Speaking Up Against "Plandemic" - just to make sure you can read it

I am reprinting this article here because at least one person claimed that the original web page was not fully readable.  I don't know if I believe this or not but to at least give those people the benefit of the doubt here is the text of the article with my apologies to Forbes.

Here is the link to the original.  https://www.forbes.com/sites/tarahaelle/2020/05/08/why-its-important-to-push-back-on-plandemic-and-how-to-do-it/?fbclid=IwAR1AiuUWpAezU5VAQsnLP1lFj453rmS92DNWGzZrRgkMShSRk8vV8W_bLK4#22cbe05d5fa3

By now you’ve probably heard about or even seen the video “Plandemic” that’s been spreading like wildfire through social media networks. This article is not the one you should give to your friend or relative or coworker who shared the video. (If you want that article, you won’t find a better one than this one from Beth Skwarecki at Lifehacker: “If You Found That ‘Plandemic’ Video Convincing, Read This Too.”)

This is an article for those who recognized the video as rife with conspiracy theories, misinformation and false claims, those who are frustrated and unsettled and disappointed in who they see sharing it, and those who want to know what to say when they see it. It explains why the video is successful, how to recognize propaganda like this for what it is, and explain why it is so, so, so important to speak up about this particular video.

What IS this video? 

Plandemic interviews a scientist who was appropriately discredited for scientific misconduct and fraud. She is a known, established anti-vaccine advocate (despite her denial in the film), and she presents a long list of unsupported statements that involve COVID-19, various vaccines, HIV/AIDS, Anthony Fauci, pharmaceutical company collusion and other elements of an elaborate, long-running cover-up. It’s a doozy, checking nearly every box in the long list of conspiracy theories and disinformation circulating about the coronavirus. 

Why did my smart, thoughtful, informed friend share this?

What’s most upsetting to many people is who they see sharing it: reasonable, intelligent people who normally don’t fall for conspiracy theories or pseudoscience. What is going on?

Many people who are privately or casually sharing it are saying, “This is interesting. What do you think of it?” Most genuinely don’t know what to make of it. They aren’t trying to spread misinformation. They’re not the types to believe or share conspiracy theories. They’re taken in by the video’s slick appearance and by its use of persuasive techniques and really want to know what you think, so you need to approach them respectfully about it. (We’ll get to that.)

Why is this video suddenly everywhere? Why are so many drawn to it?

This video has been extremely successful at promoting misinformation for three reasons: First, it taps into people’s uncertainty, anxiety and need for answers—common reasons anyone is attracted to a conspiracy theory. Second, it is packaged very professionally and uses common conventions people already associate with factual documentaries. Third, it successfully exploits ancient but extremely effective methods of persuasion.

 There is more uncertainty about our world right now than there has been in decades, perhaps a century, and the stakes are higher than ever. Everyone has so many unanswered questions—including scientists, doctors, national leaders and others we ordinarily look to for answers. Uncertainty is uncomfortable. People want answers. Conspiracy theories can be comforting. This video appears to provide answers that fit together, that seem to make sense, that sound credible, or at least “interesting and worth considering.” (That’s the hook. Next is the line.)

The video looks, sounds and feels like a documentary even though it isn’t

Plandemic is part of a disturbingly successful trend in which deep-pocketed purveyors of pseudoscience produce slick, professional videos as credible-appearing documentaries. The lighting, narrative structure, the pacing, use of imagery, camera angles, editing techniques—these are all common documentary filmmaking conventions that we’ve come to associate with factual information.

The people producing this video know what they’re doing, and they’re very good at it. On a subconscious level, no matter what words are being said, this video feels factual simply because of how it was produced. It’s intentionally manipulative. It’s a textbook example of effective propaganda. (That’s the line. Next is the sinker.)

This video successfully employs “pathos” and “ethos” to persuade people

Aristotle introduced a concept over two thousand years ago that remains more relevant than ever: modes of persuasion, or rhetorical appeals. The three main appeals speakers can use to persuade others are ethos, pathos and logos.

Ethos is an appeal to the credibility and authority of the speaker, how they come across. The entire first third of Plandemic is dedicated to setting Judy Mikovits up as a trustworthy expert on everything the video will discuss. She sounds and looks calm, collected and competent. She uses scientific but understandable language. She tells a personal story that helps viewers connect with her and with the interviewer, who also comes across as compassionate, thoughtful and empathetic. 

