just whine about whistleblowers being afraid of coming forward despite protections for Whistleblowers found in the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2012 originally sponsored by Sen. Daniel Akaka, D-Hawaii. Forces from their side of the issue go on a paranoid rant that Operation Fast and Furious was planned to fail in order to provide support for additional gun control measures. Yup, they planned for a big investigation during an election cycle year just because... well, I don't have any idea why that makes sense.
There is no solid reporting in this book. There is no connecting the dots. Maybe Eric Holder and all those ATF officials did something criminal. If so, they should be held accountable. However, reporting such as found in this book is not ever going to be a path to discovery. In order to discover the truth you have to start with a question; gather evidence; formulate a theory; and test your theory. You have to allow for the possible option that the thought that initial leaps out of your head may not be a divinely inspired truth delivered by God directly to you.
To be right about anything, you have to consider the option that you might be wrong. That's why Katie Pavlich fails as a reporter. That's why Fox News fails as.. a source of news. And that's why the NRA cannot be a part of the solution to gun violence in this country or gun smuggling from here into another country. All of these people get an idea in their head and will twist, turn, distort, or torture the truth until it gives them what they want.
But they don't "stand for the truth" to draw a comparison to the dedication line at the front of Katie's book. Those who have the courage to stand for the truth must also have the courage to stand back from their own beliefs if they are not supported by evidence. They just can't bring themselves to do that.
Finis!
Monday, February 18, 2013
Chapter Nine: Revelations
Trying to cover ground more quickly...
"It isn't the original scandal that gets people in the most trouble -- it's the attempted cover-up." ~~ Congressman Tom Petri. (pg 123)
It would be nice if more politicians lived their lives and ran their political campaigns accordingly.
".. confirmed that they had been ordered to keep Mexican officials in the dark about the agency's project to walk 2,500 guns into their country." ~~ pg 123
No footnote to check, but based on previous reporting style, suspicious. For example, Darren Gill and Carols Canino could have been told not to mention Operation Fast and Furious to Mexican officials for fear of corrupt officials passing crucial information on to the cartels and putting US undercover Agents in harm's way. The author, with no ethical qualms about misrepresentation, states matters to assume the conclusion she wishes the reader to arrive at. This might be considered circular reasoning, but there isn't any reasoning going on. She simply states and restates unsubstantiated claims in the hopes that they will eventually be accepted by the reader as true.
"Newell was unrepentant." ~~ pg 124
Someone who hadn't done anything wrong would not appear repentant. Phrasing in this way is used to assume guilt and get the reader used to it. Effective, I wager, but not a devotion to truthfulness. We've already touched on that previously. This repetition of what you want someone to believe sounds a lot like how the Republicans run their political ad campaigns. Truth is unnecessary if you can just put your lie into someone's ear often enough.
"The emails, released by the White House in response to congressional subpoena, undercut Newell's claim to the committee that 'at no time in our strategy was it to allow guns to be taken into Mexico.' One of the emails, in fact, included a map showing exactly where the guns from the Phoenix areas were showing up in Mexico." ~~ pg 125
Showing where the weapons ended up does not refute a claim that the strategy was not to allow guns to be taken into Mexico. It shows that the cartel were able to get the guns into Mexico, not that the intention was for this to happen. This would be the difference between gun-walking and gun-smuggling.
".. at least eleven crimes were committed on American soil in 2011 with guns traceable to Fast and Furious." ~~ pg 126.
Unstated are crimes committed on American soil by guns lost during Operation Wide Receiver. If the crimes are committed on American soil, then these represent guns that were not "walked." In particular, as previously explained, it makes no sense to smuggle a gun twice.. one into Mexico and once back when it is easy enough to purchase one in the USA. More important than guns used to commit crimes purchased as a part of Operation Fast and Furious might be the guns used to commit crimes purchased legally. Oh, and there's the little tidbit the NRA likes to put out about assault style weapons not being frequently used in crimes. Because this would directly refute that, wouldn't it?
"...800 of the 2,500 guns were linked to criminal activity in the United States and Mexico." ~~ pg 126.
Wonderfully evasive. First, it would be possible to list the number of guns linked to criminal activity in the United States. The only reason to lump the reporting together is to enable people who are angry over the Operation to feel that they have been put in harms way because many of the guns are still in the United States and being used in crimes. Secondarily, "linked to criminal activity" is different than "used to commit crimes" and yet stated in this way we would expect many readers not to be perceptive enough to pick up on that. Strictly speaking, every gone smuggled into Mexico is linked to criminal activity.. smuggling!
"You now claim that you were unaware of fast and Furious because your staff failed to inform you of information contained in memos that were specifically addressed to you." ~~ Issa as found on pg 130.
Do you mind if we start using that assumption of guilt in Corporate corruption investigations, banking disaster investigations, or the Iran Contra affair? Marvelously one-sided of you. I believe, if Issa were ever investigated in this manner he would find this defense entirely reasonable.
"Knowing what I now know was a pattern of unacceptable and misguided tactics used by the ATF, I regret that i did not alert others within the leadership of the Department of Justice tot he tactics used in Operation Wide Receiver." ~~ Breuer as quoted on page 131-132
Katie has stated that Breuer misleadingly labeled Fast and Furious by its Bush-era predecessor. I stipulate that it is entirely possible Breuer made no mistake at all. He could very well have been talking about Operation Wide Receiver when he made the statement, even if he had been asked a question about Operation Fast and Furious. Reminds me of Poindexter.
"Not good. 18 miles w/in [U.S. territory]" ~~ Burke email as quoted on pg 134.
Again, a gun purchased legally in Arizona and no evidence it was smuggled south of the border and smuggled again north. Straw purchasing wasn't illegal at the time the gun was purchased. Agents had to catch the purchasers lying on their paperwork in order to do anything.
"The notion that [Fast and Furious] reaches into the upper levels of the Justice Department is soemthing that at this point I don't think is supported by the facts and I think once we examine it and once the fats are revealed we'll see that's not the case." ~~ Holder as Quoted on page 135.
