You lose some, and then you lose some.

"I tawt I taw a potty police!"

"I did! I did taw a potty police!"

Yvonne Kersey avoids jail time, by Chris Morris (News and Tribune)

Former New Albany mayoral candidate Yvonne Kersey avoided jail time Thursday after pleading guilty to maintaining a common nuisance, a class D felony, but had three other charges against her, possession of marijuana, dealing marijuana and possession of paraphernalia, dropped.

Should I have taken issue with the fiscally conservative random rumor generator? Or is doing so merely enabling dysfunction?

The Carnegie Center for Art and History’s primary fundraiser next Friday (September 7) is a wine, cheese, beer and auction extravaganza that just might be the most noteworthy annual example of cultural appreciation witnessed in New Albany.

Accordingly, last week the museum and its yearly event became a handy target for the disaffected lunatic fringe, with breathtakingly inaccurate gossip and gullibly conspiratorial disinformation gleefully being peddled by a local blogger to a chorus of approbation on the part of generally anonymous and presumably embittered sycophants.

Ritz, Whiz and Ripple: Envious troglodytes point random disinformation generator at the Carnegie Center, demand full investigation of wine and cheese.

In turn, regular readers know that I swiftly and decisively took public issue with the fiscally conservative random rumor generator’s irresponsible innuendos.

But should I have done so?

If so, did I do it in the “best” or “right” way?

In short, is it worth pondering the extent to which we as responsible, thinking elements in the blogosphere – and, more importantly, in the community outside the electronic media – bear an obligation to answer malicious and embarrassing examples of the New Albany Syndrome such as those being perpetuated over the weekend?

NAC readers probably already know where I stand on the topic.

I believe that one of the chief aims on the part of those suffering from delusional dysfunction – remember, we’re speaking here of people willfully confusing an impeccably law-abiding museum’s perennial fundraiser with an entirely imaginary covert partisan political slush fund – quite simply is to grind down the energy of the capable, and to erode shared sensibilities and common decency by means of attrition and obfuscation.

In short, creating disinformation is far easier than battling it, and while I acknowledge the difficulties, I remain convinced that it is our responsibility to answer the fibbers and rebut their odious foolishness whenever and wherever it occurs.

At the same time, friends whom I trust see it a bit differently, and here are the comments offered by two of them.

----

#1
Looking at this "sturm und drang" from up on the escarpment, I can't help but be reminded of the old saw: "Never argue with a pig; it'll just frustrate you and irritate the pig."

I am fond of all your spirit but concerned too much good energy is being wasted in argumentation with people who refuse to acknowledge a shared, just, and common good but only want to argue.

There's a feedback loop here that is a control freak's delight, especially for one grounded in contrariness (because it feels so good, because it's an easy way to feel powerful).

How many data points are needed? These people are not open to rational debate, they agree to nothing, they will never be allies. Yes, it is sick and built upon hundreds of subtle misinterpretations that feed only their game.

I suggest you let them use their energies to only torment themselves and not waste yours.

----

#2
… I do believe it's better to mostly ignore the cyber-snipers and slanderers here. Attention is what they seek, so attention is what I won't give. I think their worst fear is irrelevance.

----

What do you think? The board is open for discussion.

And, I hope to be seeing many of you next week, when I’ll be pouring Progressive samples at the Carnegie Center's fundraiser.

Appreciate the wake-up call, Con-Dem. I might have missed it.

Ritz, Whiz and Ripple: Envious troglodytes point random disinformation generator at the Carnegie Center, demand full investigation of wine and cheese.

The most costly of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
--H. L. Mencken

Just for the fun of it, I empowered Google to search the Internet for these terms:

wine and cheese
museum
fundraiser

The result was 19,300 hits, encompassing museums both public and private, and ones located all over America and the world.

In fact, the tradition of the “wine and cheese” tasting as a fundraising mechanism and charitable benefit almost exactly parallels the centuries-long human preference for rendering grapes and milk into potable and edible finished agricultural commodities, which in turn, provide pleasure.

The “wine and cheese” gathering in this context is such a venerable institution that for some, it serves as a sort of shorthand for pomposity and indulgence. As proof, add “effete” to the “wine and cheese” search term and peruse the results; they might have been lifted directly from a Steve Price campaign speech.

Seeing as incomprehension and disinformation are veritable birthrights of New Albany’s “little people,” it’s safe to assume that for at least some of them, neither an educational evening spent at the Carnegie Center for Art and History, nor the Center’s annual habit of pairing one such evening with a fundraising wine and cheese tasting, is quite enough to quell the pain and anger dwelling within the breasts of those for whom the existence of well-adjusted, rational people is an insufferable daily affront.

