Nathan Kober's Blog

The first Chapter of The Future of Reputation by Daniel Solove tells the story of a lady who refused to clean up her dog’s poop on a Korean subway. The story exploded online, as stories about annoying people sometimes do, throwing the poop lady into the modern whirlpool of online shame. As the author points out, this is a phenomenon entirely dependant on this new medium, a social occurrence which simply couldn’t happen without the internet. From here we can explore the ways in which the internet will shape our reputations, with an inescapable permanence.

I have less sympathy for the dog shit lady than I did for the teenager who stole a phone, which is strange. Obviously there’s the fact that the dog lady was an adult, but still, she didn’t break the law and to some extent I do think it’s wrong that she became infamous for one bad decision. The issue the is reputation, and I think the article makes a lot of important points about reputation in the online age. The most important points are that stories sometimes go viral inexplicably, which can upend someone’s life, and that those stories will stay online forever.

However, looking at viral stories seems to give a false impression, since they are outliers in online life, not the norm. Although there does seem to be a shame lottery online, where some random person gets dunked on by a million people, the odds of any one person winning that lottery are rare. In the age of social media especially, the more important question is how we curate our own online reputation, and the way it can be effected in normal, not extreme ways. For example, putting the wrong picture of yourself may tank a job offer, and that picture will never go away completely, but if you delete it from your own profile, an employer checking your page won’t see it. There is an exemption for famous people, whose pasts will never stop haunting them, but that isn’t really new, and most people aren’t famous.

Back to the dog lady and the shame lottery, I think it’s important to point out how viral stories have changed over time. So many stories go viral across so many platforms now that every story is quickly replaced. That may say something horrible about our attention spans, and it represents a limit to how much people can change the world by sharing their stories (Flint Michigan still doesn’t have clean water). However, when it comes to reputations, the effect is that stories don’t stay with us for very long. They stay online, in the cold dark abyss of Google’s search results, and they can always be unearthed, but they are not in the open, like the Scarlet Letter, where people are always reminded.

Still, it’s absolutely true that people can find things out about you online that you wish they wouldn’t, which is the most important point of the story. The public sphere especially is more public than ever, because anyone with a camera, which is everyone at this point, has a potential audience of billions. What’s interesting here is that someone could take a video in public, only meaning to share it with their friends, the way people have always shared stories, and suddenly see it spread beyond what they ever wanted. I know, for example, that I would take a picture like the one in this story, but I wouldn’t want it to actually affect the person. I wouldn’t even want them to find out it was taken. That difference between the intention of the person with the camera, and the consequence of their actions, is itself an important factor that we grapple with. The openness of the internet makes it impossible to have that kind of safely closed off interaction.

It’s a fact that our reputations are preserved online, and the chapter does a good job of laying out the fundamentals of what that means. What’s harder to know is that way that the internet will change what a reputation means, and what kinds of public behavior is acceptable or harmful. For example, I think it’s likely that certain kinds of behavior on Facebook that would have hurt someone’s job prospects in 2010 would not have the same effect today, just because we’ve all become more comfortable with having personal, workplace inappropriate public lives.

In short, I think the dog story illustrates new aspects of reputation that are fundamental to the internet, but it’s not the whole picture. Generation Google has long been replaced by generation Facebook, Snapchat and Twitter, all of which not only change what people see from us, but how they see it, and how we act. There is always an incredible danger now, all around us, threatening to pull a curtain at our worst moments so an audience of millions can gawk and stare at us in our shame. Still, I would say that’s a good thing, which is what surprised me the most reading the dog story.

Fear of social harm is what makes us better people. The dog story itself shows an interesting conflict between old and new versions of public life, because the truth is that the dog lady would not have acted that way if she were surrounded by people she knew, who would remember what she did. The phenomenon of seeing people publicly who aren’t a part of your life at all is itself a pretty new social reality, which is why most of us are instinctively worried about looking like an asshole even if nobody we know is around. The ability to act anti socially knowing that it won’t have an effect is itself a malignant aspect of modern life, that the internet, by connecting everyone, helps to erase.

So, in spite of the urge to look at stories like the dog shit lady as some dystopian nightmare, I think the overall effect is positive, if disproportional at times. Because you should clean up your shit, and if you don’t you should feel guilty about it. You’re supposed to feel bad when you do things that upset other people. The poop lady’s story is an example of people adjusting to that new reality. There’s no way she could have even conceived what happened, but now we can, which means that now if your dog pooped in public you would probably try to clean it up, especially if you saw someone pointing their phone in your direction.

The stories in ‘love online’, an online article, and ‘village phone’, a chapter in the book “Here Comes Everybody”, both deal with the consequences of new social dynamics created by the internet. They do not fall into the dystopian or utopian genres a lot of writing about technology use, but try to raise questions about how we should deal with new problems and opportunities created by electronic media.

