FREE WHITEWATER

Monthly Archives: August 2007

On the Whitewater Banner

I’ve written about the Whitewater Banner before, and I thought that I’d post more about that website.

The Banner’s greatest strength is that it posts more Whitewater information online, more quickly, than any other website. Some newspapers post less (e.g., Daily Union, Janesville Gazette, The Week), or nothing at all (Whitewater Register).

I’ve called the Banner a bulletin board, and have not covered it critically, as I have with the no-journalism-at-all approach of the Whitewater Register.

I’ll address the ever-cheerful tone of the Banner in a moment, but first a few matters on format.

As far as I can tell, the Banner has no news archive, and no way to link to individual stories. (Without an archive, linking would be temporary in any event.) Many websites have both of these things, but I don’t know why Stewart’s Banner takes a different approach. Navigation is also sometimes awkward, as stories on sports appear at the bottom of the screen, without a quick way to reach them. (A navigation bar near the top of the page would be helpful.)

Otherwise, it’s a bright, bold format, with strong use of photographs.

Jim Stewart’s on Common Council, and simultaneously a news publisher, but I have met few who seem to mind. One reason might be that readers consider Stewart scrupulously fair; the alternative is that his consistent cheerfulness is easily ignored in the search for basic facts about Whitewater.

Stewart’s Banner reminds me of an anecdote that Reagan told, about a boy who wanted a pony. The boy expected a pony from his parents, but instead discovers only a pile of horse manure in his backyard. Upon seeing the large pile of manure, the boy starts digging furiously, and squeals with delight, “Gosh! I know that there has to be a pony in there somewhere!”

Stewart’s Banner is that small boy from Reagan’s tale.

That’s also why the Banner is not a true journalism site; it would not likely investigate, question, or probe for the truth and deeper meaning of something. I cannot imagine that Stewart would present a contrary opinion on many issues.

The City of Whitewater should not have troubled itself to create a new website — adopting Stewart’s Banner would have been faster.

In fairness, if Stewart started questioning life around here in print, he’d trade one conflict (politician and publisher covering city life) for another (politician and genuine journalist covering city life). I would guess that Stewart will continue as he has, without significant changes, and will publish the most optimistic perspective on life since that of the boy in Reagan’s story.

Parsing Jim Coan’s interview with The Week on the Star Packaging Raid

Over at The Week, Mike Heine has an interview with Jim Coan, Whitewater Police Chief, about the Star Packaging Raid, and the plea of Star Packaging’s owner, Alan Petrie. I’ll leave Coan’s comments, and Heine’s text, in black, and my replies in blue, for easy distinction.

Pending a sentencing hearing, a dark chapter in Whitewater’s police history should be closed.

Monday’s plea hearing for Allen L. Petrie, the 48-year-old owner of Star Packaging, is vindication for the department and a now-retired investigator once accused of racial profiling, Chief James Coan said.

Coan shed light on the investigation by his department in an interview with The Week after Petrie’s plea hearing.

Q: What is the department’s reaction to the plea?

A: “We feel completely vindicated with the plea agreement that was reached today. It’s vindication for not only (investigator) Larry Meyer and his investigation but for our department, also. I think it will demonstrate to the public that there were in fact victims here and (they were) not the people who were working at Star Packaging.

Adams: He’s not completely vindicated; he just wants to crow that he is. Coan’s actions led to family hardship, and that makes those who were treated too harshly, leading to their deportation, victims, too.

By the way, why is Coan’s speech always a torrent of adverbs? He’s never just right, or vindicated, or correct, in his own mind. He’s always completely, totally, entirely, so. It’s an adolescent’s way of speaking. Most things in life, as seen by mature men, are not so clear-cut.

Nonetheless, Coan commonly speaks, and writes, in this overly-certain way. Hard to say if he’s just desperate to be right about everything, desperate not to appear wrong about anything, or just convinced that if he speaks categorically, no one will object.