The video doesn’t make a scientific argument or mention COVID-19 yet—the only purpose of the first 8-10 minutes is get the audience to trust Mikovits. The problem is that most people will not have heard of Mikovits before this video. This is their first impression of her, and first impressions are very powerful. When people later hear she is anti-vaccine and that she falsified data, it will be harder for them to believe it. They already know she was accused of those things, but she and the interviewer convincingly make the case that she was innocent and framed. The filmmakers have so strongly invested in ethos that it will be hard for someone watching Mikovits for the first time to disregard their first impression of her as a wronged woman. 

Pathos is an appeal to emotion. The video appeals to viewers’ emotions by portraying Mikovits as a victimized underdog and by repeatedly using stock video of harrowing images, such as patients dying from AIDS and malnourished children in Africa. The video claims people are dying because they cannot get the appropriate treatments they need, appealing to viewers’ sense of injustice. The video even uses stock images of a SWAT team arrest to make it look like she was arrested at home in a major operation—but that’s unrelated stock footage. In fact, Mikovits turned herself in without incident.

Logos is an appeal to facts and logic. This is where the film falls flat—but it doesn’t matter to many people because it so successfully uses ethos and pathos. For logos, the film takes intuitive ideas or those with a kernel of truth to them, and it twists them and amplifies them into exaggerated, false claims that sound reasonable because they’re familiar. (The claim that staying home will weaken our immune systems without enough exposure to microbes is false, but it sounds reasonable because it builds on the hygiene hypothesis, which does have evidence.)

Instead of reasoned arguments with supportive evidence, the film uses a common debating strategy called the gish gallop. This technique overwhelms the audience with so many assertions and arguments at one time, without regard to how strong or true they are, that it’s impossible to keep up with them or refute them all. It’s usually pointless to try because it’s the nonstop bombardment of statements coming at you that makes it effective. (This is partly why debunking this video isn’t a productive use of time.)

The video also uses images of sciencey things—labs, cells, scientific experiments, pictures of studies—to substitute for logos. They look credible and factual whether they actually support the argument or not.

Hook, line, and sinker.

So what do you do when someone shares it?

First, don’t call them or the video crazy. Don’t chide them or mock them for sharing it. And don’t insist they delete it immediately or tell people not to watch it—that just makes it forbidden fruit, which is all the more attractive. (The filmmakers are already successfully using that strategy by telling people it will get taken down, and it has—for copyright infringement since it uses several video clips without permission.)

They probably really want your opinion because they trust you. Don’t violate that trust right off the bat. Use it. How you use it depends on what you know about them already and what’s worked in the past. Science communicator and social scientist Liz Neeley has a fantastic piece at The Atlantic on how to talk to people about science—and misinformation—without alienating them. Go read it. Seriously. It will help you.

You might ask what they find so persuasive about it and move on from there, addressing those specifics.

You could also discuss how to know whether Mikovits really is an expert or not. Instead of just dropping a link, explain that it’s impossible for her to be an expert in all the different topics she covers in that video—that’s not how scientific expertise works.

Emily Willingham, PhD, a science journalist and developmental biologist (and my co-author on a book we published in 2016), has an excellent public post on Facebook about how to vet experts for actually having expertise in a particular area. Having a PhD in biology doesn’t make someone an expert in all of biology. No one human can know all that. 

“Some people with advanced degrees are perfectly willing to elide their expertise or overreach on their claims just to get attention,” Willingham writes. And she makes this extremely important point that’s relevant to the final moment in Plandemic when a clip of Fauci warning about an inevitable pandemic in the coming years is used to suggest he caused it: “Science and the process of scientific discovery are never about one giant. Evidence is incremental, data can be slow to come in. But people with expertise collectively know what’s on the horizon here and have been warning about it for years. They were informed by history and their own training, their understanding of how novel infectious disease would behave in a globally connected society. No one—NO SINGLE PERSON—is going to have a sudden insight or make some clever connection no one else has considered or uncover some vast deep conspiracy that has eluded the other 7.7 billion people on Earth.” 

If all you do have the energy to do is drop a link in response to the video, this is the one to drop—it’s the article version of what my article recommends: “If You Found That ‘Plandemic’ Video Convincing, Read This Too.”

If they like reading long articles debunking it, there are plenty to choose from. I’ll list some at the bottom. But a systematic debunking of the video isn’t likely to be successful. Talking about it and why it’s persuasive might be.

Why should I bother saying anything at all? Can’t I just ignore it? 

Conspiracy theories like those in this video are actively, directly harmful and dangerous. They can influence people’s behavior in ways that harm those people and public health—including you personally—in general. We can’t afford to let these ideas run unchecked. 

If you don’t push back on them, even to those you love or don’t want to upset, you’re enabling them. You’re allowing people to spew harmful, dangerous nonsense that kills people and demoralizes the millions of health care providers trying to save lives.