History shows Holder was correct.
"Five emails linking her to Holder. They go back to two days after it happened--the first email was two days after Brian was killed."~~ Inside Sources quoted on pg 136.
Once you establish a respectable reputation as a journalist, you get some credit when mentioning inside an anonymous sources. Without such a reputation, or with a reporting style like Katie Pavlich's, no reasonable person should dismiss that your anonymous sources are could be entirely made up or completely misrepresented. After all, we see what you do with actual footnotes we can check.
"The emails, the source says, show Holder discussing Brian Terry's murder with Napolitano." ~~ pg 136.
"Show me the money." ~~ Jerry McGuire. You should not accept a statement as true simply because it is made. People say all sorts of things all the time. Where are the emails mentioned? Are we expected to trust Katie's reporting credentials?
"We honestly believe that Holder kept her in the dark about a lot of things, but we also know that her office approved the guns going across the border because CBP agents had to go through her chain of command in order to let those guns go across the border," ~~ anonymous source as quoted on pg 137.
This is not reasonable. The cartel, having purchased the guns, would also have established some means of getting them to Mexico around the CBP, possibly bribing corrupt agents on their own. They would not have trusted to luck and fortune that the guns were not found. Most likely, they smuggled the guns down the same way they smuggle the drugs up.. and I doubt this has to do with Napolitano giving them permission.
Conclusion:
C'mon, it is like she's not even trying to be honest. Biased perspective only explains so much.... after that you have to assume incompetent or corrupt.
"It isn't the original scandal that gets people in the most trouble -- it's the attempted cover-up." ~~ Congressman Tom Petri. (pg 123)
It would be nice if more politicians lived their lives and ran their political campaigns accordingly.
".. confirmed that they had been ordered to keep Mexican officials in the dark about the agency's project to walk 2,500 guns into their country." ~~ pg 123
No footnote to check, but based on previous reporting style, suspicious. For example, Darren Gill and Carols Canino could have been told not to mention Operation Fast and Furious to Mexican officials for fear of corrupt officials passing crucial information on to the cartels and putting US undercover Agents in harm's way. The author, with no ethical qualms about misrepresentation, states matters to assume the conclusion she wishes the reader to arrive at. This might be considered circular reasoning, but there isn't any reasoning going on. She simply states and restates unsubstantiated claims in the hopes that they will eventually be accepted by the reader as true.
"Newell was unrepentant." ~~ pg 124
Someone who hadn't done anything wrong would not appear repentant. Phrasing in this way is used to assume guilt and get the reader used to it. Effective, I wager, but not a devotion to truthfulness. We've already touched on that previously. This repetition of what you want someone to believe sounds a lot like how the Republicans run their political ad campaigns. Truth is unnecessary if you can just put your lie into someone's ear often enough.
"The emails, released by the White House in response to congressional subpoena, undercut Newell's claim to the committee that 'at no time in our strategy was it to allow guns to be taken into Mexico.' One of the emails, in fact, included a map showing exactly where the guns from the Phoenix areas were showing up in Mexico." ~~ pg 125
Showing where the weapons ended up does not refute a claim that the strategy was not to allow guns to be taken into Mexico. It shows that the cartel were able to get the guns into Mexico, not that the intention was for this to happen. This would be the difference between gun-walking and gun-smuggling.
".. at least eleven crimes were committed on American soil in 2011 with guns traceable to Fast and Furious." ~~ pg 126.
Unstated are crimes committed on American soil by guns lost during Operation Wide Receiver. If the crimes are committed on American soil, then these represent guns that were not "walked." In particular, as previously explained, it makes no sense to smuggle a gun twice.. one into Mexico and once back when it is easy enough to purchase one in the USA. More important than guns used to commit crimes purchased as a part of Operation Fast and Furious might be the guns used to commit crimes purchased legally. Oh, and there's the little tidbit the NRA likes to put out about assault style weapons not being frequently used in crimes. Because this would directly refute that, wouldn't it?
"...800 of the 2,500 guns were linked to criminal activity in the United States and Mexico." ~~ pg 126.
Wonderfully evasive. First, it would be possible to list the number of guns linked to criminal activity in the United States. The only reason to lump the reporting together is to enable people who are angry over the Operation to feel that they have been put in harms way because many of the guns are still in the United States and being used in crimes. Secondarily, "linked to criminal activity" is different than "used to commit crimes" and yet stated in this way we would expect many readers not to be perceptive enough to pick up on that. Strictly speaking, every gone smuggled into Mexico is linked to criminal activity.. smuggling!
"You now claim that you were unaware of fast and Furious because your staff failed to inform you of information contained in memos that were specifically addressed to you." ~~ Issa as found on pg 130.
Do you mind if we start using that assumption of guilt in Corporate corruption investigations, banking disaster investigations, or the Iran Contra affair? Marvelously one-sided of you. I believe, if Issa were ever investigated in this manner he would find this defense entirely reasonable.
"Knowing what I now know was a pattern of unacceptable and misguided tactics used by the ATF, I regret that i did not alert others within the leadership of the Department of Justice tot he tactics used in Operation Wide Receiver." ~~ Breuer as quoted on page 131-132
Katie has stated that Breuer misleadingly labeled Fast and Furious by its Bush-era predecessor. I stipulate that it is entirely possible Breuer made no mistake at all. He could very well have been talking about Operation Wide Receiver when he made the statement, even if he had been asked a question about Operation Fast and Furious. Reminds me of Poindexter.
"Not good. 18 miles w/in [U.S. territory]" ~~ Burke email as quoted on pg 134.
Again, a gun purchased legally in Arizona and no evidence it was smuggled south of the border and smuggled again north. Straw purchasing wasn't illegal at the time the gun was purchased. Agents had to catch the purchasers lying on their paperwork in order to do anything.
"The notion that [Fast and Furious] reaches into the upper levels of the Justice Department is soemthing that at this point I don't think is supported by the facts and I think once we examine it and once the fats are revealed we'll see that's not the case." ~~ Holder as Quoted on page 135.
History shows Holder was correct.
"Five emails linking her to Holder. They go back to two days after it happened--the first email was two days after Brian was killed."~~ Inside Sources quoted on pg 136.
Once you establish a respectable reputation as a journalist, you get some credit when mentioning inside an anonymous sources. Without such a reputation, or with a reporting style like Katie Pavlich's, no reasonable person should dismiss that your anonymous sources are could be entirely made up or completely misrepresented. After all, we see what you do with actual footnotes we can check.
"The emails, the source says, show Holder discussing Brian Terry's murder with Napolitano." ~~ pg 136.
"Show me the money." ~~ Jerry McGuire. You should not accept a statement as true simply because it is made. People say all sorts of things all the time. Where are the emails mentioned? Are we expected to trust Katie's reporting credentials?
"We honestly believe that Holder kept her in the dark about a lot of things, but we also know that her office approved the guns going across the border because CBP agents had to go through her chain of command in order to let those guns go across the border," ~~ anonymous source as quoted on pg 137.
This is not reasonable. The cartel, having purchased the guns, would also have established some means of getting them to Mexico around the CBP, possibly bribing corrupt agents on their own. They would not have trusted to luck and fortune that the guns were not found. Most likely, they smuggled the guns down the same way they smuggle the drugs up.. and I doubt this has to do with Napolitano giving them permission.
Conclusion:
C'mon, it is like she's not even trying to be honest. Biased perspective only explains so much.... after that you have to assume incompetent or corrupt.
Chapter Eight: Payback
This chapter begins with another anonymous quote indicating an ATF Agent who wished to speak but was concerned with retaliation. I believe, unlike many things Katie writes, that this is entirely plausible. As it seems she can't get footnotes that actually support the claims she has made when placing the footnote on the page, I couldn't give you a good reason why anonymous sources which cannot be fact-checked should be believed any more than her lousy sources for which she's actually provided footnotes.
But, I believe this could happen. We do have to worry about whistle-blowers facing payback for singing for the Inquisition drawn up by the Republicans and the NRA.
However, we need to remember Jay Dobyns. He is the example of one of these ATF Agents provided to us by Katie Pavlich. Jay, as you may recall, is the kind of guy who can be told at gunpoint to drive a car away and will remove the keys from the ignition, drop them to the floor, and get shot through the lung for his trouble.
In other words, if Agents are cut from the same cloth as Jay, do we really believe they'd be scared to blow the whistle? Especially if these were rough and tumble old guards such as Jay described for us in the introduction who didn't much cotton to the new fancy-pants educated thinking bureaucrats. This would have been a good time to stick it to the man in the suit with a little bit of protection from the law. The Whistleblower Act and the No Fear Act and the public notoriety of this Inquisition would have made it difficult for the Obama Administration to punish or allow to be punished people who wished to testify. Any attempt to do so would have.. or at least could have.. been painted by the Republicans to convict the Administration in the Court of Public Opinion.
When you are in an election year, that's really the court that matters most. It isn't like the Republicans were really worried about lost guns. Their own holy Commander In Chief had sat in office while Operation Wide Receiver lost weapons. No one was too terribly worried then. These "leaders" are also the same ones who sign us up to simultaneously fight two wars.. sending our boys and girls over into harms way.. and then don't vote to provide them the support back home which was promised our soldiers.
Admitting that being two-faced is entirely possible given this bunch of weasels, I rather also suspect the entire investigation was nothing but a political witch hunt. I've said this before. So, if you had people who wanted to testify and their testimony would help you put the thumbscrews to the Administration and you happen to be the party in bed with big money and special interests. Well, heck, just offer them a different job and buy the testimony you need.
Not like they have ethical problems with doing such things.
Going back to the title of the Chapter and what I expect it might have meant to people who had been willing to plop down a bit of money to buy a book to serve as their rationalization of existing beliefs; I do rather believe this could be some effort at payback by the Republicans. Payback for the investigations like Watergate and Iran Contra which were examples of bad stuff they actually did. Payback also for thwarting their investigations like Whitewater or Clinton's Sex with Monica. They try so hard... and they still can't really pay those Democrats back.
Unfortunately, they turned out to be completely wrong. No really. Historically speaking their investigation of Operation Fast and Furious accomplished absolutely smurfing nothing of lasting importance. There was no evidence of intentionally walking guns and Eric Holder is free and at large pursuing his political carer with a complete exoneration of charges.
So, if our investigation doesn't pan out. We could admit we were wrong. Nah, we aren't really good about that. Kind of like when Mitt Romney lost the election to Obama and the Republicans could face reality. It wasn't that their policies and goals are not connecting with the American public. Just like those Polls which had shown Obama in the lead were fixed.. even -- though -- they -- showed -- exactly -- how -- things worked out come election time.
No, Obama cheated. The election was stolen by those darn minorities who think they should have .. I don't know.. opportunities or something radical.
And the investigation into Fast and Furious fails.. oh, because people who wanted to testify were afraid of being punished for blowing the whistle on their bosses. Except guys who get shot at while fighting drug cartels and keep mouthing off to their bosses while they need protection from revenge attacks by biker gangs still can't bear to remain quiet. Yeah, that makes sense. Excepting for Jay Dobyns, the rest of the entire ATF Agents just don't have the balls to speak their mind. That's why the investigation failed.
Now, I had a conversation like this with my daughter. "Sweetie, I'm not going to say you are lying. I wasn't there, I didn't see, I can't know. What I am telling you is that the story you are telling me does not make sense."
Let's start with the fact that the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2012 took 13 years to pass. It was opposed by managers at all levels of government. "WPEA passed unanimously, because no politician in a free society can openly oppose freedom of speech."[1] (Note: openly.)
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ~~ Carl Sagan
It would be more of an extraordinary claim to posit that a member of the Democrat Party used a secret hold to kill this bill in 2010. A less extraordinary claim would be to suppose it likely that a Republican Senator was guilty of this. There's no proof, of course. That is the whole reason for an anonymous means of killing a bill.
Given the Democratic Party's desire to protect Whistleblowers and Katie Pavlich's already established questionable reporting ethics; I feel more than slightly confident that she has seriously overstated the case for sanctions against Whistle-blowers. I suspect this Chapter inflating perceptions of payback dealt to those who chose to speak up is nothing more and nothing less than excuse making on the part of Conservatives.
...
Stepping back from this particular episode, I do support Whistleblower protection. I would want people to come forward with evidence of corruption even if it hurt my political hopes for the country. (My hopes being equality and opportunity for all Americans, which seems benign enough. I don't support Socialism of Wealth Redistribution. However, I do think those who can afford to pay more ... should. "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." ~~ Adam Smith[3], called the Father of Modern Economics)
Yes, I truly believe it would have been disastrous to hand the Keys to the Kingdom to someone like Venture Capitalist Mitt Romney. Despite this, the Truth must win out even if it causes temporary setbacks. In this particular instance, the investigation of Fast and Furious seems to have been a political attack on the Obama Administration. The worst and politically least savvy thing they could have done in response would be to get caught suppressing the truth or oppressing those who tried to tell it. Yes, I do expect that higherups would have a bad attitude towards what they would see as disloyal employees. I would want the Whistleblowers, however, seen as being loyal to the rest of America. I do want to extend protections to them.
But, I believe this could happen. We do have to worry about whistle-blowers facing payback for singing for the Inquisition drawn up by the Republicans and the NRA.
However, we need to remember Jay Dobyns. He is the example of one of these ATF Agents provided to us by Katie Pavlich. Jay, as you may recall, is the kind of guy who can be told at gunpoint to drive a car away and will remove the keys from the ignition, drop them to the floor, and get shot through the lung for his trouble.
In other words, if Agents are cut from the same cloth as Jay, do we really believe they'd be scared to blow the whistle? Especially if these were rough and tumble old guards such as Jay described for us in the introduction who didn't much cotton to the new fancy-pants educated thinking bureaucrats. This would have been a good time to stick it to the man in the suit with a little bit of protection from the law. The Whistleblower Act and the No Fear Act and the public notoriety of this Inquisition would have made it difficult for the Obama Administration to punish or allow to be punished people who wished to testify. Any attempt to do so would have.. or at least could have.. been painted by the Republicans to convict the Administration in the Court of Public Opinion.
When you are in an election year, that's really the court that matters most. It isn't like the Republicans were really worried about lost guns. Their own holy Commander In Chief had sat in office while Operation Wide Receiver lost weapons. No one was too terribly worried then. These "leaders" are also the same ones who sign us up to simultaneously fight two wars.. sending our boys and girls over into harms way.. and then don't vote to provide them the support back home which was promised our soldiers.
Admitting that being two-faced is entirely possible given this bunch of weasels, I rather also suspect the entire investigation was nothing but a political witch hunt. I've said this before. So, if you had people who wanted to testify and their testimony would help you put the thumbscrews to the Administration and you happen to be the party in bed with big money and special interests. Well, heck, just offer them a different job and buy the testimony you need.
Not like they have ethical problems with doing such things.
Going back to the title of the Chapter and what I expect it might have meant to people who had been willing to plop down a bit of money to buy a book to serve as their rationalization of existing beliefs; I do rather believe this could be some effort at payback by the Republicans. Payback for the investigations like Watergate and Iran Contra which were examples of bad stuff they actually did. Payback also for thwarting their investigations like Whitewater or Clinton's Sex with Monica. They try so hard... and they still can't really pay those Democrats back.
Unfortunately, they turned out to be completely wrong. No really. Historically speaking their investigation of Operation Fast and Furious accomplished absolutely smurfing nothing of lasting importance. There was no evidence of intentionally walking guns and Eric Holder is free and at large pursuing his political carer with a complete exoneration of charges.
So, if our investigation doesn't pan out. We could admit we were wrong. Nah, we aren't really good about that. Kind of like when Mitt Romney lost the election to Obama and the Republicans could face reality. It wasn't that their policies and goals are not connecting with the American public. Just like those Polls which had shown Obama in the lead were fixed.. even -- though -- they -- showed -- exactly -- how -- things worked out come election time.
No, Obama cheated. The election was stolen by those darn minorities who think they should have .. I don't know.. opportunities or something radical.
And the investigation into Fast and Furious fails.. oh, because people who wanted to testify were afraid of being punished for blowing the whistle on their bosses. Except guys who get shot at while fighting drug cartels and keep mouthing off to their bosses while they need protection from revenge attacks by biker gangs still can't bear to remain quiet. Yeah, that makes sense. Excepting for Jay Dobyns, the rest of the entire ATF Agents just don't have the balls to speak their mind. That's why the investigation failed.
Now, I had a conversation like this with my daughter. "Sweetie, I'm not going to say you are lying. I wasn't there, I didn't see, I can't know. What I am telling you is that the story you are telling me does not make sense."
Let's start with the fact that the Whistleblower Protection Act of 2012 took 13 years to pass. It was opposed by managers at all levels of government. "WPEA passed unanimously, because no politician in a free society can openly oppose freedom of speech."[1] (Note: openly.)
"The WPEA nearly passed at the end of the last four Congressional sessions, only to be killed by backroom deals during the final hours of negotiation. In one startling example, during the waning days of the last Congress (December 2010), the WPEA – after passing both the Senate and House by unanimous consent in some form – was killed by an anonymous Senator's "secret hold" in the last hours of the session." ~~ Whistleblower.org [2]
"Crucial support came from President Obama, who was committed from day one of his term to signing this bill into law." ~~ Tom Devine [2]The Obama Administration signed this Act and the passage of that Act is a feather in their cap. The idea of both campaigning for Whistleblower protection and simultaneously trying to oppress Whistleblowers seems a bit of a stretch. Part of the raison d'être of the Democratic party lies in standing up for the little people against special interests and corporations. To do that, someone has to be the whistleblower. Therefore, the Democrats need to secure protection for those who have the information they need to uncover corruption. Democrats champion protections for whistleblowers.
"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" ~~ Carl Sagan
It would be more of an extraordinary claim to posit that a member of the Democrat Party used a secret hold to kill this bill in 2010. A less extraordinary claim would be to suppose it likely that a Republican Senator was guilty of this. There's no proof, of course. That is the whole reason for an anonymous means of killing a bill.
Given the Democratic Party's desire to protect Whistleblowers and Katie Pavlich's already established questionable reporting ethics; I feel more than slightly confident that she has seriously overstated the case for sanctions against Whistle-blowers. I suspect this Chapter inflating perceptions of payback dealt to those who chose to speak up is nothing more and nothing less than excuse making on the part of Conservatives.
...
Stepping back from this particular episode, I do support Whistleblower protection. I would want people to come forward with evidence of corruption even if it hurt my political hopes for the country. (My hopes being equality and opportunity for all Americans, which seems benign enough. I don't support Socialism of Wealth Redistribution. However, I do think those who can afford to pay more ... should. "The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." ~~ Adam Smith[3], called the Father of Modern Economics)
Yes, I truly believe it would have been disastrous to hand the Keys to the Kingdom to someone like Venture Capitalist Mitt Romney. Despite this, the Truth must win out even if it causes temporary setbacks. In this particular instance, the investigation of Fast and Furious seems to have been a political attack on the Obama Administration. The worst and politically least savvy thing they could have done in response would be to get caught suppressing the truth or oppressing those who tried to tell it. Yes, I do expect that higherups would have a bad attitude towards what they would see as disloyal employees. I would want the Whistleblowers, however, seen as being loyal to the rest of America. I do want to extend protections to them.
Tuesday, February 12, 2013
Chapter Seven: Fury
Chapter Seven was titled, "Fury." I can have some fury every once in awhile. This "scandal" was an election year political stunt. I have some fury about that. Fury because I don't like where those people want to take this country.
I believe that I can be wrong about things; especially about matters of faith.[1] We are all sinners; we can all be wrong. I do try to give it an honest bit of effort. The Pharisees were criticized for their law-crazy approach[2], so I try to focus less on theology than on how you live a good life.[3] I do believe that Salvation is a gift of grace and not the rigidity of the law.[4] I believe God is truthful, no part of God is deception.[5] I believe in God's Creation which was made to be seen and studied. Specifically, in the Gospel of John it says, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."[6] I am not challenged by science; rather I would say I see science as a discipline for those who most earnestly seek to know the truth. He who yearns for the truth comes closer to God.
History has shown the errors of Theocracy as a form of governance.[7][8] Given these abuses, I believe the Separation of Church and State to be a very good thing.[9] As this is the foundation of our form of government, I believe one should "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"[10] To borrow a line from another holy book, "For you is your faith, and for me, my faith."[11] (Note: I must not be adequately understanding this quote. It seems to be respecting freedom of religion; but historically it seems to have only applied when the followers of Mohammad were a minority in the area and ceases to operate when they can enforce Sharia.) Essentially, I think the wall between Church and State is an idea that would be pleasing to anyone who would say, "Blessed are the peacemakers."[12] You cannot have peace when your system of belief has no sanity check.
Unfortunately, "Wide is the Gate of Error"[13] The hard-line unbending approach to religion is incompatible with peace. We should not Judge others.[14] We should turn the other cheek[15] seven time seventy times[16] and the quality of a priest should be judged by the fruit that comes therefrom[17]. If a hard nosed and inflexible interpretation of the bible yield dissension and discord, perhaps it is not the right message. Maybe it is the wide gate of error.
People like Katie Pavlich are strongly affiliated with very conservative beliefs. They have the backing of a large section of the Christian fundamentalist movement and yet they yield bitter fruit. They spread misinformation even outright lies. They foment discord and dissension among our fellow Americans through fear-mongering. They are peace killers instead of peace makers. I cannot understand how Christs' message of salvation, hope, love, peace, lovingkindness, and taking care of the poor has been twisted to support the Republican party.
I have a lot of fury about that. [21]
Not so much about Operation Fast and Furious. I really would have preferred guns not enter Mexico. I think guns and serial numbers of each sale should be delivered to the Mexican Authorities. That way, when a gun turned up at a crime scene, they could try to extradite Jaime Avila[22] and extradite him to Mexico for trial.
Despite this, I understand that the people behind this "investigation" are not my friends. They don't care about me or the poor. They are the interests of those who don't need help; the rich. The fury over the Fast and Furious "scandal" seems to be, as a historical footnote, an attempt by one political party to harm another in an election year. I have the advantage of time which Katie does not. The ploy did not work. I'm glad it didn't.
See, I've read "Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft"[8] (above). And this investigation of a scandal certainly looked like a witch hunt to me. I suppose I could read up more on McCarthyism.[23] My attitude toward these sorts of things has probably been soured. I was a teenager during the Iran Contra Affair.[24] It certainly doesn't seem like these type of folks are so earnest about uncovering the truth when it is their own house in need of cleaning. Especially when pardons are being handed out.[25][26]
The Republicans like these kind of games. After all, Senator McCarthy was a Republican. It seems to me that when the Republicans get caught with their pants down, they look long and hard to find their opponents with their pants down[27] to secure revenge. They look really hard.[28] Of course, when Republicans are asked for Tax Returns...well, there's nothing to see here. Move along...[29]
My general principle is to identify a witch hunt for what it is and try not to get suckered into it. It seems like a good principle to live by. Certainly, in a world where one does unto others as you'd have done to you, [30] one should not play games like this nor dance to the tune of those who do wish to play. Especially, when they sing an entirely different song if they fall under the microscope. Good for the goose is good for the gander, fellas.