Petrie’s plea does not address whether (1) the initial motivation was investigating Petrie or intimidating Mexicans, or both, (2) and does not address — does not express any sympathy — for any consequences of immigration enforcement as a result of a Whitewater Police Department telephone call. Is Coan too insecure to acknowledge that his actions caused hardship, or too arrogant, or too inflexible? Hard to say.

I find it nearly impossible, however, that a mature and educated man would have any confidence in someone like him.

Q: For all the effort put into this case, and the aftermath that followed, was the investigation worth it?

A: For the people whose identities and Social Security numbers were falsely used, it was. It sends a message that it is a crime and hopefully it will act as a deterrent for people who are trying to do that. From that standpoint, it was worth it.

Adams: Notice how Coan says nothing about deportations, etc. You say it was worth it for a few, but it was bad for the community, and you’re too rigid to acknowledge that.

Q: Will Whitewater police investigate employers in similar cases in the future?

A: We’re not actively investigating anybody else. It’s not a situation where we were out actively seeking these crimes. When it’s brought to our attention, we do have an obligation to investigate. We will do these on a case-by-case basis.

In the case of Mr. Petrie, we did it. There were warnings given (to him) in the past. There was ample opportunity for Mr. Petrie to cease what was going on there.

With regard to other businesses, other companies, other cases that might come to our attention, we will treat each on a case-by-case basis. I can’t make any broad or sweeping comment as to what we would do other than to remind people that it is a crime.

Adams: If Coan were a tech leader, this technique would be called FUD (spreading fear, uncertainty, and doubt). He holds out the possibility that he might do all of this again, and again, at his discretion. For a while, his technique will keep Mexican families on edge, and might lead some to relocate rather than stay in a state of anxiety. There are some people in this town who would welcome a limit on Mexican families here, or a departure of some, and Coan’s effort to appear strong will please those people. At some point, without further raids on other businesses, the anxiety will lessen. Coan will have to ask himself — should I raid another businesses, on spurious identity theft grounds, to keep the anxiety level high? Hard to say — he’s a weak leader, but he’ll do what the town elites — middle and working class –want. If they’ll back him, he’ll raid again.

He won’t investigate across the board, however, because some businesses will always be off limits (regardless of the immigration status of the workforce). Petrie didn’t have clout within the city, in the way it counts here.

Q: Did you learn anything in hindsight about how the case was handled?

A: In retrospect, we did what we felt was right at the time. I’m not going to say that we would do it one way or another the next time.

All situations are different and have different factors, different variables. But we treat matters on a case-by-case basis. I can’t predict what the future might hold in other operations we might be called upon to assist in.

Adams: Nothing, not a single admission that it might have been handled better. Nothing. The rigidity of weakness.

Q: What caused the negative view of the Whitewater Police Department after the raid at Star Packaging?

A: What transpired is a microcosm of what’s taking place elsewhere in the country. We were investigating identity theft. ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), their responsibility is that of illegal immigration. It got inter-wound and I think people viewed us as the agency that was going after illegal immigrants in the case. That was not our responsibility. That was the responsibility of ICE. Ours was to focus on identity theft, which we did.

Q: Did the investigation cause the social or economic hardship on the community because the business has virtually closed, leaving dozens without jobs?

A: We can’t forecast the social or economic consequences of something like this that we undertake. There was a crime committed. We investigate crime. The district attorney’s office prosecutes the crime. The consequences from all of this are not our responsibility. It is those who commit crime.

Mr. Petrie admitted he committed crimes. There was a plea agreement to that effect. It’s not the police department or the city’s responsibility… I would put it upon those who have committed, in one way or another, illegal activity.

Adams: Coan’s force exercises police discretion every day, in what to undertake or not, but then he turns around and disclaims responsibility for the consequences of his actions. He either pawns the blame on the Immigrations and Customs Enforcement Agency (whom his own officer brought into the case), or denies that any consequences are his.

Adams: Those are his words: the consequences of all of this are not our responsibility. All of this.

By this line of reasoning, any action Coan takes to fight crime is legitimate, and he is incapable of a disproportionate response. As long as it was a crime, all consequences belong to the alleged criminal.