Many people try to avoid drama or debates on their social media accounts, and I respect that. But this video is not a time to “agree to disagree” because the stakes are too high. It’s a matter of life and death. The false statements in this video can cause deaths.

If they share it on your Facebook wall, address it. If you see them share it on their walls, address it. You don’t have to debate all night—that’s not productive for either of you. Maybe you just make a couple points and drop it. But don’t let it go unchallenged.

Should you unfriend them? That depends.

I know many people just don’t have the energy right now to push back—we’re all strung out, burnt out, stressed, and tired—so be strategic about what you can tolerate. You might need to say, “I’m sorry, I care about you as a person, but I cannot allow you to share dangerous, harmful misinformation about a life or death situation, so I will need to unfriend you until the pandemic is over.” 

Or, maybe it’s vital that they remain connected to you because your posts are some of the only good sources of accurate information they have which might penetrate their bubble. Maybe you can’t afford to sever a relationship during a time with so much isolation already. It’s your call.

Whatever you do, speak up at least once. The stakes are too high not to—for all of us. We all have a social responsibility to push back against dangerous, harmful information, now more than ever. 

Does speaking up even matter? Will it make a difference? Yes.

You might not convince them the video is conspiracy theory nonsense. That’s fine. That may not be the goal. But here are three things you accomplish by speaking up even if you know you’ll “lose” the battle:

• Others see you push back. They’ll get accurate information and see you calmly, maturely responding to the false statements. Ethos! 
• Seeing you speak up erodes the bystander effect, typically used to explain why people are less likely to help in an emergency if others are around. If someone makes a racist comment and no one speaks up, others don’t want to be the first. So be the first—and it inspires and emboldens other people to push back on their walls too. Speaking against misinformation is contagious in a good way. If you do it, they realize they can and should too. And if they didn’t know what to say before, they can copy/paste what you said and use that.
• Speaking up normalizes factual information and contributes to the mere exposure effect: the more a person is exposed to an idea, the more it becomes familiar and credible, no matter what the idea is. The more they hear it from you and others, over and over, the more they may gradually, unconsciously start to recognize the logical holes and embrace factual information. It won’t happen overnight or because of one person, and they’ll think it was their idea when it happens. But it can happen.

Where can I get a good debunking of it all?

Note: Some hyperlinks are not showing up on mobile, so I’ve added the complete URL for each link for copying/pasting.

—Beth Skwarecki’s Lifehacker article is an excellent, thoughtful debunking: “If You Found That ‘Plandemic’ Video Convincing, Read This Too.” http://vitals.lifehacker.com/if-you-found-that-plandemic-video-convincing-read-th-1843339002

—For a truly exhaustive claim-by-claim correction, this Google Doc from fire and emergency management educator Jim Chaffee includes sources to support every correction.  http://docs.google.com/document/d/1QwU4jcRw-qb77BLCLs99af05S1mL2E2vUz2x2M1396U/edit

—Retraction Watch, a scientific misconduct watchdog site, has an excellent brief piece about Judy Mikovits that includes links to their past posts on her: “Who is Judy Mikovits?” http://retractionwatch.com/2020/05/06/who-is-judy-mikovits/

—“The anti-vaxx agenda of 'The Plandemic’” at The Big Think describes seven conspiracy theories “baked into” Plandemic. http://bigthink.com/coronavirus/the-plandemic?rebelltitem=3#rebelltitem3

—Politifact has a pretty extensive fact-check on the video’s claims: “Fact-checking ‘Plandemic’: A documentary full of false conspiracy theories about the coronavirus.” www.politifact.com/article/2020/may/08/fact-checking-plandemic-documentary-full-false-con/

—“Why People Cling To Conspiracy Theories Like ‘Plandemic’” from meteorologist Marshall Shepherd at Forbes offers other reasons people are drawn to conspiracy theories. www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2020/05/07/why-people-cling-to-conspiracy-theories-like-plandemic/#26e0c2485049

—For the most comprehensive rundown of Mikovits’ history you could ever ask for, see “Judy Mikovits in Plandemic: An antivax conspiracy theorist becomes a COVID-19 grifter” at the Respectful Insolence blog. respectfulinsolence.com/2020/05/06/judy-mikovits-pandemic/

—Snopes always does a thorough job: “Was a Scientist Jailed After Discovering a Deadly Virus Delivered Through Vaccines?” www.snopes.com/fact-check/scientist-vaccine-jailed/

—Want to know the real story on what happened to Mikovits? Read this Nature piece and this Science piece. www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/news.2011.574.html and www.sciencemag.org/news/2011/12/updated-rare-move-science-without-authors-consent-retracts-paper-tied-mouse-virus

—An incredibly thorough list of all Mikovits’ misdeeds and mistruths is available on this Facebook post from Ross Grayson; it also includes links to more helpful articles. www.facebook.com/1151067689/posts/10219392717425910/?d=n

—Finally, this blog post by Liz Ditz compiles all the articles she has been able to find that address the video’s misinformation. http://lizditz.typepad.com/i_speak_of_dreams/2020/05/judy-mikovits-not-a-reliable-source-of-information-on-covid19-vaccines-or-anything-in-science.html

Why I Hate A County Sales Tax - a letter to the Manitowoc County Board

To:Todd Holschbach,Dave Nickels,Rita Metzger,Jim Brey,John Brunner

Cc:Jessica Backus,Todd Reckelberg,JJ Gutman,Gerry Neuser,Marc Holsen,Peter Conrad,Mary Thomsen,Ronald Kossik

Feb 8 at 10:55 AM

Bob Ziegelbauer doesn't believe in infation

I agree tha the County has been mismanaged for a long time now.  Bob's badge of honor has been his so called fiscal conservative-ism and until just recently bragged consistently that he has held taxes flat.  Unfortunately this is a fiscal fantasy that we have seen played out not only here but at the state, in particular at the State DOT where the Legislature (which I believe then included Bob) decided to remove indexing the gas tax to inflation.  Republicans do not believe in inflation so without considering the obviously rising cost of doing business in the real world, they implement these policies that have train wrecked much of the State's budgeting from Madison on down to the towns.  

Chip,

There is a lot of talk about running government running like a private business.  I suggest that there is no private business that would even consider the artificial constraint of the operating costs by this sort of fiat without the recognition that prices rise and that they would instead neglect their facilities for decades in stubborn delusion that they can hold their budget to that of twenty years ago.

At the same time they have cut revenue sharing to local governments.  Every town chair I have spoken to and all of those quoted in the Valders Journal have mentioned this as a cause for concern regardless of party affiliation.  In yesterday's paper there is an article about Town of Cato considering the abandonment of single user roads including one that serves a commercial farm citing those cuts.  They are not the only town to turn to that.  At the same time Cato is struggling with a serious issue with the Clarks Mills dam with little or no help from the State, yet what happens to that dam ill impact a major segment of the county up and down the river including Cato Falls Park.  It should not fall entirely on them to deal with this but before the County can help it needs to get its fiscal act together.

Beyond the cuts to revenue sharing and despite Walkers "tools" to take it out of the hides of municipal workers and teachers the Republican Legislature has handcuffed local governments by mandating strict limits on property tax increases which Im sure most would agree was nothing more than attempt to paper over the real effects of their revenue sharing cuts.  Once again, that artificial limit is below the rate of inflation which if real budgetary needs were addressed would have to be implemented every single year just to keep up with the actual cost of doing business.  In almost every year except in times of recession the real inflation rate has exceeded 2%.  Compounded annually this means that over the last decade until this year a we have experienced a real dollar cut to services nearing 25%, something that if overtly proposed at the outset would have never been considered.  Never the less, that is the reality of the cumulative budgeting of this executive and passively agreed to by successive boards (not the mention the State Legislature and now former Governor).

Of course the promise of all the fiscal conservancy is that prosperity will result.  Nowhere is that less true than Manitowoc County.  A recent article in the Capitol Times showed an economic survey that showed a net contraction of the working age population county by county and Manitowoc showed a net contraction of the exact segment of the population that generate the ability to fund government.  As a result property values are at least as stagnant as the budget which means that county and city revenues have been largely flat with only a few exceptions.  The "Dark Store" loop hole which Republicans have refused to end is cutting into the justification for expending funds to support new stores like Meijer and Panera for which he carved up the fair grounds on a no-bid sale even as the Executive and the Mayor bicker over how to fund the infrastructure.  Apparently Bob needed those funds pretty badly - another clue that the County is in trouble.

Another clue to that trouble is his proposal to (yet again) sell off county land in a no-bid sale without the necessary due diligence in extracting the maximum value for the taxpayers from that land.  This has been a repeating pattern with the Executive.  Beginning with the no-bid sale of the MCHCC at a net nine million dollar loss to taxpayers.  Even if you accept the alleged annual losses of that center as a fact (I do not) there was absolutely no justification for the fire sale price of six million.  Certainly there have been several new such facilities built in Manitowoc since that time, all for full value.  All for considerably more than six million and all appear to be making a go of it.