----

The sprawling, chaotic and poorly reasoned screed – “bizarre” might be the best word – that prompts these observations can be found here, as scrawled on the toilet paper that dangles by coat-hanger and bent ten-penny nail within the confines of the Luddite Bar & Grill:

FUNDRAISING FOR WHAT? AND, FOR WHO'S BENEFIT?, written by Yvonne Kersey and published at her A Fiscally Conservative Floyd Cty Democrat blog.

You’ll have to read it on your own, and you should, because I won’t dignify the scattershot lunacy by quoting portions of it here. The intemperate gist seems to be that Yvonne received an anonymous letter from a temperance fanatic, and both the unknown writer and Yvonne herself are appalled that people who can afford $60 for wine and cheese, with all proceeds devoted to the museum’s operation, have not yet been put to death, or disenfranchised, or made to eat Spam on Bunny Bread as punishment for their temerity.

As fictional detective Nero Wolfe was known to observe, “pfui.”

All this incomprehensible commotion about absolutely nothing –nothing – pertains to something that the Carnegie Museum has been doing for at least five years, perhaps ten (understand that cultural years are accounted differently in certain quarters): An annual wine, beer and cheese soiree that in a substantive, enjoyable manner results in a fattening of the museum’s coffers. It is neither a fleecing of insensate ratepayers nor an enticement to drive drunk.

For the public record, and conceding that minor details vary from place to place, permit me to unravel the apparently unfathomable mystery of the wine and cheese fundraising process, which probably originated in ancient Greece, such is its longevity.

First, food and drink are donated to the event by civic minded businesses. Next, civic minded people pay an admission fee to sample them, and then these same civic minded people pay a second time to purchase other donated items at a silent auction. When all is finished, the museum has money to pursue its mission, and people are happy.

What? You were expecting something along the lines of the secret initiation rites of the illuminati? Sorry to disappoint, but the wine and cheese fundraiser is a very simple, time-honored and entirely non-controversial activity, one grasped by diverse populations that include Andean copper miners, Kalahari bushmen and ex-Soviet apparatchiks.

But this is New Albany, isn’t it?

----

Ultimately, disinformation like Yvonne’s serves more than one purpose. Even if intentionally misleading statements derive from ignorance and belie a comprehensive lack of comprehension, those who are interested in real-world truth must expend their time and effort explaining how reality differs from the shady nether regions of innuendo and conspiratorial rumor-mongering.

Disinformation is intended to pin down and exhaust the capable. It is attempted attrition, and we have no choice except to recite the facts for the approbation of those hereabouts who are capable of discernment.

Yvonne, you should be ashamed at foisting this delusional idiocy on the blogosphere. As in the past, I imagine at some point you’ll admit somewhere far down the page, and in the smallest possible print, that you were mistaken – that it’s just your opinion, right, even if you pass it off as fact? – but, of course, you’ll never bother pulling the flagrant disinformation from the marquee of your blog, where it will enjoy a long life of misleading readers.

Given that this is New Albany, that’s the whole point, isn’t it?

Here are the redistricting lawsuit facts as best can be gleaned at the current time.

In the case of Vogt vs. Civil City of New Albany, of which the author is one of as many as 18 plaintiffs (one original plaintiff has since withdrawn, and one is deceased), and which we’ll be referring to henceforth as the council redistricting lawsuit, a United States District Court trial date has been set for December 3, 2007.

The first pre-trial conference was held last Friday, July 27 at the Federal Building in New Albany. Attending were William Hussman (Magistrate Judge), Stephen Beardsley (attorney for the plaintiffs) and Jerry Ulrich (attorney for the council).

It is safe to assume that potential outcomes were discussed.

Three council members were in the building, but apparently were not in attendance inside the chambers: Larry Kochert, Jeff Gahan and Kevin Zurschmiede.

As of Wednesday morning, there has yet to surface trustworthy independent verification to Ms. Kersey’s rapidly mutating rumor yesterday about a telephone call from Mr. Baylor (that’s me), styled in this manner at her blog:

Mr. Ulrich received a message from a Clerk of the Court, from Mr. Baylor, asking Mr. Beardsley to telephone him asap. Mr. Ulrich responded he was not that party's attorney (Mr. Beardsley).

Any person possessing verifiable information supporting this assertion, please step forward -- not so fast, Ms. Kersey.

