 |
| The graduation ceremony for the FBI Citizens Academy takes place at the bureau’s North Chicago Regional Firearms Training Facility, a fun outing where we saw bomb disposal demonstration and the boys got to fire a Thompson submachine gun. |
When the FBI called, I hesitated.
Their request was simple enough. They wanted to bring me into headquarters, for briefings, once a week, for a couple months. Something called the FBI Citizens Academy.
Why me? Agents in the Chicago office were readers. Flattering, though, the way my mind works, I instantly saw that this wasn’t necessarily a compliment — it was entirely possible that my perspective was seen as so woefully ignorant of the world of law enforcement, they felt duty bound to help me get a clue.
Or maybe they just wanted to get me in their clutches. I’d end up handcuffed to a metal chair in a basement, a bright light shining in my face.
One evening a week, for a couple hours, at their Roosevelt Road field office, learning the ins and outs of the department, the problems they face. Battling international terrorism, tracking cybercriminals and bank robbers.
“It sounds like traffic school,” I told my wife.
But I have a personal rule: if you don’t go, you never find out. Plus they would feed us — dinner from a different restaurant each week. Being fed always helps. I signed up.
This was in 2010, so the specific program details do not pop out in mind. There were guest lecturers, short films, tours of their facility. I knew several of the attendees, and the academy was pretty much the entirety of my social life for a while.
What’s strongest is the sense I took away about the Federal Bureau of Investigation. They were good people, working hard, battling bad guys. I’m sure that was the point. Not that the bureau’s often checkered history was whitewashed. Anyone who read Jonathan Eig’s recent Pulitzer Prize winning biography of Martin Luther King knows how the FBI bugged King’s hotel rooms, using the transcripts to try to blackmail him into silence, to urge him to kill himself, generating dirt they fed to his enemies. Knows that the FBI often strayed from protecting America to protecting a narrow right wing racist image of America.
To continue reading, click here.
What does that photo at the top of some kind of machine shop have to do with the local FBI?
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't — a scene from Neenah Foundry, by the way. It was late, I was rooting around for a photo, and I thought it was interesting, the small man, the enormous machine.
DeleteI'm always astonished at how filthy yet spotless such machine shops are.
DeleteAn informative column and it's good you got to get up close with the FBI some time back. I think they may be able to weather the fool Patel's years, with time.
ReplyDeleteSo many fools in this administration for the country to weather. I think maybe we should be glad that a lot these Trump appointees do seem to be so foolish: imagine the additional harm if they were highly competent. Hopefully, the electorate will rise-up and the midterms will leave a whole lot more impediments for these damaged souls to navigate.
ReplyDelete2010 was a long time ago. It's clear that much has changed at the FBI in those 16 years. Not the least of which is the appointment and confirmation of a drunken fool as Director. I am sure there are still many fine FBI agents who take their oath to the Constitution seriously. But they are not in charge and they are being ruthlessly winnowed out.
ReplyDeleteAs is the case with most things in my life, I never know how to feel.
ReplyDeleteShould I be sad that there isn't an internal uprising to oust patel? That wouldn't protect good people during good times.
Electing Democrats is important. Electing good democrats is also important, but I believe we need to vote out every republican (center and right) and start anew. This country of ours needs some serious educational help.
How do you get through to people who refuse to read, refuse to accept fact, and live on another planet mentally? You don't just sow a field, you have to tend to it.
@ Double B
DeleteI wish to respectfully respond to your post, but I will first offer the disclaimer that politically I would describe myself as left-of-center, holding positions mostly of a left orientation, but also a few definitely to the right of the spectrum.
Again, respectfully, your statements regarding voting Centrists and Republicans out of office and questioning (and being saddened) by the lack of an internal uprising amongst FBI employees emit a sort of naivete and/or self-absorbed, self-pitying. Do you really expect FBI employees to raise their voices against an unpopular, unqualified, and incompetent CEO any more than those non-unionized personnel in the private sector would against such a similar CEO? As in the private sector, FBI employees no doubt perform their roles day-in and day-out to the best of their abilities and accomplish their mission, waiting for the day that the CEO is ousted by those to whom they are held accountable. Change is inevitable, and people protect themselves and their jobs as best they can, digging their foxhole deep and keeping their heads down in order to survive.
Regarding voting Centrists and qualified Republicans out of office simply because they don't march in lockstep with your beliefs is wish-casting that is as small-minded and petty as those of the extreme far-right, and on the same continuum. There are qualified candidates within these political ideologies, and to oppose them outright without considering their positions on various issues is being a dogmatic idealogue similar to the Tea Party of some years past who rejected all who didn't agree. As with those employees trapped under a bad CEO, certain - and not all - Republican politicians consider their constituents first and do what's necessary to ensure a stream of federal revenue to their state and constituents, and, yes, to ensure job security for themselves as those under Democratic regimes have done as well. How many Democratics went against or outright defied Nancy Pelosi when she was at her peak powers?
Also, regarding Democratic candidates, although you do state that "good" Democratic candidates should be selected, define "good", please. No one is without blemishes, so, what do you find acceptable versus unacceptable in a Democratic candidate? Would your support one with allegations of associations to those espousing anti-semitic beliefs over a moderate Republican or Centrist?
I read your frequent, almost daily, posts and attempt to understand the thinking behind your sometimes steam-of-consicousness writing, but today I was put off by your insulting comments of those who are very well right-of-center. To insult those that don't share your political ideology only strengthens their entrenchment against those left-of-center and doesn't align with your final statement to tend the field. Instead, you wish to apply toxic weed-killer.
Jim,
DeleteI appreciate your response, your candor, and you message. You bring up many good points and as a result have made me think. Thank you.
Regarding my "internal uprising" comments. I thought I had dissuaded my own argument with the idea that it wouldn't protect good people during good times. You are right, I should have been more clear. I wish the "good" people at the FBI would rise up and throw out the bad. In reality, there can be no purge of a system unless it is a full purge. The idea -- and hope -- that the FBI is impartial and functions with a steady hand regardless of who runs them is the only thing that we could hope or ask for. While my hero would throw out patel that doesn't protect my ideal leader from being thrown out by someone else's hero.
Which brings me to the second point you bring up, "the center."
Mr. Patel doesn't become the head of the FBI without 51 votes in the senate. There are 54 republicans in the Senate (if you include Vance as the tie breaking vote). As is the case with nearly every senate vote since 1990 (thanks newt), republicans have never had more defects from the vote than can carry the majority. You are welcome (and i welcome you) to look at the voting records. they speak for themselves.
This action by the right, has effectively killed the center. Look at the confirmation for all of the leadership in trumps administration. With the exception of Rubio, there have been no more than 3 republican defections. That is cowardice. That is disgusting. That is party above country. Especially since it is clear how highly unqualified they have been. Blanche, RFK jr., Mullen, McMann, Noem, Bondi, none of them are either qualified or should be serving. the republican party as a whole bares the blame for that. full stop.
It is for the reason above, I will never be able to support a republican. Now that doesn't mean supporting a democrat that is bad, but it does mean not voting or supporting a republican. I think Graham Platner is a great example of the argument you are trying to employ. Once Mr. Platner's issues came to light, there was a groundswell for him to be removed, rightfully so. What I did not hear in the conversation was the argument that because Platner was bad, Susan Collins deserved the vote.
I fundamentally believe that any democrat is better than even the best republican. I ask you, or anyone, to give me an example of a republican doing the right thing, when it mattered. Show me legislation, acts, any example of a republican doing what is right for the American people. The only thing i can think of is the Epstein files release act, which has yet to be enforced. Again, party lines now. pure cowardice.
Dr. Heather Cox Richardson has some wonderful videos about it. I would suggest listening to them.
https://youtu.be/NDUa3C6nM8U?si=An7tXEXHjF2iyc99
https://youtu.be/ZFHhELyW3Z0?si=BFkOjDCbFahV1x4F
https://youtu.be/9hjEKQoDC_Q?si=3exC0gZKxgniSuLj
https://youtu.be/pZgipS9GdtE?si=v8TN3SL0mHOceUyf
I tried to select some of her talks where she comments specifically on how far to the right the center politically has moved, but I'm sure i haven't done a good enough job.