Another appalling example has been the aforementioned destruction of the County Expo grounds - again a no bid sale.  The alleged trust fund is little more than an attempt to get it off the county books as fast and as much as possible which unfortunately had the effect of crippling the facility and cementing it in a now terrible location that will in my opinion eventually bring about its demise.

Now we see the same approach to the sale of the farmland even though one parcel is right on the I-43 corridor and prime for commercial development.  Bob simply wants to take the first offer with not even a hint of curiosity as to its real value or other fiscal considerations.  I suggest that at the offered price the County is better off not selling it at all.  Consider the current rental rate of (what I believe to be $140/acre)  Then consider that the State's mandate that farmland be taxed for its use value and not market value.  A simple calculation shows that the County would be better off continuing to rent the land out rather than hope in any  increased revenue due to putting it on the tax roles.  As a farmland owner myself I can assure you this is not even a close decision.

*Note:  The board has since wisely rejected this. 

 Manitowoc County Board to reconsider sale of farmland near I-43

Beyond that according to information previously provided by Maura, the Executive  plans on simply dumping the cash into next years budget I suppose to avoid another tax increase.  Only that cash wont even cover the cost of inflation for next year much less the interest on his proposed borrowing.  I take this as the third clue that he knows the county is in deep trouble.  Any capital sale should go to offset other capital expenditures and not a one time flush of cash into expenses.  It is effectively breaking up the County's furniture to heat the courthouse.

Rather, for the I-43 property in particular the possibility of promoting it for commercial development has to be the first consideration.  Wtih the departure of any number of business in recent times this should be the top priority for any government official, not using what remains of county property as an ATM.

Contrast this with the City's acquisition of the old CNR rail yard along the river.  Certainly this is a positive development and will yield results for the County as well.  The County needs to make at least some attempt to restart support for economic development since clearly the current Exec's sole focus on low taxes have been an epic failure.

All this said, I do not support the county sales tax.  

Having spent 30 odd years in the IT industry maintaining systems that include sales tax accounting systems and there is little accountability in the collection and payment of that tax.  I can virtually guarantee that few local business correctly calculate and report it much less pay the required "use tax" or even know that it exists.  There are so many exemptions to sales taxes such as farm use that it is nearly impossible to track correctly and the State no longer effectively audits this due to cuts in State auditing capacity.

It also puts a higher burden on people with fixed income who either own no taxable property or pay relatively little on modest homes.  The idea that there is a bonanza to be had in getting revenue from people outside the county to kick in as they come to Manitowoc to shop is largely a myth since other communities all have the same chain stores we now have and more people travel to larger cities for shopping and entertainment.  Certainly the free skate that internet sales from companies like Amazon get while nearly no one pays the aforementioned use tax will continue to deplete sales tax revenues in the future.  Increasingly the only revenue to be had from it will be on necessities that for practical concerns will be purchased locally which means a disproportional burden on those least able to pay.

Bob is actually correct in pointing out that State statute requires that county sales tax only be used as an offset for property tax which for the reason above I regard as counter productive in who it is actually seeking to "relieve"  from taxation.  Certainly the Mayor's proposal for the county to use the money to repair neglected city streets (Nickels has committed many of the same fiscal sins as the Exucutive) would be an unprecedented and illegal use of what are otherwise County funds.

I say all this as a significant owner of property in this county including the City of Manitowoc.

Better alternatives exist.

1.  Insist that a series of future budgets at least keep steady with inflation by incrementally increasing property taxes at the maximum amount allowed under state caps.

2.  Consider a county referendum for a larger a larger  tax increase to fully fund the entire list of overdue repairs and maintenance of our infrastructure thus minimizing interest costs - a legitimate aspect of real fiscal conservancy.

3. Forbid the sale by statute if necessary of any county property in no-bid sales without due diligence to maximize the value for taxpayers considering not only the sale price but the long term fiscal impact on revenue and economic activity and potential growth.  Under no circumstances should real property be sold to cover current expenses.

4. The County needs to reestablish the EDC and return to a policy of promoting actual growth, not the mythical and entirely non-existent growth of our cuttent low tax policies.

5.  The county needs to lobby the Legislature to remove the shackles of State meddling in local budgets as well as restoring previous levels of income tax based revenue sharing instead of using those funds to patch its own deficits and ballooning budgets.  This should include the repeal of Act 10 which robbed millions from out local economy while delivering nothing.

Sincerely

Bernard J. (Bernie) Starzewski

4823 Greendale Rd.

Valders Wi. 54245

Jim Brey Finally Makes it to Washington!

I know I haven't posted anything is quite some time.  In many respects it has simply been too depressing to repeat it all.  BUT THIS...  was just too darling to leave undocumented!

Kellyanne Conway no less!

Jesus...  Who the hell picked up the tab for this?

You are known by the company you keep...

Why I Won't be Voting for Donald Chewning

"The evil that men do lives after them.  The good is oft interred with their bones." Mark Antoni's eulogy for Julius Caesar.

You are known by the company you keep.  old adage 

Attorney Donald Chewning is running for Manitowoc County Judge.
I will NOT be voting for him.

His sense of right and wrong are not the same as mine

In 2005 I bought an old set of farm buildings with the intent of rehabbing them.  In the process I hired a contractor who then hired "sub-contractors" who were actually just individuals with questionable backgrounds who were working off the books.  That contractor "Nite Way Construction" owned by Robert Nachtwey.  While working on the project one of Mr. Nachtwey's men decided that a wall on the building they were hired to fix was in his way and demolished it.  Mr. Nachtwey, realizing the problem called me and apparently retroactively tried to get my permission to remove it which I refused citing the fact that I would then have to rebuild the wall.  Being at work I was unable to go investigate at that moment.

In fact my son and I had already removed the wall in one piece and dropped it into the basement for re-use so I was puzzled as to why he felt he had to remove it.  Since the wall had been stored out of site I had no reason to suspect that it had been destroyed and didnt investigate any further.  However when the concrete job they did was completed I went to retrieve the wall and put it back into place only it was completely missing.  Since Nachtwey had called me about it I then contacted him about what he might have done with it.  He claimed not to have any knowledge of it but But suggested that my tenant in the house at that time might have stolen it in order to sell the valuable barn boards which were a rather unique pattern of dutch lap siding, not just common barn boards.

Later I found remnants of the wall hidden under a stack of surplus beams and other lumber that Nachtwey had stacked up saying that he saved some salvaged pieces for me.  Not all the material was there but it was cut up into small pieces and unsalvageable.  the pieces had been carefully covered up.  I also discovered that he had mis-set a critical beam several inches off center on the barn which meant that the main loft door could not be closed properly and would have to be cut free and reset.

I payed Mr. Nachtwey a visit demanding to know why he had destroyed the wall and set the beam out of level.  He denied destroying the wall and claimed not to know anything about the beam but refused to come look at the damage.  I demanded that if he wanted to be paid he needed to come and repair what he had done.

The next I heard of from him was a court summons for small claims sourt collections.  I contested that case in which he gave the same set of excuses which the judge did not buy and denied the judgement.  Mr. Nachtwey had made the mistake of again changing his story about the wall claiming that it never existed.  Unfortunately for him I had come armed with before and after photographs of the property.  It was a slam dunk.

End Round I

Shortly after that I received another summons appealing the case this time represented by Attorney Donald Chewning.  In a series of emails about the case Chewning refused to engage in any negotiations or provide any help in getting Mr. Nachtwey to repair the damage.  He insisted on payment in full and said that he would get all of my evidence suppressed if it went to court.

What I learned was that he had filed the appeal as a "de novo" case which meant that none of Mr. Nachtwey's former statements could be used in this new (novo) case.  What I did not realize is that Mr. Chewning had apparently coached his client to change his story.  In addition to that he one main witness he had brought to the original trial had magically gone out of state and was not available for testimony.  Mr. Chewing was successful in getting nearly all the evidence that I brought to show what Mr. Nachtwey had done to the barn.  His story had now changed to that of, "I had no knowledge of  wall" and the unlevel beam had been that way all along despite his having been hired to repair barn and that the beam was now set in cement he poured.  That cement footing was intended to support both. I may be a layman but I call this perjury.

Because I was so infuriated with his tactics I wrote a letter to the editor about my experience and the state of contractors evading the law and its consequences.  Even though I never named either him or his client Mr. Chewning wrote me a spiteful letter where he had decided to charge me an additional $300 in legal costs "considering my letter".

As a result of this I have ever since had a low opinion of Mr. Chewning.  I castigated him for taking up the cause of an obviously crooked contractor who broke any number of DWD and DATCP laws and rules and Mr. Chewning using his legal skills to suborn perjury.  His response was that Mr. Nachtwey had a right to representation.  I beg to differ.  This was not a criminal matter.  He had no "right" that Mr. Chewning was obliged to protect.  There was no moral imperitive to help Mr. Nachtwey make me his victim other than the fees he collected which he enhanced as an act of vengeance.

