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
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Chapter Four: What the H*ll Are We Doing?
Ah, someone else took note of this book who was not immediately prepared to swallow everything. Good. Haven't seen anyone picking apart her supposed sources, but this guy seems to have done some research: [1] Oh, wait, and another.[2] I like it that these guys are looking at her sources and noticing how they don't say what she claims they say.
This, although not related to the book, is probably a link I should read in more detail.[3]
....
Because I generally dislike being negative for days on end, I'm going to try and be positive for this day's chapter review. (And brief.) When Darren Gil, is quoted complaining about the weapons being allowed to go missing, I understood the sentiment entirely.
Now, don't get me wrong. I understand that police let lower-level drug pushers off in the hopes of catching the bigger fish. The ATF had been criticized for only picking up the small time straw purchasers; so the managers were looking for a way to get at the cartel leaders. The ATF's methodology would be exactly like that used by police; taken against a different type of crime. Drugs kill and destroy lives; the hope of police officers would be to do more good in the long run.
So, how do you identify the paths through which the guns are getting into Mexico? Well, for starters, you have to suspect corrupt Mexican officials, right? Mexico is reputed for having politicians even more corrupt than our American variants. If a Mexican official knows, he can pass the information along to the cartel who has purchased his loyalty and your tactic becomes useless.
Even worse, a Mexican cartel who doesn't like Operation Fast and Furious can arrange for weapons tied back to the Operation be used in a shooting and death incident with a Border Patrol officer in order to create a firestorm of political backlash against the sitting President and empower the NRA to further weaken the regulations on gun control in order to make it even easier for you to secure....
Well, I suppose that would be a conspiracy theory... like the one put out by the NRA who imagined Operation Fast and Furious was designed to fail in order to push more gun control measures. But, I think we'll get to that later in the book.
So, back to the guns and how I agree with Katie.
I would have thought it prudent to have more advanced measures in place to ensure the weapons did not make it across the border. Something like GPS devices, better surveillance, etc... much like what Darren Gil said. What you want to do is discover how they sneak the weapons across the border when it is hard to do so. Now how the weapons pass if there is no resistance. Obviously, the first place to start would be regulations on the sale and resale of the sort of weaponry which is especially attractive to the cartels. Let American citizens buy the guns, but put in place mechanism to prevent them falling into the wrong hands. For example, make straw purchasing illegal... that would be a start.
Also, I do think it should have been possible to provide weapons for sale to the cartel that had mechanical flaws or weaknesses such that they were fall apart shortly. Some sort of corrosive grease applied to sensitive workings. The weapon works when purchased but will break with repeated use. Really, some guys with mechanical or chemical aptitude should be able to manage this... right?
Ok, that's my effort to be supportive for this Chapter. See you next time.
This, although not related to the book, is probably a link I should read in more detail.[3]
....
Because I generally dislike being negative for days on end, I'm going to try and be positive for this day's chapter review. (And brief.) When Darren Gil, is quoted complaining about the weapons being allowed to go missing, I understood the sentiment entirely.
Now, don't get me wrong. I understand that police let lower-level drug pushers off in the hopes of catching the bigger fish. The ATF had been criticized for only picking up the small time straw purchasers; so the managers were looking for a way to get at the cartel leaders. The ATF's methodology would be exactly like that used by police; taken against a different type of crime. Drugs kill and destroy lives; the hope of police officers would be to do more good in the long run.
So, how do you identify the paths through which the guns are getting into Mexico? Well, for starters, you have to suspect corrupt Mexican officials, right? Mexico is reputed for having politicians even more corrupt than our American variants. If a Mexican official knows, he can pass the information along to the cartel who has purchased his loyalty and your tactic becomes useless.
Even worse, a Mexican cartel who doesn't like Operation Fast and Furious can arrange for weapons tied back to the Operation be used in a shooting and death incident with a Border Patrol officer in order to create a firestorm of political backlash against the sitting President and empower the NRA to further weaken the regulations on gun control in order to make it even easier for you to secure....
Well, I suppose that would be a conspiracy theory... like the one put out by the NRA who imagined Operation Fast and Furious was designed to fail in order to push more gun control measures. But, I think we'll get to that later in the book.
So, back to the guns and how I agree with Katie.
I would have thought it prudent to have more advanced measures in place to ensure the weapons did not make it across the border. Something like GPS devices, better surveillance, etc... much like what Darren Gil said. What you want to do is discover how they sneak the weapons across the border when it is hard to do so. Now how the weapons pass if there is no resistance. Obviously, the first place to start would be regulations on the sale and resale of the sort of weaponry which is especially attractive to the cartels. Let American citizens buy the guns, but put in place mechanism to prevent them falling into the wrong hands. For example, make straw purchasing illegal... that would be a start.
Also, I do think it should have been possible to provide weapons for sale to the cartel that had mechanical flaws or weaknesses such that they were fall apart shortly. Some sort of corrosive grease applied to sensitive workings. The weapon works when purchased but will break with repeated use. Really, some guys with mechanical or chemical aptitude should be able to manage this... right?
Ok, that's my effort to be supportive for this Chapter. See you next time.
Saturday, February 2, 2013
Chapter Three: Origins of a Scandal
Note:
Now, this little blog of mine is unlike to receive major circulation of any kind. It seems a little odd to work so hard creating posts for my own reading alone. I do enjoy thinking.. the process of churning over information in my mind to help sift the truth out from it somehow.
It seems, however, that mediating on disinformation is not really that worthwhile to me. I should probably makes some notes which should allow me to focus more neatly on the book. I have read the book through once and I'm going through it again. As a source of information, the book is seriously lacking owing to the entirely excessively biased reporting. It seems less a report on Fast and Furious than a pat little package of confirmation bias to be bought, absorbed, and believed to be true by people who are not interested in critically questioning the details.
This brings me to two possibilities.. examine and fact-check every chapter in detail or take a perspective more above the fray. I'm not really seeing any point in picking apart every detail. I will simply assume they are partisan and poorly reasoned. Perhaps I will touch ones that stand out from the crowd, but I'd really rather return this book to the library and be done with it.
I think, I shall press on more quickly...
---
In the third chapter, "Origins of a Scandal" the author frames the discussion with the presumption that a scandal is being described. Now, put in historical perspective, the matter was a scandal of a sort. A manufactured scandal created by Republican to harass and hopefully embarrass the President during election campaigning. Though it was certainly an effort at manufacturing a scandal, it did not eventually work out that way.
Project Gunrunner began during George W. Bush's term in 2005 and was intended to interdict straw purchasers. Operation Wide Receiver began in 2006. It was halted when guns were lost. Those guns apparently walked across the border and would have turned up in crime scenes. The Hernandez case happened in 2007 and the Medrano case in 2008. All occurred under former President George W. Bush. Operation Fast and Furious began in 2009 under President Obama, but it was merely a continuation of the same line of Project Gunrunner.[1] Flawed, yes, but a line of flawed thinking originating from a time and administration before Obama.
In other words, the "scandal" was one that started under Bush and the Republicans tried to pin it on Obama. Now, from what I know thus far of the Operation, I think the department's reasoning should be questioned. There are many factors involved, not the least of which is that these guns are being used by drug cartels in Mexico.
Our American laws and perceived rights are having an affect on people in another Country, Mexico. While the ATF had been criticized for going after relatively unimportant and immanently replaceable straw purchasers and letting the bigger fish swim freely, this line of flawed projects allowed guns to cross into Mexico. This needs to be taken very seriously.
The Scandal is on the NRA. In order for the government to control the export of such arms illegally, it needs some control. The NRA fights against the types of reasonable actions that might help without restricting the rights of gun owners to possess firearms legally. Now, if America were to pay the price for this irresponsibility, that would be somewhat tolerable. But to put in place policies which help arm the criminals of a neighboring country? Really?
But criminals in Mexico find the gun laws there too restrictive. They find it easier to come across the border into America, buy guns, and smuggle them back. They are increasingly armed because we are negligent in our efforts to control guns. We are negligent because the NRA is so strong and opposes the types of regulations we would need in order to control or combat this flow. People die because the NRA is too pig headed to see beyond their own love of firearms.
That is the Origin of this Scandal.
Now, this little blog of mine is unlike to receive major circulation of any kind. It seems a little odd to work so hard creating posts for my own reading alone. I do enjoy thinking.. the process of churning over information in my mind to help sift the truth out from it somehow.
It seems, however, that mediating on disinformation is not really that worthwhile to me. I should probably makes some notes which should allow me to focus more neatly on the book. I have read the book through once and I'm going through it again. As a source of information, the book is seriously lacking owing to the entirely excessively biased reporting. It seems less a report on Fast and Furious than a pat little package of confirmation bias to be bought, absorbed, and believed to be true by people who are not interested in critically questioning the details.
This brings me to two possibilities.. examine and fact-check every chapter in detail or take a perspective more above the fray. I'm not really seeing any point in picking apart every detail. I will simply assume they are partisan and poorly reasoned. Perhaps I will touch ones that stand out from the crowd, but I'd really rather return this book to the library and be done with it.
I think, I shall press on more quickly...
---
In the third chapter, "Origins of a Scandal" the author frames the discussion with the presumption that a scandal is being described. Now, put in historical perspective, the matter was a scandal of a sort. A manufactured scandal created by Republican to harass and hopefully embarrass the President during election campaigning. Though it was certainly an effort at manufacturing a scandal, it did not eventually work out that way.
Project Gunrunner began during George W. Bush's term in 2005 and was intended to interdict straw purchasers. Operation Wide Receiver began in 2006. It was halted when guns were lost. Those guns apparently walked across the border and would have turned up in crime scenes. The Hernandez case happened in 2007 and the Medrano case in 2008. All occurred under former President George W. Bush. Operation Fast and Furious began in 2009 under President Obama, but it was merely a continuation of the same line of Project Gunrunner.[1] Flawed, yes, but a line of flawed thinking originating from a time and administration before Obama.
In other words, the "scandal" was one that started under Bush and the Republicans tried to pin it on Obama. Now, from what I know thus far of the Operation, I think the department's reasoning should be questioned. There are many factors involved, not the least of which is that these guns are being used by drug cartels in Mexico.
Our American laws and perceived rights are having an affect on people in another Country, Mexico. While the ATF had been criticized for going after relatively unimportant and immanently replaceable straw purchasers and letting the bigger fish swim freely, this line of flawed projects allowed guns to cross into Mexico. This needs to be taken very seriously.
The Scandal is on the NRA. In order for the government to control the export of such arms illegally, it needs some control. The NRA fights against the types of reasonable actions that might help without restricting the rights of gun owners to possess firearms legally. Now, if America were to pay the price for this irresponsibility, that would be somewhat tolerable. But to put in place policies which help arm the criminals of a neighboring country? Really?
But criminals in Mexico find the gun laws there too restrictive. They find it easier to come across the border into America, buy guns, and smuggle them back. They are increasingly armed because we are negligent in our efforts to control guns. We are negligent because the NRA is so strong and opposes the types of regulations we would need in order to control or combat this flow. People die because the NRA is too pig headed to see beyond their own love of firearms.
That is the Origin of this Scandal.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Chapter Two: Clinging to Their Guns
Chapter Two, entitled "Clinging to Their Guns" seems like a calculated attempt to stoke the fires of indignation against Obama by people who are likely to have purchased the book. That is, if the goal of the book is to provide Confirmation Bias to people willing to pay $30 to gain it as opposed to an investigative report aimed at uncovering the "truth" which appears in the dedication, then this chapter attempts to fan the flames. By getting a reader into a more emotional state, the author would strengthen their tendency towards confirmation bias and more effectively achieve this goal.
An attempt to uncover truth would be more analytic and careful. The second chapter would still be an information gathering stage and conclusions would be drawn after the evidence has been presented. Appeals to emotion like this become a logical fallacy of their own. I believe the type would be an "ad hominem" attack. The effort is to discredit a man instead of refuting an argument. Here, the goal would be to essentially prepare the reader to reject anything said by Obama. This is particularly apparent when she references statement Obama made and then speaks of the "truth." Essentially, she seems to believe she is better qualified at telling you what Obama "really" thinks than Obama, himself, is. That seems like a bit of a stretch.
The Quote[1] she opens with is:
As Katie works for Townhall.com, let's provide a reference from this blogger site:[2]
Obama did, in fact, have some political recovery to do after saying the above mentioned quote. It stirred up the angst of some people who probably did cling to their guns at the time. Thus, it would be an effective way to try to start of a chapter which serves as an attack against the man instead of actually portraying evidence of what happened and then drawing conclusions.
A fuller quote than the one Katie provides can be found. In fact, it comes from Kevin Glass.
Compare Mitt Romney's "gaffe,"
This view seems consistent with the New York Times' article on April 13 2008.[4] "Mr. Obama cast his remarks as an expression of populist sympathy for a displaced working class." The article later continues:
Both men said something which they needed to recover from politically. Both men needed to recover politically. It would be hard for Obama to realize how strongly people would take his quote negatively because he seemed to be expressing a degree of understanding. In particular, it implied that he identified a need to help these people get back jobs they had been lacking for 25 years. Still, it is a politician's job to understand these nuances of how opponents will take their words and engage in appropriate damage control. I feel, however, it is less of a stretch to have imagined Mitt Romney to have understood that his quote was dismissive and demeaning to a whole class of people. I'd say this the two are not entirely equal in their degree of wrongness.. and historically speaking one was more damaging than the other.
As we proceed into the text, the matter clearly seems to be an emphasis on gun ownership. She take some effort to point out some very convincing reasons for Obama's possible opposition to the NRA's agendas. Interestingly, she quotes a bit from Obama's memoir, "Dreams from My father." I would be very surprised to find that Katie had taken the time to read this book. It seems more likely she picked up bits and pieces of a huge chunk of material carefully sifted by NRA interests. However, if one's African Grandmother described apartheid violence as white men with guns, I think that would be a very reasonable source of negative feelings regarding men who own guns and the consequences which follow from such men. I would certainly find that very reasonable; I doubt this is what Katie intended her audience to take from it. It seems to me this portrayal might make some particularly racist gun-toting readers smile. It portrays Obama as afraid of guns and men who own guns as worthy of fear. For some people, fear is as close as they can imagine getting to the idea of respect.
The idea of Obama being afraid of them might tickle their fancy.
She goes on to gather some data about Obama's political career wherein he associated with anti-gun activists. I don't know about you, but when I see the NRA spokesmen talking.. I don't think I've ever seen one that was black. Assuming there might be some racism at work, it does not surprise me in the least that a Democratic politician might have more success looking to anti-gun activists for support than from the National Rifle Association. To the best of my knowledge the NRA is not known for funding or supporting Democratic candidates.
In other words, "well, duh!"
But, the matter does become somewhat humorous in light of one of Katie Pavlich's footnotes. On page 16-17, the Author writes, "For instance, in 1999 Obama was quoted by the Chicago Defender newspaper at an "anti-gun rally" proposing a 500 percent increase in federal taxes "on the sale of firearm ammunition." She provides a footnote reference #6.
In the Notes section at the end of the book, this footnote reads:
This page actually says:
Oh, yeah, as a source of confirmation bias. Right. Continuing...
She does continue to provide what may very well be considered reasons for people who can become very prickly about gun ownership issues to be concerned with Obama's history on gun control. However, perhaps it bears refection at this point. Would you really want someone managing, running, or determining the direction for the ATF who was under the thumb of the NRA? The ATF is supposed to control firearms trade in the interest of public safety. Along the border with Mexico, where Agents like Brian Terry were shot, Mexican nationals come into the USA to secure firearms. It is, apparently, more difficult for them to get firearms in Mexico due to more restrictive laws.
Wait, consider that again.
The laws in Mexico are more restrictive and make it difficult for the criminals to get guns. America's laws are less restrictive and it is easier for Mexican Nationals to come here, get guns, and smuggle them back. The Mexican Drug cartels are active and armed in America because America makes access to guns easy. The presence of guns on the border, a consequence of America's lax gun control, has made the border regions unsafe for ranchers and tourists leading to large areas with signs posted warning of the dangers of Smuggling and Illegal Immigration...
It is almost as if Katie's own words speak against her own interests and love of the NRA.
So, the question again seems to be, do you want a person loyal to the NRA to be the fox watching the henhouse? I don't think that makes any more sense than promoting people connected to the financial banking industry to be the watchdogs governing it. I hope we are all well aware of how poorly that turned out for us.
Returning to the text of the book....
This is an interesting use of very choppy quoting. We have no idea where the snippets "stem the flow" and "unscrupulous gun dealers" are pulled from. In what context were they spoke? Ah, there are footnotes. Do I really want to bother reading them? Well, let's give it a go.
Here is what her footnote to Issues2000.org provides for Obama's quote on Gun Control:[5]
Her use of the footnote at the end of the sentence about "unscrupulous gun dealers" makes it seem as if "stem the flow" was also found there as well. Yet, it isn't. The internet can be assume. I don't even have to read the whole page, I can just try to find text in the page before me. So if Katie read the answer Obama gave on gun control, doesn't it seem odd that she only pulled out two tiny snippets and of those two one didn't actually appear there?
Obama's words seem to recognize a need to respect the rights of lawful gun ownership, but the manner in which she portrays him in her book (see quoted paragraph) doesn't seem to recognize this at all. She needn't even have bothered with the quote from the campaign website, because a more accurate and truthful use of Obama's actual words would have expressed the same sentiment. But let's look at her footnote: wait, it doesn't reference his campaign website at all. [7] For crying out loud, the page is a refutation of a NRA ad. "The Verdict: Misleading. While Obama has supported some measures to limit gun rights, he has backed nothing on the scale suggested in the ad." Well, at least the page does contain and validate the text where it is inserted as a footnote. ("will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns.") Unfortunately for Katie, the website is a validation of Obama against an ad by the NRA.
Ok, continuing...
She continues by drawing attention to a campaign mailer ad against Obama by the Clinton campaign. Reference made to a FactCheck.org report. No footnote provided, but I can find that myself. [8] The FactCheck.org result is a refutation of the mailer ad. The summary says:
We can find the text Katie quotes this time, but again the matter is less clear than she makes it out to be. The official response of the FactCheck.org site taken in context includes:
But as to the issue of what Obama "really" believes, I would say that actions speak clearer than words and words more clearly than a checkmark on a form that might have been filled out by an aide.
This again brings us back up to the paragraph quoted from Katie's book above. "Nonetheless, Obama's true views kept finding their way into the headlines." I find it odd that she is so certain that she knows the truth of Obama's intent if dismissing his words and the context in which they are found can be done is so sloppy and off-handed fashion. I think it's that word "true" again, like in the dedication.
Truth is not an idea that occurs in your head and you then twist all available evidence to serve the sole agenda of validating your notion. This is not truth; it is is pretty reliably a recipe for self-deception.
Ok, I have to admit fatigue. I cannot possibly fact-check and error correct all her many assertions. This exemplifies what I said earlier about the book not being good reporting. It is not good reporting if I cannot reasonably trust your reporting to be responsible. Period.
An attempt to uncover truth would be more analytic and careful. The second chapter would still be an information gathering stage and conclusions would be drawn after the evidence has been presented. Appeals to emotion like this become a logical fallacy of their own. I believe the type would be an "ad hominem" attack. The effort is to discredit a man instead of refuting an argument. Here, the goal would be to essentially prepare the reader to reject anything said by Obama. This is particularly apparent when she references statement Obama made and then speaks of the "truth." Essentially, she seems to believe she is better qualified at telling you what Obama "really" thinks than Obama, himself, is. That seems like a bit of a stretch.
The Quote[1] she opens with is:
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
~~ Barack Obama, April 2008
As Katie works for Townhall.com, let's provide a reference from this blogger site:[2]
"In the wake of a leaked Mitt Romney fundraising video that the media is using to claim that Mitt Romney has insulted a vast swathe of the American people, it's useful to reflect back on the last time a presidential candidate muttered words of disdain for Americans who he claimed were dead set against him.
This caused a small media firestorm; we'll see if the MSM can similarly restrain themselves from attempting to blow Romney's "gaffe" out of proportion. Judging from MSNBC's coverage tonight, the progressive media is not going to let that happen."
" ~~ Kevin Glass, Managing Editor Townhall.comI do so often wish I could manage an equal degree of hypocrisy. When the quote initially came out, it was taken up by conservative media in exactly the way they hoped the liberal media wouldn't take Mitt Romney's quote. A clear case of turn about not being considered fair play and that which is good for the goose not being so acceptable for the gander.
Obama did, in fact, have some political recovery to do after saying the above mentioned quote. It stirred up the angst of some people who probably did cling to their guns at the time. Thus, it would be an effective way to try to start of a chapter which serves as an attack against the man instead of actually portraying evidence of what happened and then drawing conclusions.
A fuller quote than the one Katie provides can be found. In fact, it comes from Kevin Glass.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
~~ Kevin Glass. [2]
Compare Mitt Romney's "gaffe,"
“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it. ... My job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives." (Emphasis added)
~~ Mitt Romney, remarks at private fundraiser, Boca Raton, Florida, May 17[3]Obama's remark indicates an understanding that these people have, in some way, been failed by previous Administrations. He expresses and understanding that people would become bitter after 25 years with poor employment prospects. The citizen, unemployed or underemployed, cannot do very much directly to bring jobs back to the State. They likely don't understand the mechanisms by which the Government can help rebuild their economy. They can however, turn to some sources of comfort and control. Guns give people the illusion of empowerment and self-determination even if they are out of work or unable to find ideal work. Religion, also, serves people very well when they need to feel comfort. Perhaps they do not have control, but if they say their prayers and dutifully attend services, they can believe that God, in Heaven, can fix what man seems unable to repair.
This view seems consistent with the New York Times' article on April 13 2008.[4] "Mr. Obama cast his remarks as an expression of populist sympathy for a displaced working class." The article later continues:
“Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true,” Mr. Obama said, “which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter.”“So I said, well, you know when you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on,” he added. “So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community.”
Mitt's comments, on the other hand displays no understanding of the people he dismisses. He does not display any real understanding of people who are in need of public services. He insults them and dismisses them and essentially declares them not his concern. "My job is not to worry about those people."~~ Obama as referenced in the New York Times, "On the Defensive, Obama Calls His Words Ill-Chosen." April, 13, 2008 [4]
Both men said something which they needed to recover from politically. Both men needed to recover politically. It would be hard for Obama to realize how strongly people would take his quote negatively because he seemed to be expressing a degree of understanding. In particular, it implied that he identified a need to help these people get back jobs they had been lacking for 25 years. Still, it is a politician's job to understand these nuances of how opponents will take their words and engage in appropriate damage control. I feel, however, it is less of a stretch to have imagined Mitt Romney to have understood that his quote was dismissive and demeaning to a whole class of people. I'd say this the two are not entirely equal in their degree of wrongness.. and historically speaking one was more damaging than the other.
As we proceed into the text, the matter clearly seems to be an emphasis on gun ownership. She take some effort to point out some very convincing reasons for Obama's possible opposition to the NRA's agendas. Interestingly, she quotes a bit from Obama's memoir, "Dreams from My father." I would be very surprised to find that Katie had taken the time to read this book. It seems more likely she picked up bits and pieces of a huge chunk of material carefully sifted by NRA interests. However, if one's African Grandmother described apartheid violence as white men with guns, I think that would be a very reasonable source of negative feelings regarding men who own guns and the consequences which follow from such men. I would certainly find that very reasonable; I doubt this is what Katie intended her audience to take from it. It seems to me this portrayal might make some particularly racist gun-toting readers smile. It portrays Obama as afraid of guns and men who own guns as worthy of fear. For some people, fear is as close as they can imagine getting to the idea of respect.
The idea of Obama being afraid of them might tickle their fancy.