I have a lot of faith -- probably misplaced faith -- that democrats will not put forth candidates that make it impossible to vote for them -- rapists, anti-Semites, racist, republicans -- but a "good" democrat is one who votes for what is right and good for their constituents. A Jewish member of congress voting against aid to Israel until they stop attacking Gaza is a good democrat. A democrat who is against dark money in politics a good democrat.
Let's not forget, Eric Swawel and Al Franken were kicked out of congress; graham platner dropped out. How many people in the republican party should have done the same but haven't and are still serving...
So I'll stand by my comments. There are no good republicans. They must ALL be voted out.
Well said, Double B.
Delete@ Double B (part 1 of 2)
DeleteThank you for you response and the various links. I subscribe to Charlie Meyerson's Public Square, and as he frequently links to Heather Cox-Richardson's posts (as well as those of Neil's), I am acquainted with Ms. Cox-Richardson's writings. I also receive Eric Zorn's Picayune-Sentinel (not yet a subscriber, but soon), and have digital subscriptions to both the Sun-Times and for now the Tribune (their pricing policies are dissuading me from further subscription). I also receive postings from economist Paul Krugman and a former US Representative, Marie Newman. Of course, I follow EGD every day and have faithfully done so since the first year of it's appearance. On a larger scale, I subscribe to Apple News+, which allows me to receive a broad spectrum of publications from across the country and world, with certain publications, such as the WSJ, WP, LA Times, The New Yorker, Atlantic, BBC, France 24, AFP, Reuters, and, infrequently, The Economist. As an aside, the New York Times chooses not to participate in Apple News+.
All of this is to say that I try to curate the information I receive so that I can balance as best as possible varying political opinions ranging from moderate left to moderate right. One of the many unfortunate side-effects of the slow demise of the Newspaper industry is the loss of balanced reporting and emphasis on fact. The news consumer is now forced to cobble together various viewpoints spread accross multiple blog sites. This leads to consumers creating their own specific echo chamber, hearing only what they choose, whether Democratic Socialists or MAGA supporters.
I disagree with your statement that the center no longer exists. It does and shifts its allegiance based upon economic conditions. The Democrats lost their way by appealing to special interests, be it transgender rights, BLM, immigration, i.e. open borders, etc., and gave their Republican counterparts weaknesses to attack, rather than focus on core issues, such as cost-of-living, job security, safety, affordable housing, education, etc., the so-called dinner table matters. The Dems lost sight of the fact that if you don't control at least one and possibly two of either the Presidency and the Two Chambers, then special interests will not be served and any existing rights will be eliminated, as we now see.
As a person who experienced late-deafened hearing loss in my 50's and had to redirect for the final quarter of his career, DEI is very important to me, as it allowed me to work the final 10 years of my career in a meaningful role. s a Senior (now 66 years of age), the rights of Seniors are very important to me, and I believe will be among the coming targets, now that undocumented immigrants, DEI, and the Affordable Care Act participants have been addressed.
I feel that we now find ourselves in our current state due to the campaigning failures of the Democratic Party. In the waning days of the 2016 campaign, Clinton's campaign went radio-silent or staged presentations in an effort to avoid objectionable statements and allow DT to trip on himself. However, DT outworked her and commanded the media cycle. Her campaign also chose not to pound the pavement in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania because they assumed Blue, which cost her the election. Nothing more needs to be said about Joe Biden's ill-fated campaign effort, which led once again to DT. This faiure is all the result of living in an echo chamber no different than the current administration, and ultimately those who choose to live in an echo chamber and their regimes will fail. This can be taken back to the 60's, with Nixon's Southern Strategy, appealing to those in the then-heavily Democratic South who felt disenfranchised by the Democratic Party at that time. Democratic Socialism is the latest failure-to-be on the part of the Democratic party.
(continued)
@ Double B (part 2 of 2)
DeleteSeriously, Double B, given a choice, you would choose Fetterman over Murkowski? Small sample size, sure, but I'm just trying to quickly illustrate my point that it's better to judge the individual rather than the party. Also, one shouldn't demean and so quickly dismiss the other side as it only leads to further entrenchment and separation. Although the less said about Patel, the better, J. Edgar Hoover was no gem as an FBI leader, and perhaps far worse, given the blackmail attempts of his regime and his no doubt use of such tactics to remain in power across multiple Presidential administrations. The FBI needs strong leadership, but this has seemed problematic over the decades, and not just confined to now.
Long story short, there is need to broaden our perspectives and not create and reside in some state-of-mind bunker / echo chamber / bubble of our choosing.
@Jim,
DeleteThankfully Murkowski and Fetterman are running in different states. And i get the feeling based on what i read that Fetterman is very unliked and will most likely not be reelected. Fetterman Ran against Dr. Oz. He was the better choice of the two. Has he lived up to what the people have hoped for? I don't think so. Mary Peltola is running for senate in Alaska, and I would vote for her in a heart beat, regardless of where she'd run. Your question is a trap, as it will never happen. you must look at who is running against who, then you can make your argument about voting for a "crap" democrat over a republican.
But you miss my point. You fall into the same trap that so many people seem to fall into. Demand more of our elected leaders and elect better public servants. We shouldn't continue to argue about the "best of a bad choice" or the constant "both parties suck."
Hoover was bad. So is Patel. And i'm willing to bet when (and if) we learn everything, it will turn out that patel was far worse for both the country and the FBI.
@Jim #2 I hate the term "Democratic Socialist" mostly because it has nothing to do with socialism. You know what does have to do with socialism? All of the republican and trumps direct investment in companies. that's literally nationalizing the means of production.
DeleteYour first response here reminds me of a poem that's worth reading... First They Came – by Pastor Martin Niemöller
And if we would have had a center, we could have just stopped at the DEI, or the Undocumented, or the affordable care act, or the generals, or venezuala, or iran, or Roe v. Wade...
@ Double B (part 1 0f 2)
DeleteI would respectfully suggest that you are misdirecting from my primary points: A.) the Middle, i.e. moderate Left to moderate right, including Independents, does indeed exist; B.) Democrats due to uninspiring or flat-out wrong Presidential candidates are largely to blame for DT; and, C.) there is need to not envelope ourselves within silos of our own construction that are intended solely to serve as our own private echo chambers.
The Middle does indeed exist and shifts according to a Presidential candidate's focus on key dinner-table conserns/issues: cost-of-living, job security with good pay, strong education for children, safety and security, affordable housing, equal opportunity, etc. When the Middle doesn't feel a particular candidate is addressing these key matters, they turn elsewhere.
The Democratic party has done well to disenfranchise the Middle, their core base at one time, by turning away from the dinner-table concerns and shifting towards flavor-of-the-day, virtue signaling concerns.
As I've stated, it goes back to at least Richard Nixon's Southern strategy to turn disenfranchised Southern state voters away from the Democratic party they once supported and towards the Republican party. The Democrats enabled this by offering up weak, liberal candidates, like Hubert Humphrey and George McGovern. Jimmy Carter, another relatively ineffectual Democrat, begat 12 years of Ronald Reagan/George Bush I. It wasn't until Moderate Democratic candidate, Bill Clinton, appeared that Democrats were able to regain control of the White House. However, Al Gore was then offered up and defeated by George Bush II, in office for two terms. Barack Obama, another Moderate Democrat, was able to counter and reestablish Democratic control of the Presidency. Hillary Clinton, through a failed campaign effort which took for granted the support from the previous Blue states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, gave rise to DT. Joe Biden, another Moderate Democrat, regained control, yet ultimately ceded once again to DT, largely from his family's hubris and an unwillingess on the part of Democrat leadership to primary him, followed by an inappropriate candidate in Kamala Harris, as the Democratic Party once again failed to read the room, and Hispanic and Black males voted more Republican, not wanting a female President, with suburban females voting in larger numbers for DT as they wanted safety and security from the defund-the-police crowd.
The Democratic Party in my opinion bears sole responsiblity for DT as they ingnored the needs to the political Middle, which then shifted rightward when Democratic candidates veered more towards the left than towards the Middle. One can only hope good, Moderate Democratic candidates (or perhaps a strong Republican offering to counter current VP JDV) for the Presidency arise as a Presidency under likely candidate JDV will be far worse than DT.
@ Double B (part 2 of 2)
DeleteHence, my belief that we need to be well-rounded in our political views and consider all candidates. Are all Republicans worthy of consideration? No, not all in the current climate of kowtowing and bending the knee to DT. However, there are and will no doubt be some of value. We as a country need to mend fences and end the divisiveness, off which the Oligarchy of this country and foriegn concerns gains strength and influence. It's not the Republicans party per se that's the danger; instead, its the Oligarchy and Tech bros and their alliances with foreign powers to control the Mass Media, such as mentioned in today's post by Mark Jacob from Charlie Meyerson's Public Square, in service of their greed, that are the true threat to the country..
https://www.stopthepresses.news/p/american-oligarchs-and-foreign-fatcats?r=i413&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web&triedRedirect=true
I do hope for a Blue Wave this Fall, but I remain skeptical.
"Shutting up is an art form I struggle to master," as our genial host likes to remark. This comment is yet another indication of how poorly my personal struggle is going, replying to someone via a 6-day old blog post.
DeleteYou're a nice guy, Jim, and I like a lot of your remarks at EGD. I refuse, however, to accept the statement that "Democrats due to uninspiring or flat-out wrong Presidential candidates are largely to blame for DT," followed later by "The Democratic Party in my opinion bears sole responsibility for DT."
In a better-informed, less gullible country, the reality-show host would have been ridiculed and then ignored shortly after riding down the golden escalator in 2015. It's not the fault of the Democrats that he went on to cruise through the Republican primaries, instead.
Hillary Clinton was the *moderate* candidate who had to fight off a strong challenge from Bernie Sanders on the left. She didn't lose because she took states for granted; she lost because of sexism and uninformed voters who have an amazing ability to either stay home, vote for a third-party candidate, or vote against their own self-interests due to sources of "information" like Fox News.
There were many folks who didn't vote for her because she was deemed a "hawk," not because they thought she was too much of a lefty. (Fast forward to the FIFA Peace Prize recipient starting an unnecessary war in Iran that presidents from both parties since 1979 knew would be a terrible idea.)
In a benighted banana republic like this, you may be able to call Kamala Harris "an inappropriate candidate." She'd have been so much better than a treasonous, utterly corrupt, convicted felon that it doesn't warrant discussion, but you go right ahead and blame the Democrats rather than those willing to vote for a treasonous, utterly corrupt, convicted felon. "Hispanic and Black males voted more Republican, not wanting a female President." Yes, surely the nation should cater *more* to sexism than it already does.
This country is fucked up and the Democrats have a very hard time selecting candidates who appeal to the broad swath of their own voters, let alone independents and sane Republicans. That in *no way* demonstrates that they are responsible for a nation of fools prompted by oligarchs to vote against their own interests so that they can "own the libs" and punish immigrants.
The U.S. economy, in October, 2024, was called by the relatively conservative "Economist" magazine "The Envy of the World." Yet your esteemed voters in the "Middle" decided that handing it over to the orange felon to focus on his ill-informed, disastrous priorities would be the best choice. They were wrong.
Waiting for the election results. How big will the Democratic Party win? What will Patel, Miller, Hegseth, Blanche, Mullin, et al do to discredit or overturn the results?
ReplyDeleteDon't believe they will.
DeleteGet out the vote. Make sure people are registered. Make sure they get to their poling places and vote.
Make sure the trump and gop reich doesn't prevent a free and fair election.
don't trust the polls. VOTE
Would love to have some cool FBI swag — baseball caps and T-shirts and medallions. Swag is great. Would wear them to marches and No Kings protests and delight in all the raised eyebrows. And use the gym bags as beach or travel bags. An FBI gym bag would be great fun as a carry-on at the airport.
ReplyDeleteHave finally reached the stage where ruthless decluttering and downsizing is essential, after being a terrible pack rat all my life. So the very thought of more swag has to be banished from my cabeza. Have always loved and collected swag. That's part of the problem I'm dealing with at the moment. So Chief Wahoo had to go. And he has.
For me, it’s still secretary of “defense.”
ReplyDeleteThat's the official name of the head of the Department of Defense since 1947 & it's still its legal name, no matter what that worthless clown with very low testosterone says it is!He claims he wants no "trannis, beardos or weirdos" in the military, but he is easily Weirdo #1, without any competition for the title!
DeleteOne small nitpick - Trump did not give the money "back to the rich" - it was never theirs in the first place, it was the taxpayers'. And billionaires pay no tax.
ReplyDelete