No normal person believes this, and Coan would not himself contend that police officers could beat a person, for example, for jaywalking. But listen to how he speaks, and replies — they’re never consequences he has to consider.

That’s just amoral hand-washing. Coan should always be accountable for the consequences of a disproportionate response in a criminal investigation, even if he insists he would not be. He has the advantage, however, of running a department in a city with a lapdog Police and Fire Commission.

Q: What will people think now that there has been a plea?

A: Hopefully there will be an understanding. They’ll see the details of this. They’ll have an understanding of those who were victimized as a result of this and that there were in fact crimes committed. I hope people take a different view of this whole issue and whole case and know it’s not an issue of racial profiling from our standpoint.

Q: Will everyone see it that way?

A: I think there are some in the community who are still using this for whatever personal or political gain. I can only tell you that from our standpoint, we continue to provide, I believe, the utmost professional police service to all members of our community regardless of their immigration status. When someone calls the Whitewater Police Department, we respond and we do everything we can to help the person regardless of their race, gender, age or immigration status.

Adams: Political gain? Who is he talking about? Those who hold office in this city — and expect all the honor that comes with official rank — will not take a firm stand against Coan. Either they support him, or they are unwilling to criticize because to do so might make them seem weak on crime. It says something about how troubled our community is that he speaks and writes unchallenged by some — in office — who know better. As I wrote of Coan before, he’s a “Mynah bird of excuses, rationalizations, and self-praise, of himself, and the Whitewater police.”

Coan has no political opponents. Senators, presidents, and the jackass who runs Zimbabwe have political opponents. Coan doesn’t have political critics. He flatters himself to think so. I might be critical of Coan because he’s a mediocre manager. Alternatively, I might be critical of Coan because what he says is impossible to believe. Perhaps I might doubt him because he advocates a consequence-free authority for his force. Those are not political objections, so to speak — they’re simple expectations to hold Coan to a normal ethical standard.

Q: How do you feel about the plea agreement and that prison time will not be sought?

A: Our job is to enforce the law. As far as the court aspect of things, the trial, the sentence, that’s the responsibility of the courts. It’s up to them to decide on an appropriate sentence in this matter. We are not advocating for any jail time. That is up to the DA’s office and for the courts to decide.

We hope the strong message that it sends to (Petrie) is that this is against the law and that it’s unacceptable.

Adams: All this, for probation. That’s it — jail, deportation, a business ruined, so Coan could make a point. Are you kidding? He speaks like a little god, not a humble public servant. If there’s anyone foolish enough to trust Coan’s moral judgment, then those trusting people deserve the damage he does. For us, however, who wouldn’t trust or rely on his faulty judgment, and excuse-making, and dissembling anymore than we would trust a confidence man, we deserve better.

Thanks for a Great July

Thanks much to so many new readers, and to those who were correspondents, this past month. This humble site started in May, and it has had solid growth again over the last month.

I will try to include more photographs and pictures, along with my posts, to make the site more visually appealing.

I will also continue with a “Coming Attractions” post at the beginning of the week, so that readers will know what’s on deck for the week ahead. Additional, breaking-story posts can be added to the lineup as events suggest.

As always, for those who have written and thanked me for publishing an independent point of view for Whitewater, the pleasure is mine.

Public Art, John Adams Replies

As readers know, I posted yesterday an email from Bill Bowen, owner of the Double Dip Deli, in which he criticized two of my posts that made mention of public art in Whitewater. Yesterday, I printed his letter in full, and today I’ll respond. I gave him the benefit of being able to tell his friends and patrons that he was the one who gave me a piece of his mind. (Including his name may slake his desire for notice, and it doesn’t bother me, so I identified him.)

Below, I reproduce Mr. Bowen’s remarks in black, and my replies in blue, for easy distinction.

BB: Dear Mr. Adams,

I fail to understand how you can be for a “Free Whitewater” and yet be so cynical and belittling.

JA: Part of standing for a Free Whitewater means exercising my free speech rights. Your belittling is my artistic criticism. It’s not a free city, state, or republic if I cannot comment merely because someone else might be offended. That’s the problem with your analysis. If you feel someone is belittled, presumably, I’m supposed to stop writing, or I’m supposed to write only what does not offend you, your customers, etc. I will write freely, and I will not stop because someone might be offended. If writers stopped writing because someone might be offended, no one would write.

That’s a challenge in our small town: group-think requires people to be positive, sweep criticism under the rug, and defend whatever project or program the city or some civic group proposes. Why? What if they’re foolish, or empty, or ineffective ideas? They can’t all be great ideas, unless everyone behind every project is a visionary. I think people are sometimes making mistakes, and I’ll write that I think they’re sometimes making mistakes.

No one can say that this website is from one of the lemmings of Whitewater — those who follow along because they think that’s what they’re supposed to do.

I’m not cynical — literally, distrustful of human sincerity — about public life; I’m skeptical — literally, not easily convinced, having doubts or reservations. (About private life and faith I have no such doubts or reservations.)

BB: For example, in the following two excerpts, I am astounded that you would disparage the efforts of a group of people who want nothing more than to be proud of and enjoy their community. They have worked very hard on these public art projects, some tirelessly, and have given a part of themselves to the community. Yet you state that they are “empty municipal gestures”

First excerpt: Our economic development is less about a free market economy than about any number of empty municipal gestures. We could hang birdhouses, or painted chairs and wooden fish, from our lampposts forever and still businesses would close and go elsewhere.

JA: But, sadly, I’m right — we do hang these projects on lampposts, and stores still close. That was the point of my Vacant Whitewater post. Perhaps your point is that more stores would close if people did not expend their time painting wooden fish and chairs and hanging them on lampposts. Even so, is this the best use of our efforts? There is something that we could do that would be more effective? If we’re down to the fish-and-chair-and birdhouse plan to save the economy, we’re cooked. That was the point of the James Lileks post to which I linked. These projects are, as he noted, often matters of municipal desperation. (More about the municipal connection in a bit.) It should not be astounding, to an astute businessman, that someone might question whether any given effort is the best use of time and resources.

I am not sure if you’re truly astounded, or if it’s just a pose. If it’s a pose, then at least I see the practicality of it: you may gain more patrons, admirers, and profits. If you are truly astounded, then you are too easily shocked or surprised.


BB: Second excerpt: Q: Why do you want to embarrass/criticize the town? A: Reform and growth begin with honesty, not whitewash and Potemkin villages. We have some great possibilities before us, but some of our fellow residents have been treated with outrageous cruelty and official indifference, lies, and excuses. All the birdhouses hanging from lampposts will not undo the damage that, for example, our police force has recently inflicted on hardworking people. I am even more surprised that as a self professed expert on our city, you apparently don’t understand the difference between a “municipal gesture” and the commitment this group of individuals has shown toward making our city just a little bit nicer place to live. Creativity and commitment is something to be regarded and respected. It can provide innovative solutions to real problems. It certainly does not deserve the irreverence you have shown it.

JA: Where to begin? First, in my post, it’s clear that I refer to the deportation of industrious Mexican workers. (I know that Coan will caw endlessly that the federal government actually deported them, or jailed them, but that’s just his futile exercise in hand-washing.) You make no mention of them at all, except when citing my remarks.

What nonsense to say that I am a “self professed expert.” That’s completely false — nowhere have I declared myself an expert. Nowhere. Your rhetoric runs ahead of your argument. It’s a wasted line, as it’s so easily refuted.

I have been very clear that I am a common man, citizen, resident, and property owner, who is skeptical of much of what goes on around here. You ask: Who am I to criticize others? I am a common man, a citizen, resident, and property owner, who is skeptical of much of what goes on around here — that’s who I am to criticize. It’s a free society where anyone has a right to criticize. My rights are not limited by what others decide is offensive. I have every right to offer my opinions, and publish them, even if it offends a few artists and their champion.

BB: These projects were created not only by accomplished artists, but also by everyday individuals and some even as family projects. Who are you to belittle them? Even if this was not your original intention, the connotation is certainly there. Talk about cruelty.

JA: “Talk about cruelty.” When I read that line, I thought the entire message might be a joke, or spoof.