She goes on to gather some data about Obama's political career wherein he associated with anti-gun activists. I don't know about you, but when I see the NRA spokesmen talking.. I don't think I've ever seen one that was black. Assuming there might be some racism at work, it does not surprise me in the least that a Democratic politician might have more success looking to anti-gun activists for support than from the National Rifle Association. To the best of my knowledge the NRA is not known for funding or supporting Democratic candidates.
In other words, "well, duh!"
But, the matter does become somewhat humorous in light of one of Katie Pavlich's footnotes. On page 16-17, the Author writes, "For instance, in 1999 Obama was quoted by the Chicago Defender newspaper at an "anti-gun rally" proposing a 500 percent increase in federal taxes "on the sale of firearm ammunition." She provides a footnote reference #6.
In the Notes section at the end of the book, this footnote reads:
6. D'Angelo Gore, "four Percent Ammo Tax?" FactCheck.org, June 22, 2009; available online at http://www.factcheck.org/2009/06/500-percent-ammo-tax/
This page actually says:
"Q: Is Obama planning to increase the federal tax on gun ammunition by 500 percent?
A: No such proposal has been made by the Obama administration. And nobody in Congress has introduced any bill to increase the 11 percent federal excise tax on ammo."At this point, anyone interested in reading this book should realize the poor quality of reporting. This is one clear and humorous example; using a footnote to lend false credibility to a point when the footnote actually disproves the assertion. One would have to independently double check even the most clearly stated "facts." This is entirely too much work. What is the point in buying a book when you have to error-check even the footnotes?
Oh, yeah, as a source of confirmation bias. Right. Continuing...
She does continue to provide what may very well be considered reasons for people who can become very prickly about gun ownership issues to be concerned with Obama's history on gun control. However, perhaps it bears refection at this point. Would you really want someone managing, running, or determining the direction for the ATF who was under the thumb of the NRA? The ATF is supposed to control firearms trade in the interest of public safety. Along the border with Mexico, where Agents like Brian Terry were shot, Mexican nationals come into the USA to secure firearms. It is, apparently, more difficult for them to get firearms in Mexico due to more restrictive laws.
Wait, consider that again.
The laws in Mexico are more restrictive and make it difficult for the criminals to get guns. America's laws are less restrictive and it is easier for Mexican Nationals to come here, get guns, and smuggle them back. The Mexican Drug cartels are active and armed in America because America makes access to guns easy. The presence of guns on the border, a consequence of America's lax gun control, has made the border regions unsafe for ranchers and tourists leading to large areas with signs posted warning of the dangers of Smuggling and Illegal Immigration...
It is almost as if Katie's own words speak against her own interests and love of the NRA.
So, the question again seems to be, do you want a person loyal to the NRA to be the fox watching the henhouse? I don't think that makes any more sense than promoting people connected to the financial banking industry to be the watchdogs governing it. I hope we are all well aware of how poorly that turned out for us.
Returning to the text of the book....
In his run for the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination, Obama tempered his rhetoric on gun rights, though he still voted to find ways to "stem the flow" of guns by "unscrupulous gun dealers." His campaign website also promised that Obama "will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns." Nonetheless, Obama's true views kept finding their way into the headlines.
This is an interesting use of very choppy quoting. We have no idea where the snippets "stem the flow" and "unscrupulous gun dealers" are pulled from. In what context were they spoke? Ah, there are footnotes. Do I really want to bother reading them? Well, let's give it a go.
Here is what her footnote to Issues2000.org provides for Obama's quote on Gun Control:[5]
I don’t think that we can get that done. But what we can do is to provide just some common-sense enforcement. The efforts by law enforcement to obtain the information required to trace back guns that have been used in crimes to unscrupulous gun dealers. As president, I intend to make it happen. We essentially have two realities, when it comes to guns, in this country. You’ve got the tradition of lawful gun ownership. It is very important for many Americans to be able to hunt, fish, take their kids out, teach them how to shoot. Then you’ve got the reality of 34 Chicago public school students who get shot down on the streets of Chicago. We can reconcile those two realities by making sure the Second Amendment is respected and that people are able to lawfully own guns, but that we also start cracking down on the kinds of abuses of firearms that we see on the streets.
~~ Barack Obama, 2008 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Jan. 15, 2008 [6]
Her use of the footnote at the end of the sentence about "unscrupulous gun dealers" makes it seem as if "stem the flow" was also found there as well. Yet, it isn't. The internet can be assume. I don't even have to read the whole page, I can just try to find text in the page before me. So if Katie read the answer Obama gave on gun control, doesn't it seem odd that she only pulled out two tiny snippets and of those two one didn't actually appear there?
Obama's words seem to recognize a need to respect the rights of lawful gun ownership, but the manner in which she portrays him in her book (see quoted paragraph) doesn't seem to recognize this at all. She needn't even have bothered with the quote from the campaign website, because a more accurate and truthful use of Obama's actual words would have expressed the same sentiment. But let's look at her footnote: wait, it doesn't reference his campaign website at all. [7] For crying out loud, the page is a refutation of a NRA ad. "The Verdict: Misleading. While Obama has supported some measures to limit gun rights, he has backed nothing on the scale suggested in the ad." Well, at least the page does contain and validate the text where it is inserted as a footnote. ("will protect the rights of hunters and other law-abiding Americans to purchase, own, transport and use guns.") Unfortunately for Katie, the website is a validation of Obama against an ad by the NRA.
Ok, continuing...
She continues by drawing attention to a campaign mailer ad against Obama by the Clinton campaign. Reference made to a FactCheck.org report. No footnote provided, but I can find that myself. [8] The FactCheck.org result is a refutation of the mailer ad. The summary says:
"A mailer sent from Clinton’s campaign to the homes of selected Indiana voters just before the Democratic primary goes after Obama for allegedly shifting his position on guns to suit his audience. The mailer’s not outright wrong in any of its statements. But the facts muddy the picture."
