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.
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
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.
Monday, January 21, 2013
Introduction
In Jonathan Haidt's, "The Righteous Mind", he suggests that the Republican brand values "Loyalty" as one of its moral foundations. The introduction of Katie Pavlich's book begins with what seems like a lack of loyalty. The introduction, as commonly happens, is written by someone other than the author herself. It is, I feel safe in assuming, selected by her with a point and a purpose. In this case, the author of the introduction is Jay Dobyns.
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.
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.
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Acknowledgement
Acknowledgement reads: "To those who have the courage to stand for truth. To my parents for teaching me how to take on a challenge."
Truth is a great and wonderful thing. The search for truth can be a slow and gradual process, but the seeds sown in the search for truth produce a great harvest for all mankind. Science is, fundamentally, a search for truth. There are means and methods for a scientific pursuit of truth. People of a religious perspective can often disregard or dismiss the findings of science, but they do so in error.
Galileo pursued the truth and the Church of the day didn't much care for that. The resisted; I suppose that's a kind way of putting it. Reading up on the clash between the two forces: Science and Religion is an exercise left for the reader. In the end, the Church may be "Infallible" when it comes to spiritual instruction; but they are not so flawless when it comes to understanding Science.
The pursuit of scientific truth, truth about things which can be studied, requires a certain vigorous respect for the process. Impartiality must be maintained. Evidence must be gathered. Hypothesis made as the best possible educated guess from the available evidence are then tested. All in all, the researcher attempts to avoid bias, which is the nemesis of science. And I call it such for a reason.
In Sir James Frazer's, "The Golden Bough," he touches upon the evolution of magic, religion, and science. He begins by suggesting magic was poor reasoning wherein man felt he could magically control elements beyond his ability. Religion, Frazer suggests, then steps in. Magic ritual obviously fails and... eventually, the ineffectiveness of magic left man searching for another option. He fills the world with spirit which must be placated by prayer and supplication in order to achieve the desired ends. This provides an excuse for the failure of the magical seeming rituals. In time, however, man recognizes that religion fails to improve his understanding of the world and proceeds to science. Science, it can be seen, makes slow steady process.
Religion has advantages over Magic, but Religion still fell into some of the same traps. In particular, the problem with Galileo. Much like how fables and fairy tales try to answer age old questions such as why is the sea salty or what causes the tides, religion had been called onto provide answers. They came up with answers, but at no point tried to test their hypothesis. Thus we are told that a magic grinding mill is constantly churning out salt at the bottom of the sea and that the tides were caused by Thor getting into a drinking contest with a giant.
Religious answers are not testable and, therefore, are strongly influenced by confirmation bias and.. especially, the passions with which people invest in their religion. These strong emotions prevent people from seeing or entertaining other notions. Along with creating witch trials and being responsible for the burning of heretics; Religion has shown itself truly horrible in generating peace and good will between different faiths.
For these reasons, the Founding Fathers of the United State of America put a separation of Church and State into the Bill of Rights. In order to get people to get along, we needed them to keep their religion out of the rule making.
The consequence of which, many years later, are people who's affiliation to a political party is no less biased and unbending than Theology. Essentially, there are people who make a Religion out of their Politics. Given the title of this work, I believe the author guilty of this sin.
In order to search for truth, you have to step outside your pride and systematically gather evidence. Once you have gathered the evidence, then you can see how things fit and make theories. But people with a strong political perspective have a goal in mind before they ever start gathering evidence. This lack of impartiality obscures the truth. Bias blinds the researcher. Their holy and precious "truth" is an idol of their own vanity concocted in their brain to which every evidence gathered must pay homage or be sacrificed. Evidence supporting the bias is praised; contrary data ignored, distorted, or demonized.
Such is not someone who has courage to stand for the truth. You can only stand for the truth if you value diligently seeking it first. To seek the truth, you do not start with "how can I prove I am right?" You ask the harder question, "Am I actually right?"
....
So, I ask myself. Am I a seeker of truth? Will I consider evidence? Will I stand for the truth revealed by that evidence? I endeavor to do so.
Truth is a great and wonderful thing. The search for truth can be a slow and gradual process, but the seeds sown in the search for truth produce a great harvest for all mankind. Science is, fundamentally, a search for truth. There are means and methods for a scientific pursuit of truth. People of a religious perspective can often disregard or dismiss the findings of science, but they do so in error.
Galileo pursued the truth and the Church of the day didn't much care for that. The resisted; I suppose that's a kind way of putting it. Reading up on the clash between the two forces: Science and Religion is an exercise left for the reader. In the end, the Church may be "Infallible" when it comes to spiritual instruction; but they are not so flawless when it comes to understanding Science.
The pursuit of scientific truth, truth about things which can be studied, requires a certain vigorous respect for the process. Impartiality must be maintained. Evidence must be gathered. Hypothesis made as the best possible educated guess from the available evidence are then tested. All in all, the researcher attempts to avoid bias, which is the nemesis of science. And I call it such for a reason.
In Sir James Frazer's, "The Golden Bough," he touches upon the evolution of magic, religion, and science. He begins by suggesting magic was poor reasoning wherein man felt he could magically control elements beyond his ability. Religion, Frazer suggests, then steps in. Magic ritual obviously fails and... eventually, the ineffectiveness of magic left man searching for another option. He fills the world with spirit which must be placated by prayer and supplication in order to achieve the desired ends. This provides an excuse for the failure of the magical seeming rituals. In time, however, man recognizes that religion fails to improve his understanding of the world and proceeds to science. Science, it can be seen, makes slow steady process.