The think I got out of reading this chapter was that Eric Holder was pretty suave about choosing his words very carefully. Man has skills I wouldn't have in the hot-seat like that. I suspect he was covering things up, though. I'm just a suspicious person. Point is, however, that suspicions aren't proof. Evasiveness isn't guilt. I'm pretty sure the same sorts of evasions would echo those of good old Poindexter: "I do not recall."[31] Of course, this seems to be one of those selectively sharp matters which don't cut both ways.
I do favor investigations of wrong-doing. I want to see criminal behavior brought to light. I don't like partisan politics being a part of it. I want someone who wishes to uncover the facts and learn the truth. Not someone who would say or do anything to grill his political opponents.
Coming back to the point of this book and this chapter, we do, indeed, see Poindexter echoes pretty clearly. ON page 106, Eric Holder says, "No not that I can recall at all" and "I have no recollection of ever being told that." Those echoes remind me of evasiveness and cover-ups. I can certainly see why Morales would say, "In no way would we have allowed [this operation] because it is an attack on the safety of Mexicans." [pg 110]
If the Mexicans were pressing for answers, I certainly think they deserve some. Theirs would be a righteous fury.
I believe that I can be wrong about things; especially about matters of faith.[1] We are all sinners; we can all be wrong. I do try to give it an honest bit of effort. The Pharisees were criticized for their law-crazy approach[2], so I try to focus less on theology than on how you live a good life.[3] I do believe that Salvation is a gift of grace and not the rigidity of the law.[4] I believe God is truthful, no part of God is deception.[5] I believe in God's Creation which was made to be seen and studied. Specifically, in the Gospel of John it says, "Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."[6] I am not challenged by science; rather I would say I see science as a discipline for those who most earnestly seek to know the truth. He who yearns for the truth comes closer to God.
History has shown the errors of Theocracy as a form of governance.[7][8] Given these abuses, I believe the Separation of Church and State to be a very good thing.[9] As this is the foundation of our form of government, I believe one should "Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"[10] To borrow a line from another holy book, "For you is your faith, and for me, my faith."[11] (Note: I must not be adequately understanding this quote. It seems to be respecting freedom of religion; but historically it seems to have only applied when the followers of Mohammad were a minority in the area and ceases to operate when they can enforce Sharia.) Essentially, I think the wall between Church and State is an idea that would be pleasing to anyone who would say, "Blessed are the peacemakers."[12] You cannot have peace when your system of belief has no sanity check.
Unfortunately, "Wide is the Gate of Error"[13] The hard-line unbending approach to religion is incompatible with peace. We should not Judge others.[14] We should turn the other cheek[15] seven time seventy times[16] and the quality of a priest should be judged by the fruit that comes therefrom[17]. If a hard nosed and inflexible interpretation of the bible yield dissension and discord, perhaps it is not the right message. Maybe it is the wide gate of error.
People like Katie Pavlich are strongly affiliated with very conservative beliefs. They have the backing of a large section of the Christian fundamentalist movement and yet they yield bitter fruit. They spread misinformation even outright lies. They foment discord and dissension among our fellow Americans through fear-mongering. They are peace killers instead of peace makers. I cannot understand how Christs' message of salvation, hope, love, peace, lovingkindness, and taking care of the poor has been twisted to support the Republican party.
The reason is that the people know that the Democratic Party is the people's party, and the Republican party is the party of special interest, and it always has been and always will be.
~~ Harry S. Truman [18]These people are all about money, wealth, privilege, mammon[19], and did not that Jesus man talk against the Rich Man getting into Heaven. Something about the eye of a needle and a camel, right? [20] How does the party that embraces the philosophies of Ayn Rand get to be called the "Religious Right?"
I have a lot of fury about that. [21]
Not so much about Operation Fast and Furious. I really would have preferred guns not enter Mexico. I think guns and serial numbers of each sale should be delivered to the Mexican Authorities. That way, when a gun turned up at a crime scene, they could try to extradite Jaime Avila[22] and extradite him to Mexico for trial.
Despite this, I understand that the people behind this "investigation" are not my friends. They don't care about me or the poor. They are the interests of those who don't need help; the rich. The fury over the Fast and Furious "scandal" seems to be, as a historical footnote, an attempt by one political party to harm another in an election year. I have the advantage of time which Katie does not. The ploy did not work. I'm glad it didn't.
See, I've read "Letters on Demonology and Witchcraft"[8] (above). And this investigation of a scandal certainly looked like a witch hunt to me. I suppose I could read up more on McCarthyism.[23] My attitude toward these sorts of things has probably been soured. I was a teenager during the Iran Contra Affair.[24] It certainly doesn't seem like these type of folks are so earnest about uncovering the truth when it is their own house in need of cleaning. Especially when pardons are being handed out.[25][26]
The Republicans like these kind of games. After all, Senator McCarthy was a Republican. It seems to me that when the Republicans get caught with their pants down, they look long and hard to find their opponents with their pants down[27] to secure revenge. They look really hard.[28] Of course, when Republicans are asked for Tax Returns...well, there's nothing to see here. Move along...[29]
My general principle is to identify a witch hunt for what it is and try not to get suckered into it. It seems like a good principle to live by. Certainly, in a world where one does unto others as you'd have done to you, [30] one should not play games like this nor dance to the tune of those who do wish to play. Especially, when they sing an entirely different song if they fall under the microscope. Good for the goose is good for the gander, fellas.
The think I got out of reading this chapter was that Eric Holder was pretty suave about choosing his words very carefully. Man has skills I wouldn't have in the hot-seat like that. I suspect he was covering things up, though. I'm just a suspicious person. Point is, however, that suspicions aren't proof. Evasiveness isn't guilt. I'm pretty sure the same sorts of evasions would echo those of good old Poindexter: "I do not recall."[31] Of course, this seems to be one of those selectively sharp matters which don't cut both ways.
I do favor investigations of wrong-doing. I want to see criminal behavior brought to light. I don't like partisan politics being a part of it. I want someone who wishes to uncover the facts and learn the truth. Not someone who would say or do anything to grill his political opponents.
Coming back to the point of this book and this chapter, we do, indeed, see Poindexter echoes pretty clearly. ON page 106, Eric Holder says, "No not that I can recall at all" and "I have no recollection of ever being told that." Those echoes remind me of evasiveness and cover-ups. I can certainly see why Morales would say, "In no way would we have allowed [this operation] because it is an attack on the safety of Mexicans." [pg 110]
If the Mexicans were pressing for answers, I certainly think they deserve some. Theirs would be a righteous fury.
Friday, February 8, 2013
Chapter Six: Welcome to Murdergate
Beginning on page 76, the author pads the text of her book with another story that initially doesn't seem very well connected with the ongoing narrative of events. I started reading through the details of the February 15, 2011 attack on two ambassadors to Mexico by the Zeta gang without understanding where we were going with this story. I suspect that Katie had aims of promoting a NRA interest wherein the agents had been denied firearms to protect themselves while doing their business in Mexico. (I would like to point out that the firepower possessed by the Zeta gang in his particular ambush would have made firearms in the possession of the agents of little use.) The clearest connection, however, is that the weapon used in the shooting was one of those weapons who's purchase had been supervised by Operation Fast and Furious.
Yes, and drugs sold by pushers whom the police turn into informants when looking to catch people higher in the pecking order still kill or destroy lives. Straw purchasing is not illegal in Arizona. Had Otilio Osorio been intercepted and the guns he purchased prevented from crossing the border into Mexico, it stands to reason that the Zeta drug gang would have found weapons somewhere else to use in this attack. Now, the idea could be like chaos theory where the flapping of a butterfly's wings can change everything. I could work with that if the same people putting forward that supposition in this situation balked at having the same reasoning applied when it comes to gun control in the United States.
Still, this is a vindication of the investigation of Fast and Furious moreso that the regrettable death of Agent Terry. Terry's gun was straw purchased and later used in a crime. As it was purchased in Arizona and used in a crime in Arizona, that death speaks of a need to have better background checks on the purchase of firearms and.. perhaps waiting periods to provide for such background checks to be adequately performed. There is no reason to believe the gun was smuggled south and then re-smuggled back north. Therefore, it cannot be reasonably said to have been a death caused by a gun that was allowed to 'walk.' The death of the agents Zapata and Avila, however occurred with an American purchased weapon that was taken south after being purchased.
Vindication for Katie. It is nice to see that she can have a point here or there.
I once read a book, "Soap-bubble Stories" which gave me a chuckle. Uncle Columbus would say, "Gypsies!" to remind the family of past troubles (caused by Gypsies) and change the direction of the current conversation. Finally, gypsies are outside and:
At the sound of the fall, the Councillor ran up the steps to his front door, and put out his head cautiously to see what was the matter.So, Katie Pavlich, one well-earned "Gypsies" for you. :)
"Gypsies!" said Uncle Columbus without raising his eyes from his book; and for the first time in his life he was right.
~~ Soap Bubble Stories at OpenLibrary.org
Unfortunately, my bright and shining hope for Katie Pavlich is turned a bit sour by the light of truth. As it turns out,
The Romanian-made AK-47 was purchased at a Texas gun store in October by Otilio Osorio, 22, whom federal authorities began investigating in connection with suspected weapons purchases on behalf of Mexican drug lords a month after the rifle was bought.In other words, as a vilification of Operation Fast and Furious, this killing and this weapon is a red herring. It highlights, rather, that weapons were being purchased and shipped into Mexico outside of Fast and Furious and without the supervision of the ATF.
~~ Assault rifle used in U.S. agent's killing in Mexico traced to Texas, LA Times, March 5 2011.[1]
Katie's text is strictly speaking true although it is worded to obscure the truth. "A Dallas area man, Otilio Osorio, who had been under ATF surveillance for months, was accused of buying the guns used in Zapata's murder and arrested for gun smuggling." (pg 78) Said in that way, at this point in the narrative, it suggests taht Otilio was under investigation when he purchased the guns. As we've previously established, he was under investigation a month after the rifle was bought. This particular weapon was not one that was supervised by Operation Fast and Furious and the store owner was not directed to make a suspicious sale as Katie has otherwhere purported.
Perhaps this was an oversight... sigh, sadly not. The misrepresentation is intentional. Katie's book was published April 17, 2012. The article above was published March 05, 2011. The truth was known or at least reasonably knowable to anyone actually interested in doing a few moments or research.
She goes on to state that "reports surfaced that Carter's Country Gun Store, located in Houston, had sold weapons to straw purchasers at the request of the ATF." This might be true. But the implication is that this gun was one of those. We should remember, however, that Katie uses bloggers with anonymous sources as credible news sources. This "report" could well have been the paranoid rant of some random blogger. Well, I mean, that's all the credibility reading and researching Katie's book has inspired me to possess.
Remember: the woman uses footnotes to support text when the actual footnote refutes her point. Not the greatest degree of journalistic integrity.
Katie moves forward to quote a NRA News Radio program.. Oh, please! Like they are even remotely likely to be impartial fact-checkers! Really? What, we going to quote Rush Limbaugh now? Because, you know, he never makes stuff up or misrepresents the truth. Not him.
She quotes DeGuern:
'Well, this looks a little suspicious.' But the ATF Agents that were dealing with ... the personnel at Carter's Country said, "No, we need your help. We want to follow these guns. We want to know who the people are and you can help us.' So that's what Carter's Country did. They tried to be good citizens that they were asked to be, and have always been, only to have it blow up in their face.Except that, plainly spoken, one of the guns used to kill Zapata had been purchased prior to Otilio began being investigated was in fact purchased by Otilio before he came under investigation.