~~ FactCheck.org "Gunning for Obama" [8]
We can find the text Katie quotes this time, but again the matter is less clear than she makes it out to be. The official response of the FactCheck.org site taken in context includes:
He was wrong about that — his handwriting appears on a small part of the document — but he has continued to maintain that a campaign aide filled out the bulk of it, including the multipart question asking if he supported state legislation to ban assault weapons; ban manufacture, sale and possession of handguns; and require waiting periods and background checks before gun purchases. He answered "Yes" on all counts.
Obama says the answers misrepresent his position. "I have never favored an all-out ban on handguns," he said at the Philadelphia debate.
We can’t say for sure if he did or not. We haven’t been able to find any evidence that he acted on it if he did. In the Illinois Senate, he voted for gun control, including limiting handgun purchases to one a month, but no attempts at a ban that we are aware of. And he didn’t advocate a handgun ban when he was running for U.S. Senate.
~~ FactCheck.org "Gunning for Obama" [8]So, he says an aide filled out the bulk of the form. This doesn't seem like a stretch of the imagination. It might also be an evasion. That remains a possibility. Politicians do change their stances on issues. As I recall, during the Iran Contra Affair, Regan said he didn't remember authorizing the deal. This might equally be an evasion. Strange how conveniently the memory of some people works.
But as to the issue of what Obama "really" believes, I would say that actions speak clearer than words and words more clearly than a checkmark on a form that might have been filled out by an aide.
This again brings us back up to the paragraph quoted from Katie's book above. "Nonetheless, Obama's true views kept finding their way into the headlines." I find it odd that she is so certain that she knows the truth of Obama's intent if dismissing his words and the context in which they are found can be done is so sloppy and off-handed fashion. I think it's that word "true" again, like in the dedication.
Truth is not an idea that occurs in your head and you then twist all available evidence to serve the sole agenda of validating your notion. This is not truth; it is is pretty reliably a recipe for self-deception.
Ok, I have to admit fatigue. I cannot possibly fact-check and error correct all her many assertions. This exemplifies what I said earlier about the book not being good reporting. It is not good reporting if I cannot reasonably trust your reporting to be responsible. Period.
Chapter One: A Warrior's Death
Agent Brian Terry dies in the course of his duties. Since 1904, there have been 114 deaths among the Agents of the United States Border Patrol. Thirty one of these Agents have died from gunfire according "United States Department of Homeland Security - Customs and Border Protection - Border Patrol". Agents die in the line of duty, it is not an occupation for the faint of heart. Specific details of his demise can be found here.
Jaime Avila Jr., the straw purchaser for the weapon which killed Agent Terry was convicted on December 12, 2012 and sentenced to 57 months in prison for his admitted role as a straw buyer for the ring that authorities say bought and smuggled guns into Mexico for the Sinaloa drug cartel. Mexico's drug cartels often seek out guns in the United States because gun laws in Mexico are more restrictive than in the United States.[1] Jaime Avila Jr. purchased 52 firearms over a period of 10 months.
On Jan. 16, 2010, Avila walked into the Lone Wolf Gun Club in Glendale, Ariz., and illegally purchased three rifles, plopping down $1,500 in cash. Nearly a year later, two of the weapons (WASR-10/63 assault rifles, a Romanian AK-47 variant)[2] were found in a desolate section of the Arizona desert after they were dropped by the men who are suspected of killing Terry on Dec. 14, 2010.[3]
Since Agent Terry's death, as of Jan 2013, seven more agents have died in the line of duty. None of these was quite so glorious an end as a gunfight. There are many ways to die in the line of duty as an Agent for the United States Border Patrol, but not all are equally thrilling news coverage.[4] The last officer before Agent Terry to die as a result of gunfire was: Border Patrol Agent Robert Wimer Rosas, Jr. who's end of watch was Thursday, July 23, 2009.[5][6] I doubt Jay Dobyns went to Agent Rosas funeral and drank half a bottle of whiskey. (Well, at least a Google search of the two names together didn't turn up any promising search results.)
Agent Perry died 18 miles north of the Mexican border in Arizona's Peck Canyon. This tidbit of information heads up Katie Pavlich's chapter. She continues to describe some of the conditions of the border near where the Agent was shot and begins to slightly veer off on a tangent. Understandably so, however. The goal is to portray the danger of the border patrol and therefore highlight Agent Perry's status as "warrior."
She mentions the death of an Arizona Rancher, Robert Krentz. Robert Krentz was killed one day after 300 pounds of marijuana near his ranch. She doesn't mention that the arrest happened subsequent to a tip received from Robert Krentz's brother[7]. The footnote she references[8] mentions a set of footprints followed to the Mexican border. The story itself, however, mentions specifically that the authorities are investigating a person in the United States in connection with the killing. The article shes uses as a footnote appears uncertain.
Another report on the topic said matters clearly,
This reference seems intended to contain some elements that point toward a racial mistrust of Mexican nationals. For example, Robert Krentz's death by a supposed Mexican national is implied by the tracked heading back to the border. Robert Krentz's kindness towards illegals needing help which he encountered on his grounds were presumably not mentioned because it might soften one's hatred. I feel this does injustice to Robert Krantz. The possibility that the subject's nationality is unknown is hidden by the implication of the tracks headed toward the border instead of entertaining the possibility that the nationality of the suspect should be kept as an open issue. It seems the Author is seeing what she needs to see to validate an existing opinion. This is called confirmation bias and leads to logical fallacies.
She continues this display of partisan and biased thinking. She references a declaration in June of 2010 by Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu that areas of Arizona were under the cartel's control. She follows this by drawing attention to signage posted in the area declaring these parts unsafe because of possible smuggling or illegal immigration occurring there. She concludes that the Obama Administration has ceded control of these regions to the drug cartels. I do not see her reasoning. If dangerous activities are occurring in known areas, one would expect a responsible government to make citizens aware of the risks. There is no reason to allow citizens to fall into harms way if this can be avoided. This does not equate to ceding control, merely acknowledging a risk which needs to be dealt with.
Emotions are wonderful things, but flawed. They empower us to take action by selectively blinding us to distracting options. A hawk diving into a flock of birds cannot analytically discern the best possible target from a swarm of fluttering wings. He chooses any target and then pursues it to the exclusion of others. The same happens when people become emotional. Distractions fall away and one becomes less capable of observing the fine nuances of the situation or the virtues of different perspectives.
As a father, I have tried to illustrate this to my daughter. I tell her, "When two people are yelling; there are zero people listening." Listening is how we make peace. Listening is the key attribute of a peace maker; it is how one finds common ground and secures conciliation through compromise. A passionate person is handicapped in their understanding; they are locked into their own perspective and turn and twist all evidence to suit their theory instead of adjusting the theory to suit the facts.. which is a paraphrase of Sherlock Holmes.
I would think it better for a reporter to collect all the facts impartially and then draw conclusions. In the case of this book, the author seems to have made a conclusion. She has an ax to grind; all data will be turned, twisted, distorted, or ignored unless it achieves her goal or aim. Unfortunately, this makes the book worthless as a source of information. One would have to research independently the evidence provided with a critical eye on the author's bias.
This is too much work. If I wanted to research everything myself, I could just do that instead of reading a biased report and then trying to sift out bias afterwards. But, perhaps this is a confusion over the intent of the book. It makes perfect sense if the author is not intending to educate the reader at all. If she is providing a service to fulfill a need and that need is not evidence or a pursuit of truth, it seems reasonable to suppose her book is one large batch of confirmation bias. People who have already made up their mind can tell from the title that this book supports their existing view. As they are already suffering from confirmation bias, they will not notice or be troubled by the author's bias.
So, back to the book....
This chapter seeks to paint a picture as backdrop to inflate the esteem one feels for Brian Terry by portraying the situation at the border very darkly. In part, this is true. In part it is fiction. If you look at the least of officers dying in the line of duty, many of the causes of death are noticeably less heroic seeming. Dying of an illness during a hike: Border Patrol Agent David Richard Delaney; Accidental Gunfire: Border Patrol Agent Nicholas J. Ivie; Heat exhaustion: Border Patrol Agent Jeffrey Ramirez; Stuck by while assisting disabled vehicle: Border Patrol Agent James R. Dominguez; Dying in an ATV accident: Border Patrol Agent Leopoldo Cavazos, Jr.; Hit by a train because of where you parked for surveillance: Border Patrol Agent Eduardo Rojas, Jr. and Border Patrol Agent Hector R. Clark; Hit by a drunk driver; Border Patrol Agent Michael Vincent Gallagher; Hit a steer while driving; Border Patrol Agent Mark F. Van Doren; Stuck with a dirty needle during a car search and contracting Hep C; Supervisory Patrol Agent Trena Renee McLaughlin; Shot while being robbed: Border Patrol Agent Robert Wimer Rosas, Jr.
.....
At this point in the story: there are some important facts to draw attention to before moving forward.
Agent Terry died and his death was linked to a gun purchased as a part of Operation Fast and Furious. The operation was criticized for allowing guns to walk. However, this gun was purchased in Arizona and used to kill and officer while still in Arizona. Eighteen miles north of the border. A simple theory is that the weapon was purchased and stayed in Arizona. Apparently, it is not illegal to be a straw purchaser. It is illegal to provide incorrect information when buying a weapon. It might have been that the weapon never left. In fact, this is most reasonable. For the weapon to have "walked" to Mexico requires it to have been smuggled across the border. For it to be used in the death of Agent Terry 18 miles north of the border requires it to be smuggled back. Why would anyone smuggle a gun across the border twice?
There is no reason to believe that Agent Terry was shot with a gun that was allowed to "Walk" by Operation Fast and Furious. To say such would require a more extreme theory that the weapon went to Mexico and came back. Extreme theories require extreme evidence. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence that this weapon was in Mexico and returned to the United States.
Essentially, the death that sparked the investigation of guns walking was most likely originated by the death of an agent unlikely to have been shot by a gun that actually walked.
Brian Terry was shot in the line of duty and his death was callously exploited for political agendas. The process of doing so added additional pain and angst to his family.
Jaime Avila Jr., the straw purchaser for the weapon which killed Agent Terry was convicted on December 12, 2012 and sentenced to 57 months in prison for his admitted role as a straw buyer for the ring that authorities say bought and smuggled guns into Mexico for the Sinaloa drug cartel. Mexico's drug cartels often seek out guns in the United States because gun laws in Mexico are more restrictive than in the United States.[1] Jaime Avila Jr. purchased 52 firearms over a period of 10 months.
On Jan. 16, 2010, Avila walked into the Lone Wolf Gun Club in Glendale, Ariz., and illegally purchased three rifles, plopping down $1,500 in cash. Nearly a year later, two of the weapons (WASR-10/63 assault rifles, a Romanian AK-47 variant)[2] were found in a desolate section of the Arizona desert after they were dropped by the men who are suspected of killing Terry on Dec. 14, 2010.[3]
Since Agent Terry's death, as of Jan 2013, seven more agents have died in the line of duty. None of these was quite so glorious an end as a gunfight. There are many ways to die in the line of duty as an Agent for the United States Border Patrol, but not all are equally thrilling news coverage.[4] The last officer before Agent Terry to die as a result of gunfire was: Border Patrol Agent Robert Wimer Rosas, Jr. who's end of watch was Thursday, July 23, 2009.[5][6] I doubt Jay Dobyns went to Agent Rosas funeral and drank half a bottle of whiskey. (Well, at least a Google search of the two names together didn't turn up any promising search results.)
Agent Perry died 18 miles north of the Mexican border in Arizona's Peck Canyon. This tidbit of information heads up Katie Pavlich's chapter. She continues to describe some of the conditions of the border near where the Agent was shot and begins to slightly veer off on a tangent. Understandably so, however. The goal is to portray the danger of the border patrol and therefore highlight Agent Perry's status as "warrior."
She mentions the death of an Arizona Rancher, Robert Krentz. Robert Krentz was killed one day after 300 pounds of marijuana near his ranch. She doesn't mention that the arrest happened subsequent to a tip received from Robert Krentz's brother[7]. The footnote she references[8] mentions a set of footprints followed to the Mexican border. The story itself, however, mentions specifically that the authorities are investigating a person in the United States in connection with the killing. The article shes uses as a footnote appears uncertain.
Another report on the topic said matters clearly,
“To be clear, the suspect is believed to be in the US,” the note said. “The suspect's nationality is unknown.”[9]
This reference seems intended to contain some elements that point toward a racial mistrust of Mexican nationals. For example, Robert Krentz's death by a supposed Mexican national is implied by the tracked heading back to the border. Robert Krentz's kindness towards illegals needing help which he encountered on his grounds were presumably not mentioned because it might soften one's hatred. I feel this does injustice to Robert Krantz. The possibility that the subject's nationality is unknown is hidden by the implication of the tracks headed toward the border instead of entertaining the possibility that the nationality of the suspect should be kept as an open issue. It seems the Author is seeing what she needs to see to validate an existing opinion. This is called confirmation bias and leads to logical fallacies.
She continues this display of partisan and biased thinking. She references a declaration in June of 2010 by Pinal County Sheriff Paul Babeu that areas of Arizona were under the cartel's control. She follows this by drawing attention to signage posted in the area declaring these parts unsafe because of possible smuggling or illegal immigration occurring there. She concludes that the Obama Administration has ceded control of these regions to the drug cartels. I do not see her reasoning. If dangerous activities are occurring in known areas, one would expect a responsible government to make citizens aware of the risks. There is no reason to allow citizens to fall into harms way if this can be avoided. This does not equate to ceding control, merely acknowledging a risk which needs to be dealt with.
Emotions are wonderful things, but flawed. They empower us to take action by selectively blinding us to distracting options. A hawk diving into a flock of birds cannot analytically discern the best possible target from a swarm of fluttering wings. He chooses any target and then pursues it to the exclusion of others. The same happens when people become emotional. Distractions fall away and one becomes less capable of observing the fine nuances of the situation or the virtues of different perspectives.
As a father, I have tried to illustrate this to my daughter. I tell her, "When two people are yelling; there are zero people listening." Listening is how we make peace. Listening is the key attribute of a peace maker; it is how one finds common ground and secures conciliation through compromise. A passionate person is handicapped in their understanding; they are locked into their own perspective and turn and twist all evidence to suit their theory instead of adjusting the theory to suit the facts.. which is a paraphrase of Sherlock Holmes.
"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." ~~ Sherlock Holmes
I would think it better for a reporter to collect all the facts impartially and then draw conclusions. In the case of this book, the author seems to have made a conclusion. She has an ax to grind; all data will be turned, twisted, distorted, or ignored unless it achieves her goal or aim. Unfortunately, this makes the book worthless as a source of information. One would have to research independently the evidence provided with a critical eye on the author's bias.
This is too much work. If I wanted to research everything myself, I could just do that instead of reading a biased report and then trying to sift out bias afterwards. But, perhaps this is a confusion over the intent of the book. It makes perfect sense if the author is not intending to educate the reader at all. If she is providing a service to fulfill a need and that need is not evidence or a pursuit of truth, it seems reasonable to suppose her book is one large batch of confirmation bias. People who have already made up their mind can tell from the title that this book supports their existing view. As they are already suffering from confirmation bias, they will not notice or be troubled by the author's bias.
So, back to the book....
This chapter seeks to paint a picture as backdrop to inflate the esteem one feels for Brian Terry by portraying the situation at the border very darkly. In part, this is true. In part it is fiction. If you look at the least of officers dying in the line of duty, many of the causes of death are noticeably less heroic seeming. Dying of an illness during a hike: Border Patrol Agent David Richard Delaney; Accidental Gunfire: Border Patrol Agent Nicholas J. Ivie; Heat exhaustion: Border Patrol Agent Jeffrey Ramirez; Stuck by while assisting disabled vehicle: Border Patrol Agent James R. Dominguez; Dying in an ATV accident: Border Patrol Agent Leopoldo Cavazos, Jr.; Hit by a train because of where you parked for surveillance: Border Patrol Agent Eduardo Rojas, Jr. and Border Patrol Agent Hector R. Clark; Hit by a drunk driver; Border Patrol Agent Michael Vincent Gallagher; Hit a steer while driving; Border Patrol Agent Mark F. Van Doren; Stuck with a dirty needle during a car search and contracting Hep C; Supervisory Patrol Agent Trena Renee McLaughlin; Shot while being robbed: Border Patrol Agent Robert Wimer Rosas, Jr.
Most of these deaths could have occurred anywhere. The author is obviously portraying the dangers of duty in a manner intended to inflate the drama of the incident. All of the above listed agents died in the line of duty and should be afforded respect for the sacrifice made in service to the public. Brian Terry's death is known to more Americans because publicizing his death was convenient for some political agendas. Yes, he died. Yes, it is bad. But exploiting his death to further your own agenda is also extremely disrespectful.
.....
At this point in the story: there are some important facts to draw attention to before moving forward.
Agent Terry died and his death was linked to a gun purchased as a part of Operation Fast and Furious. The operation was criticized for allowing guns to walk. However, this gun was purchased in Arizona and used to kill and officer while still in Arizona. Eighteen miles north of the border. A simple theory is that the weapon was purchased and stayed in Arizona. Apparently, it is not illegal to be a straw purchaser. It is illegal to provide incorrect information when buying a weapon. It might have been that the weapon never left. In fact, this is most reasonable. For the weapon to have "walked" to Mexico requires it to have been smuggled across the border. For it to be used in the death of Agent Terry 18 miles north of the border requires it to be smuggled back. Why would anyone smuggle a gun across the border twice?
There is no reason to believe that Agent Terry was shot with a gun that was allowed to "Walk" by Operation Fast and Furious. To say such would require a more extreme theory that the weapon went to Mexico and came back. Extreme theories require extreme evidence. There is, to the best of my knowledge, no evidence that this weapon was in Mexico and returned to the United States.
Essentially, the death that sparked the investigation of guns walking was most likely originated by the death of an agent unlikely to have been shot by a gun that actually walked.
Brian Terry was shot in the line of duty and his death was callously exploited for political agendas. The process of doing so added additional pain and angst to his family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)