Review your comparison: people were removed from this community, and jailed, and deported, you think mere words of criticism of a few bird-house builders is similarly cruel? That’s a false moral equivalence and a bankrupt comparison. Do you really think that’s the same? If you do, your position is not morally serious; if you don’t think it’s the same, then your position amounts to no more than a grandstanding pose, or sloppy rhetoric.

Why should all creativity be embraced? Creativity can lead to good, mediocre, or empty ends. I can and will make the distinction. In the case of the fish/chair/birdhouse effort, I believe it’s an empty effort that leads me to think the work amounts to less than meets the eye. They’re all created — that its, acts of creativity — but why should I admire them all just because someone made them? What if I think some of them are unattractive, or without merit? By your reasoning, I would have to praise all art simply because someone created it. (By the way, I would not revere art, or other human things; I will save reverence for higher things, not the work of someone who painted a wooden chair and put it on a lamppost.)

Suppose I painted a picture, and placed it on display. Some people would praise it, some would be indifferent, and some would say it was ugly. I would hope that if I displayed something publicly, I would have the maturity to accept diverse opinions, including critical ones, without hyper-sensitively decrying negative reviews as cruelty. If the people you defend are true artists, then they should be mature enough to handle, and shrug off, the comments of someone who writes that their efforts are empty. Are all these artists of Whitewater made of sugar, that they melt after a few words, or falsely equate those few words with the hardship of deportation?

BB: The only part of the entire project that could be considered a “municipal gesture” would be 1) the fact that permission was granted to do these projects and 2) the city crews, which I have read you don’t have any respect for either, assisted in securing the works to the lamp posts. By the way, you should try some of the jobs they do on a daily basis.

JA: Two quick replies. First, if you need city permission, it’s not a truly private effort. I don’t need the city’s permission to hang a painting in my house, but if I did the same on a genuine City of Whitewater lamppost without asking permission, some Whitewater police officer not otherwise engaged in a keeping our city safe from marauding immigrants would ask me to take it down.

Second, about some of those city workers: I did not know the owner of the Double Dip Deli to be a champion of the working class. By the way, as you surely know, I was referring only to those city workers who were committed to a small town orthodoxy, not all workers. Fortunately, not everyone around here shares that orthodoxy. Those who work at public expense have it far easier that people who work difficult private jobs in factories, shipyards, etc. That includes those now deported Mexicans who were working in private industry, until recently. Those who get salaries, benefits, etc. at public expense — with the tax dollars of those who work laboriously in private industry — have more stability than those who face the vicissitudes of the private market. A lamprey might contend that it does hard work by feeding parasitically, but I would think that it’s not as hard as being the larger fish from which the lamprey drains blood.



BB: I will also tell you that these types of projects have helped me stay in business in Whitewater. Aside from the additional foot traffic downtown, which translates to additional sales, it sometimes is just to nice know that people are willing to try, which helps me hang in there and try a little harder.


JA: So which is it: is your support of a matter of defending the artistic community, or making money? If it’s money, then the motivation that you’re defending the artistic community from my supposed cruelty is less altruistic and more self-interested. If it’s money, then I will leave it up to you if it’s the best value for your money, knowing that it may not be the best expenditure of effort for the entire city — that is, it may not accomplish as much as you think.

I want to be helpful; I can suggest a way to increase cooperation between the City of Whitewater and the artists that you champion. Next year, I suggest that private citizens paint and display painted wooden shovels on the city’s lampposts. The artists can paint them, and decorate them wherever their creativity — to be revered, by your account — leads them. The city will get something out of it, too. From this effort will come a new motto for Whitewater’s city government:

Whitewater City Government — No One Shovels It Like We Do.™

BB: I doubt you will actually post this publicly, but if you do I would very much appreciate 1) you do include my name, I am proud of my viewpoints and welcome direct discourse on differing opinions and 2) post it's entirety, paraphrases can often be misleading. I expect though that the name will be withheld because "e;Our policy is…blah, blah"e; or "It is not our mission to…blah, blah, blah" etc, etc. more >>