~~ Fast and Furious, Katie Pavlich, quoting DeGuern, pg 79
Sorry, Katie, I'm going to have to retract that "Gypsies" which I had thought you earned. I'll keep it over here on a shelf and you might be able to pick it up later.
"It's going to be acrimonious, there's no question. [Obama] has been one of the most corrupt presidents in modern times," Issa said on Rush Limbaugh's radio show just before the November 2010 elections. He intended to prove it.
Rush? Really? Rush wouldn't recognize the truth if walked up and slapped him in the face with its penis.
Historically, Obama is more benign than Jr. Bush. He had the Patriot Act, 2 wars, no-bid contracts, and water-boarding. Even Clinton had his sex scandal. The only reason to say Obama is one of the most corrupt Presidents in modern times would be because you have learned to flat-out blatantly lie on your radio talk show. Sheesh. Presidents are not corrupt just because they are black or because they hold values different than yours. They are corrupt if they let business interests influence how they perform their duties to the American people. Think about that for awhile and then read up on Citizens United.
As an aside:
It is rather amazing that none of the guns that went missing during the Bush-era Operation Wide Receiver fiasco or in the years after that were used to kill Americans. I wonder if the serial numbers were not recorded or what other possible reason might explain this.
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Chapter Five: Panic
Having long since realized the "facts" employed in writing this book are unreliable, skewed, or just plain false, I am no longer reading the footnotes and alternately laughing or crying at the terrible research. Checking the footnotes tends to reaffirm the poor quality of the book as a source of information. I no longer need to continue verifying this.
As I said I was going to review the book, however, I feel compelled to press on. However, as previously stated, I will only touch on the chapters lightly. To not take my speed in covering ground as any indication that the author's reporting credentials have improved. I simply do not wish to microscopically inspect the book to uncover each and every falsehood. Likely, the people who choose to believe his book wouldn't face facts even if I were doggedly determined to point out each and every one.
So, I'm not wasting my time.
Here, however, we see a point inserted into the book for no really good reason. As it is included, I feel it is safe to mention how this works directly against the interest of Katie Pavlich and her NRA buddies. Recently, there has been a push to limit clip size as a way to halt gun-related deaths and violence. The following is taken from Chapter Five of Katie Pavlich's book:
See, exactly not helping her own agenda there.
Another point seems worth mentioning. Katie Pavlich works as an editor for TownHall.com. This website is devoted to conservative politics. This bias has already been addressed. The website was purchased by Salem 2006 and anyone can set up their own blog at this address. In other words, Katie is Editor at a website featuring any blogger who feels like typing. Yes, folks, normal people with no more reporting credentials than... ME!
That's kind of like mentioning management experience on your resume working at a whorehouse.
Given this perspective, it is interesting that she chooses to fluff up the importance of bloggers in uncovering the details of this story. Interestingly enough, with the sheer number of bloggers out there it becomes possible to find one of them that 'broke' a story citing anonymous sources before the mainstream media did. It is a logical fallacy sometimes called 'counting the hits' but is really just confirmation bias in another style of dress. See, you ignore the bazillions of bloggers reporting complete hooey and only direct the readers to those who made a lucky guess.
I will leave you with a link to an Article that might be better reporting and reading than this chapter...
Daft & Spurious: A Regular American’s Guide to the Tea Party’s Bogus Election-Year Scandal
As I said I was going to review the book, however, I feel compelled to press on. However, as previously stated, I will only touch on the chapters lightly. To not take my speed in covering ground as any indication that the author's reporting credentials have improved. I simply do not wish to microscopically inspect the book to uncover each and every falsehood. Likely, the people who choose to believe his book wouldn't face facts even if I were doggedly determined to point out each and every one.
So, I'm not wasting my time.
Here, however, we see a point inserted into the book for no really good reason. As it is included, I feel it is safe to mention how this works directly against the interest of Katie Pavlich and her NRA buddies. Recently, there has been a push to limit clip size as a way to halt gun-related deaths and violence. The following is taken from Chapter Five of Katie Pavlich's book:
As the event began, a deranged young man approached the table where Giffords was visiting with constituents. At point blank range, he shot her with a 9mm handgun. The bullet went into her head and through her brain. He then turned to the crowd and started shooting indescriminately. The gunman ran out of bullets and reached for a second clip of ammunition when Patricia Maisch tackled him, preventing him from killing anybody else. -- Katie Pavlich, Fast and Furious, pg 67So much for people claiming limitations on clip size would have no effect. I discussed this with NRA members before. They insisted that a trained gunman can swap clips so fast it doesn't matter. I countered, clip size does matter when one's goal involves killing a lot of people in a short amount of time. The Army doesn't give its soldiers weapons needing many clips to be changed. If there were no advantage, the Army would not buy weapons with bigger clips. Certainly, we would expect our army boys and girls to be highly trained and competent gunmen. The incompetent gunmen, like random psychopaths shooting up schools and movie theaters might need the bigger clips to do their job...
See, exactly not helping her own agenda there.
Another point seems worth mentioning. Katie Pavlich works as an editor for TownHall.com. This website is devoted to conservative politics. This bias has already been addressed. The website was purchased by Salem 2006 and anyone can set up their own blog at this address. In other words, Katie is Editor at a website featuring any blogger who feels like typing. Yes, folks, normal people with no more reporting credentials than... ME!
That's kind of like mentioning management experience on your resume working at a whorehouse.
Given this perspective, it is interesting that she chooses to fluff up the importance of bloggers in uncovering the details of this story. Interestingly enough, with the sheer number of bloggers out there it becomes possible to find one of them that 'broke' a story citing anonymous sources before the mainstream media did. It is a logical fallacy sometimes called 'counting the hits' but is really just confirmation bias in another style of dress. See, you ignore the bazillions of bloggers reporting complete hooey and only direct the readers to those who made a lucky guess.
I will leave you with a link to an Article that might be better reporting and reading than this chapter...
Daft & Spurious: A Regular American’s Guide to the Tea Party’s Bogus Election-Year Scandal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)