I was never able to get the wall rebuilt in time to preven the collapse of that section of the barn.  It is still laying in that condition and will costs much more now because of the weight.  It eventually will have to be completely demolished and built from the ground up.  Mr. Chewing will also never be able to rebuild his reputation with me and though he claims to be a great Liberal (which I doubt) I would not vote for him if he were in fact the very last one.

Ethics matter Mr. Chewning.
And wronged consumers have long memories.

See Wisconsin Circuit Court Access

Robert Nachtwey vs. Bernard Starzewski

Manitowoc County Case Number 2005SC001251

Update: 1/31/17 8:36pm
I attended the candidate forum at Dem HQ where Chewning spoke in a nervous low wattage way and managed to say absolutely nothing except some obligatory support for drug courts.
At the end of his presentation he stated that an endorsement from Judge Deets, the judge in this case.

The Winter of our Discontent

"Now is the winter of our discontent" William Shakespeare - Richard the III

"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars, But in ourselves"William Shakespeare - Julius Caesar

"Poor country!  It hardly knows itself."  MacDuff

There are a lot of bad things that can be said about Donald Trump.  I won't bother to repeat them in detail.  In summary it can be said that he is a bigot and a huckster selling and thereby enabling the worst of what Americans can be to say nothing of his sickening relationship with Vladimir Putin.

If you believe that elections reflect the character of a country then I do not recognize this country any more.  But is Trump truly the choice of the people or is he instead the winner by default?  There is a lot of evidence that Democrats simply handed the Presidency to him and that the Clintons were complicit in their own defeat.  

We knew this.  In his series of what happened to the Democratic Party Thomas Frank began by describing how the Republican Party was operating in his book, "The Wrecking Crew".  They would first campaign as reformers claiming that government was broken and then proceed to break it completely.  Then, using the resulting chaos to confirm their original premise... that government was broken!

In his next book, "What's the matter with Kansas?" he described the demise of a once entirely Democratic state after the Great Depression and dust bowl days into perhaps the most broken and ultra conservative one he carefully documented how the D Party abandoned the farm towns and main streets of that very rural state for the caverns of Wall Street..

In his most recent book he is considerably more blunt.  It was the Clintons who wrecked the Democratic Party!  Memories can be short in politics, a malady often attributed to those of the members of the TEA Party.  But Frank provides such a clear refresher course you are left with little doubt of how we came to this dark moment in American History. For decades it was FDR and the New Deal that had guided the party and provided it with its greatest moments.  It was the Clintons that put a stake through its heart.

Specifically they brought about "The end of welfare as we know it", "Three Strikes" laws that filled the prison pipeline, undermined long time Democratic allies by passing NAFTA and most notoriously the "Commodities Modernization Act" which kicked down the barriers that the Glass Stegal Act had put in place to cure the causes of the Crash of 29 and Great Depression.  More so than any of the Bushes, it was the Clintons that set the stage for the crash of 2008 and the mortgage securities bubble.

As well documented and within our memories these events are, if it was the sole claim of a single author the argument might be blunted.  But it is'nt.  In a pre-election piece the well respected PBS show Frontline did a profile on both Trump and Clinton and the detail of how that came about is all the more damning. It began with the Clinton "Third Way" which effectively enabled any number of Republican issues that they could never have passed even under Reagan or Bush without also total control of Congress.  It starts out well enough showing that at least at the beginning, Hilary believed that the purpose of politics was to make the impossible possible and that she was capable of speaking that truth to power, but in partnership with Bill learned to compromise her principles for short term victories.  In the end, it was the involvement of Dick Morris that put her on the track for this historic debacle.  But for her, the ends justified the means.  Principles took a back seat to political survival.

There is a certain logic to that.  The Clintons themselves were fond of saying that "You can't achieve your goals unless you get elected!"  True  enough.  But from a Democratic point of view in looking back at the 90s it is increasingly difficult to see what goals were achieved other than keeping the Clintons in the White house.

" I have no spur To prick the sides of my intent, but only Vaulting ambition, which o'erleaps itself, And falls on th' other."  MacBeth, Act1 , Scene 7

But what of her own career?  In the Frontline piece it is noted that on the day that the Senate failed to evict her husband from office her office in the White House was already filled with political maps of New York beginning the plans for her Senate run.  Having survived the political attack there were several lessons Hilary might have learned.  One could have been that centrism wins you not loyalty but derision.  They had after all been attacked with all the ferocity had they been Communist moles.  No recognition, no quarter had been given for their support for conservative programs.  But that is now what she learned and it was not what we saw.

If only she had been able to free herself from the lessons learned with Bill we may have seen a different, freer Hilary Rodham as she began her career.  But that did not happen.

What she did learn was that political shape shifting was the way to succeed.  The problem was that it was the way for her to succeed, not the party, not working people and certainly not New Dealers or modern Progressives who would have benefited from a strong advocate of "the impossible" as she said in her Welsley graduation speech which originally propelled her into the public eye.

Given the choice of winning on principle vs. survival by rebranding she sadly took the latter option and set the trend for the Democratic Party for two decades of cascading failure.  By blurring the lines between the parties she undermined the party brand that had served us so well. You've heard it.  "They are all the same!"  Yes, it would seem that they all are.

The age of the Clintons is over.  It can be no other way.  If she returns and achieves national prominence again it will in fact destroy the party forever which at that point might be the only option.  I hope not.  The question is, what will we now learn the lesson she failed.  The first question on that test should be an easy one.  Just what is it that you stand for?

The party is now on life support and it can choose to live or die but it must also decide if its own survival will be worth more than the mere existence of a label.  We need if not that party but some party to take up its old causes.  I wish it to stay because as the Weyrd Sisters asked themselves, "When shall we [] meet again?" except in that party?  And I ask, shall we again draw the wrong inferences from their spells?

Paul Tittl's Little Shop of Horrors II - Its a Gas!

Back in 2013 I took note of how State Rep. Paul Tittl manages his aging row of shacks rental

Tittl's "business"

properties and vacuum cleaner retail store as a metaphor for how he approaches legislation in his Assembly job.   Never did I think how this might come up again in such a stunningly blatant way until Halloween played the ultimate joke on his tenants that began with a 911 call about people feeling sick at his properties.

From WFRV TV Green Bay news piece.  Paul sizes up his liabilities.

It turned out that the building had become flooded with carbon monoxide so badly that it has seeped into virtually every unit including the small Cafe on the first floor sickening seven people there as well.

A total of 17 people were transported to local hospitals out of which 4 had to be taken to St. Luke's in Milwaukee to be put into oxygen hyperbaric chambers in order to purge the CO from their blood.  One was so critical that he/she had to be flown by Flight For Life after being extracted from one of the apartments when fire fighters forced open the apartment door and found the victim unresponsive.

Its fairly evident that multiple State Statutes were broken here including 101.149 that requires working CO detectors to be placed in all common areas in apartment buildings where combustion devices are in use.  The fact that it spread through the entire complex tends to indicate that a single furnace heats all of the units which is yet another State code violation for forced air systems.  Each unit is required to have its own separate ventilation system to avoid just such a catastrophe though the building and system are probably so old there may be a grandfather clause at work here.  Replacing the system may end that escape clause however.

According to my conversations with Paul over the years he inherited this property.

$300 fine for your lawn but this is just fine.

His personal investment in it is basically ZILCH.  Improvements he put into it are in the same class too - ZILCH with the exception of things the city has forced him to do such as the vinyl siding we see in the photo above.  The city has been on a beautification tare downtown.  I received a similar notice about some window framing they weren't happy with.  Recently Mayor Justin Nickels announced on his facebook page that the new city policy is to fine people who do not cut their lawns $300.  All this in the shadow of the crumbling Mirro building which has stood as a monument to impotence of local government to stand up to corporate interests.  You just can't make this crap up!

Here's what pisses me off...  I own a building just one block from this mess.  I put a lot into it

including a total face lift for 3 of the 4 units, a new heating system, wiring, plumbing, new efficient windows and storms.  It wasn't cheap!  And I get inspected all the time by multiple city agencies including the Fire Department which always checks at least the common area smoke and CO detectors.  Beyond that I have a TEA Party business man neighbor who dislikes my politics and uses these city agencies as a way of taking out his frustrations on me by calling in bogus ordinance complaints - a sore point with me and the city over their willingness to let him get away with it.

So, it is a puzzlement to me as to how his set of aging fire traps could possibly have fallen off the radar with a city government that has plenty of time and resources to inspect my building, send me letters and other notices that have been more about cosmetics than any alleged violations of consequence.  It would seem that office holding has its privileges.

But on the bright side notice that in the top photo Paul is dressed in his Legislator costume.  He was obviously not in his store when disaster struck.  (It isnt clear that the store is still open)  No doubt he was down in Madison hard at work passing more deregulation legislation.  It might be said that he is keeping his campaign pledge to be our "Full time representative"!  Too bad that means being an absentee landlord.

God help us!

11/9/2016 Note: It is not entirely clear how Paul came to own this entire complex of old buildings.  In reading the inspection records of the units at least some of the main section appears to have belonged to Kadow Realty which he probably purchased as opposed to have inherited.