It should be noted that such groundless rumors, as rooted in fertile and kaleidoscopic imaginations, might yet have transformed by now into tales of a completely different stripe, as occurred on more than one occasion on Tuesday.

There it is; the preceding is part of the public record, and as more is learned, it will be reported here.

See: Council redistricting lawsuit: Battling disinformation is like swatting troglodyte gnats.

Council redistricting lawsuit: Battling disinformation is like swatting gnats.

It should be obvious by now that not all local bloggers have, shall we tactfully say, the same honorable standards for differentiation when it comes to fact and fiction.

Because of this unfortunate variance, and also because not all local bloggers are noted for their commitment to predictability as it pertains to the frequency of updates and corrections, I’m compelled to make a public note of blatant disinformation appearing in two July 29, 2007 postings of the Fiscally Conservative Floyd County Democrat blog.

The first was corrected, and graciously, but the second has not been set straight as of the time of this writing.

From the outset, it should be known that I am one of 20 plaintiffs in the council redistricting lawsuit, which is explained in this NAC posting of May 16, 2006:

Tribune reports: Redistricting lawsuit filed today.

“Twenty residents sued New Albany and the City Council Tuesday afternoon, claiming population imbalance in council districts and calling for a special commission to investigate.”

To echo the words of our colleague Bluegill, there’s ample time for the council to grandstand over take-home police cars, but not time for it to address a state-mandated redistricting that is three years overdue.

Make that four.

The attorney for the plaintiffs is Stephen Beardsley, the attorney for the city council is Jerry Ulrich, and if there has been any progress made in any noteworthy way toward resolving the complaint in the 14+ months that have passed since the suit was originally filed, I’m not aware of it.

In fact, I’ve expressed frequent and periodically scathing public annoyance at not being kept informed by our own attorney, which makes it all the more surprising that Yvonne Kersey (“Con-Dem”), author of the FCFCD blog, spent most of the blogday on Monday insisting first that I had been privy to a top level meeting between a judge, two attorneys and selected city council members, and then when her opening bluff was called, expediently coming up with a new version of the story holding that a “Mr. Baylor” called the Federal Building in search of attorney Beardsley during the aforementioned conclave – with the clear insinuation that the Mr. Baylor in question was up to no good.

That there are 19 other plaintiffs in the case seems to have eluded Con-Dem, who has chosen to focus erroneously on just one.

Now, as farfetched as it may sound, it may actually be the case that someone else named Mr. Baylor, or someone pretending to be Mr. Baylor, phoned the Federal Building in search of Stephen Beardsley on the day in question, resulting in a clerk walking into a meeting room and repeating my surname in the presence of city councilmen Kevin Zurschmiede and Larry Kochert, who Ms. Kersey insists have “verified” her much amended blog report.

But that seems highly doubtful, doesn’t it?

Seeing as Ms. Kersey has chosen to leave my name on her second of two published falsehoods in spite of my request to edit it, I’ve little choice except to state the following for the public record:

I have neither telephoned the Federal Building nor spoken with a clerk there – to my knowledge, not a single time ever in my life.

Furthermore, I have not spoken with Mr. Ulrich for two or three weeks, perhaps longer; the last time I can remember chatting with him was on the way out of the City-County building following a council meeting, although it may have been in passing at the Bistro New Albany.

Also, the last time I spoke with Mr. Beardsley was roughly two weeks ago, at the former Main Street Grind, where a witness with whom I was breakfasting can verify that the topic of the conversation was the birth of his grandchild, and that I did not mention the redistricting case at all. In fact, I've not discussed the redistricting case with attorney Beardsley for nine months or more, and probably closer to a year, since shortly after it was filed.

It is disconcerting to waste valuable time on such matters, which might have been laid to rest with a simple phone call, but such is the recurring pattern of vividly turgid (and untruthful) revelation, followed by a silence sufficiently lengthy for the bald-faced lie to coalesce, and by the time the retraction (if any) is issued, the damage already has been done.

Toward what purpose? That is much harder to determine. The blogger Con-Dem herself speaks of the possibility of Democrats having “a caucus meeting so we can put Mr. (Bill) Schmidt back in,” which is a real knee-slapper considering the overwhelming defeat suffered by the incumbent at the hands of challenger Bob Caesar.

Bizarrely, Ms. Kersey asks: “IS THIS THE REAL STORY, AFTER ALL? ARE THE FACTS RIGHT ON THIS ONE, THIS TIME?”

As with the first time, the answer is “no.”

But that hasn’t stopped her before, has it?

----

Yesterday's first Con-Dem post: WHAT IS IT -- SOMETHING NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT?