Jay Dobyns, like Katie Pavlich, is an author. He is also a Special Agent with the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms. Jay Dobyns seems to be a Special Agent with a hearty dose of courage on bravado. He was notably involved in "Operation Black Biscuit," which involved the infiltration of the Hell's Angels. His work in this operation resulted in death threats against Jay and his family. Dobyns had a falling out with his bosses for which he blames the withdrawal of the "backstopping" (cover stories, fake ids and other things) which had been his only remaining cover. His bosses contented that the cover was no longer necessary. However, in 2008, his family home was targeted by an arson attack. His wife and children escaped with only smoke inhalation injuries. The Office of the Inspector General concluded, "ATF needlessly and inappropriately delayed its response to, and investigation of, threats against its own agent." These findings were reported to Eric Holder and the White House, but no further action to protect his family was ordered.
Jay seems to be a brave man who has served his country well; a man who's country has not served him equally well. He may also be a bit of an adrenaline junky and someone who doesn't toe the line to anyone. Taken hostage at gunpoint and ordered to drive the car away, he removed the keys from the ignition and dropped them to the floor. He was rewarded with a bullet through his chest. He nearly died. Brave or pathologically obstinate? I couldn't tell you. I can tell you that I feel with great confidence that our country needs people like Jay in law enforcement. I would also suppose that people like Jay have a hard time playing nicely with others or following the orders of superiors who haven't served on the "street."
Jay Dobyns, for this is who writes the introduction, begins by criticizing his agency and I can easily see where he would have gotten such negative ideas. Jay is not an intellectual. The job he does requires a certain boldness. While very helpful in the job we need people like him to do, it would be expected to create problems. Jay can't be cowed by a handgun pointed at him during a hostage situation. He isn't going to back down to his bosses. I would imagine him to be especially less inclined to recognize the authority of his superiors if they are people of different types. Jay, a man of action, his managers men of thought and education. Friction and frustration could easily develop. Even when Jay needed the protection of Backstopping cover stories for himself and his family, he did not back down. I would not have expected him to do so. I suppose his bosses thought they could force him to back down, but they were wrong.
This is the man asked to write the introduction by Katie Pavlich or her editors. Now, I do not suppose this was a gratis gig. The man was being paid for it and, in being paid, he has motivations to provide a letter that suits the interest of his employer. He also has a beef with the agency that seems reasonably well founded; if perhaps myopically not seeing his own behaviors are possibly creating friction with his bosses. This sets the stage for understanding his Introduction.
In the introduction, he portrays an "old guard" of the agency in glowing terms. "Hard" men and woman who worked in the field and had put the cuffs on bad guys. He complains about a change in the department, which reeks of nostalgia's charms wherein everything that was is better than anything that is. The good things are all exaggerated and the bad things forgotten. Such is the fog of recollection.
Jay portrays the new guard as intellectuals, weak and without knowledge of the "streets." He carefully proposes that inadequate or incompetent field agents went into management. In doing so, he easily calls to mind the experiences the men and women of blue collar America who might resent their more highly educated management and their more highly compensated positions. Aesop's fable of the fox and the sour grapes come to mind. It is easy, if one is not in management, to think and say bad things about management.
I believe there are ineffective managers who's book learning doesn't equate to an understanding of how to do the job. I believe there things field agents know and experiences you can trust. However, I also believe that dismissing everyone with more education with contempt is also a wrong approach. Hammers are good for driving in nails; they suck at screws. Every person is a tool the agency can use and it would be wise to use the right tool for the job. Obviously, someone with field experience will be great in some areas; but field experience does not make one qualified or competent to deal with governmental bureaucracy. This explains why the old guard with cowboy boots left the management; the skills needed to work in the field and the ones needed to work in a bureaucracy are not the same.
In such a situation, you have field agents doing the dangerous and dirty work for superiors who work in offices and look at computers. It would be easy for the field agents to disrespect their bosses. Then, too, in seeing their bosses better compensated, they may grow jealous or resentful. The bosses, contrariwise, would feel they have earned their position by virtue of their intellect and education. The attitude from their field agents might seem rude or disrespectful. In a consequence they might try to put the field agents in their place or somehow force or coerce them into showing submission. The superiors, not being the bold personality of a field agent who cannot be easily made to back down from a threat, fail to understand this will not work. In fact, I believe it generates additional ill will on both sides. Everybody needs to see a counselor.
Back to Katie's reason for this story.
If the person buying your book is a blue collar man who hates government involvement in gun control and has a not to subtle racist streak, this is a story that will resonate quite well. Any black man who rises above you in your field based on superior intellect or education can be degenerated in exactly the way done in the Introduction. Using Jay's voice, she draws on experiences her readers might have had to help indoctrinate them into a mental state of being receptive to her message.
She seems to be showing an anti-intellectualism and disdain for people higher on the pay scale. Running by the numbers and considering the number of high-paid office execs wanting to read your book and the low-paid grunts with guns freaking out over Obama already... well, this seems like a very good way to frame your narrative.
But remember, if you were a high paid exec and felt you deserved your position in life.. (hrm, you might be Republican) ...you should realize that Jay would have been a difficult employee to have working for you. Jay has and is entitled to his perspective, but you should recall that Jay is unlikely to be making a steadfast effort to fully educate you on the matter. Like most people I've met in my life, Jay will be vulnerable to confirmation bias. As a person who doesn't back down and has great confidence in himself; he will similarly be hard to back away from a dearly held point of view. Once he started disliking the agency, he would have seen only superiors whom he despised. In order to maintain his simple view of the agency as corrupt, he would have overlooked or ignored the positive contributions made by intellectuals and egg-heads.
Passions do not guarantee one is wrong; but strength of emotion does not guarantee one is right either. Powerful emotions do, however, further blind one to the possibility that they may be in error. Think of this like momentum; once you get going it is hard to change course. Anger, fear, frustration, bitterness... once these emotions start building inside you it can be very hard to take personal responsibility for what is happening in your life.
I would have to read more of Jay's writing to understand him better; but based on the evidence thus far I have made the best conclusion possible for me at this time.
No comments:
Post a Comment