Religion has advantages over Magic, but Religion still fell into some of the same traps. In particular, the problem with Galileo. Much like how fables and fairy tales try to answer age old questions such as why is the sea salty or what causes the tides, religion had been called onto provide answers. They came up with answers, but at no point tried to test their hypothesis. Thus we are told that a magic grinding mill is constantly churning out salt at the bottom of the sea and that the tides were caused by Thor getting into a drinking contest with a giant.
Religious answers are not testable and, therefore, are strongly influenced by confirmation bias and.. especially, the passions with which people invest in their religion. These strong emotions prevent people from seeing or entertaining other notions. Along with creating witch trials and being responsible for the burning of heretics; Religion has shown itself truly horrible in generating peace and good will between different faiths.
For these reasons, the Founding Fathers of the United State of America put a separation of Church and State into the Bill of Rights. In order to get people to get along, we needed them to keep their religion out of the rule making.
The consequence of which, many years later, are people who's affiliation to a political party is no less biased and unbending than Theology. Essentially, there are people who make a Religion out of their Politics. Given the title of this work, I believe the author guilty of this sin.
In order to search for truth, you have to step outside your pride and systematically gather evidence. Once you have gathered the evidence, then you can see how things fit and make theories. But people with a strong political perspective have a goal in mind before they ever start gathering evidence. This lack of impartiality obscures the truth. Bias blinds the researcher. Their holy and precious "truth" is an idol of their own vanity concocted in their brain to which every evidence gathered must pay homage or be sacrificed. Evidence supporting the bias is praised; contrary data ignored, distorted, or demonized.
Such is not someone who has courage to stand for the truth. You can only stand for the truth if you value diligently seeking it first. To seek the truth, you do not start with "how can I prove I am right?" You ask the harder question, "Am I actually right?"
....
So, I ask myself. Am I a seeker of truth? Will I consider evidence? Will I stand for the truth revealed by that evidence? I endeavor to do so.
Title
The title of Katie Pavlich's book, "Fast and Furious: Barack Obama's Bloodiest Scandal and its Shameless Cover-Up." Sets the tone for reading the work.
Ordinarily, the title itself is so obviously biased that I would put little to no trust in the reporting of the author. Books read to gain knowledge need to be handled with a certain diligence. Emotion and critical thinking skills do not often go hand-in-hand as an excess of emotion clouds perception excepting in the direction of your preexisting expectations.
A book with such a title would appeal to a certain demographic. People who hate Obama and are looking for a reason to hate him. These are people suffering from the ills of confirmation bias, the tendency to only look for sources of information that confirm your existing belief. With an inflammatory title, the author hopes to sell a book telling the buyer exactly what he wants to hear.
The book is, essentially, preaching to the Choir.
Meanwhile, anyone who is undecided or liberal will logically veer away from the book as biased reporting is often very poor quality reporting. Garbage in / Garbage out is a saying I've heard in reference to computer programing. It also works with the brain. If you consistently read works by authors who are biased and possess poor reasoning skills, you will become as they are. Thus, people of discretion avoid sources of information likely to be error-filled.
But, you may ask, what about Confirmation Bias. Is the moderate or liberal reader also carefully filtering only for information that supports their existing bias? I don't think so. A book with a more balanced title might be of value to a moderate or liberal reader as a source of perspective for, at least, understanding the conservative mind on this matter.
I was asked to read this book by my Uncle. I am going to try and do so. For your information, I am someone who strives to be moderate in my politics, but I do lean towards the Democratic side because the Republican side tends to get more Pants-on-Fire fact check results. Understandably, I mistrust liars. I also detest people who intentionally spread falsehoods to further their own agenda. By this, I mean when someone says something so obviously and blatantly in contrast to the facts... but says it anyway.
Anyway, so much for the title....
This book was published on April 17, 2012 according to Amazon.com.
Ordinarily, the title itself is so obviously biased that I would put little to no trust in the reporting of the author. Books read to gain knowledge need to be handled with a certain diligence. Emotion and critical thinking skills do not often go hand-in-hand as an excess of emotion clouds perception excepting in the direction of your preexisting expectations.
A book with such a title would appeal to a certain demographic. People who hate Obama and are looking for a reason to hate him. These are people suffering from the ills of confirmation bias, the tendency to only look for sources of information that confirm your existing belief. With an inflammatory title, the author hopes to sell a book telling the buyer exactly what he wants to hear.
The book is, essentially, preaching to the Choir.
Meanwhile, anyone who is undecided or liberal will logically veer away from the book as biased reporting is often very poor quality reporting. Garbage in / Garbage out is a saying I've heard in reference to computer programing. It also works with the brain. If you consistently read works by authors who are biased and possess poor reasoning skills, you will become as they are. Thus, people of discretion avoid sources of information likely to be error-filled.
But, you may ask, what about Confirmation Bias. Is the moderate or liberal reader also carefully filtering only for information that supports their existing bias? I don't think so. A book with a more balanced title might be of value to a moderate or liberal reader as a source of perspective for, at least, understanding the conservative mind on this matter.
I was asked to read this book by my Uncle. I am going to try and do so. For your information, I am someone who strives to be moderate in my politics, but I do lean towards the Democratic side because the Republican side tends to get more Pants-on-Fire fact check results. Understandably, I mistrust liars. I also detest people who intentionally spread falsehoods to further their own agenda. By this, I mean when someone says something so obviously and blatantly in contrast to the facts... but says it anyway.
Anyway, so much for the title....
This book was published on April 17, 2012 according to Amazon.com.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)