In “Village Phone” a woman loses her phone in a cab and asks her friend Evan to see if he can find it using the internet. He finds out it ended up with a girl named Sasha who won’t give it back and when that becomes a story online it turns viral and people try to crowdsource their own justice. Sasha tells them to stay away, but people used her online profiles to track her down and she is eventually arrested and the phone returned.

“Love Online” is a story told by Henry Jenkins, an american media scholar, about his son who started dating a girl he met online. Her father does not approve of it, at least at first, because he is old fashioned and thinks relationships online aren’t real. Their relationship lasts a while, and they meet in person, but they end up breaking things off. Part of the issue is that they live far away from each other, and even if talking on the internet is real in a way, it is not a substitute for actually being with someone.

The most interesting thing to me about these articles is how old they are. “Love Online”, was written 17 years ago, which means it is older than the internet was at the time. The other reading is from a book published in 2008, and the story happened in 2006, more than a decade ago.

Reading these articles it is interesting to see things that are now common talked about as revolutionary. The idea of two people meeting online is barely even interesting anymore. There used to be a stigma around meeting someone romantically online, but the ubiquity of social media and apps like Tinder have pretty much destroyed those cultural norms. That doesn’t say much about how those relationships work, but it shows that they are ‘real’ enough to become normal.

Similarly, online shaming and witch hunts are now reliable events. I actually think this is mostly good, if still too unforgiving at times. Addressing some points, what these articles show in terms of enabling group formation is that it is easier to make connections than ever, but there are caveats. It is easier than ever to connect with a large group of people at once, or with an individual person. However, those connections are not necessarily strong, so groups formed online often shrink dramatically when they try to materialize in real life.

As for the ways in which the internet creates an “architecture of participation” I think this is essentially true, because in a broad sense the internet allows people to join or create subcultures.  However, the instance with the phone deals with a more specific type of participation that involves social institutions like law enforcement, which now have to navigate the online realm. The story of the phone crossed a line where the ‘activists’ online were basically stalking a teenage girl to try and find out where she lived, which could easily have put her in danger, which shows how easily well intentioned actions can spiral out of control online.

The phrase “witch hunt” can become a kind of moral panic when it is used as a way to condemn some new online social movement (such as #metoo) as reckless, but the fact is that any social movement will involve a lot of uncertainty. Some of the most infamous moments in online history happened when people tried to play detective after some event, but that kind of instantaneous mob hunt has to be seperate from online movement. In some cases there is mob justice and vigilantism online that is not related to any larger cause. The case of the phone is really just an example of a gossip story that goes viral and can create a temporary response.

I think we can see from a lot of examples that people can organize on the internet to effect social change, but we tend to drastically overestimate the power that can be harnessed online because we forget how detached it is from the real world. Ultimately the potential social power of the internet cannot be judged on the ability to create scandals, but on the ability to build lasting changes in our social order.

As for social connections, Love Online illustrates two important points. The first is that the internet does unquestionably allow people to meet and connect with people they would never meet otherwise, and that people who meet online can become close in real life. However, the second point is that online connections are never a substitute for actually being with someone. That’s not to say they aren’t real, or that you can’t find love online. It’s absolutely possible to start a relationship online that becomes the most important and meaningful relationship in your life. However that online relationship itself is always detached, and the limits of that detachment effect some relationships more than others.  

As the article points out, there are some advantages to that, especially for awkward teenagers. Communicating online lets you shape your personality with more control than anyone has in a regular discussion. Online, when you can read and edit everything you say before hitting send, you can be eloquent, funny, and clever to an artificial extent. In real life when you talk you stumble on words, forget to say things, and generally end up sounding like an idiot a lot because you don’t have time to think ahead.  

The funny thing I’ve found is that the more you talk to someone online, or texting, which is basically the same, the more natural you become, because the conversations start to go faster, and you don’t want to leave the other person waiting.

The articles deal with these changes communication makes to society by looking at new kinds of events that could not have happened without the internet. The story about online dating shows that the internet creates public spaces where people can not only talk to people they know but meet new people, which clearly separates it from other mediums. The collaborative process in village phone shows how those public spaces can be used to organize, while also showing the lack of control any one person has on how a story or movement they start can take on a life of its own.

Nathan Kober

UW Whitewater Latinos Unidos met Thursday evening to plan future events and fundraisers and discuss Mexican history and culture.

Latino Unidos was founded by latino and hispanic students who felt they were underrepresented and decided to form an organization where they could stick together and advocate for themselves, according to vice president Marco Marquez.

As the meeting started sign up sheets were passed around for various events, including Boxes and Walls, a sort of haunted house where various rooms offer interactive experiences meant to educate students on issues of diversity and discrimination.

There were also members from organizations like Dream Scholars & Colleagues, or DSC, which advocates for undocumented students on campus.

Undocumented immigration has become a central political issues at the national level. An especially controversial moment came recently when president Donald Trump said he would end the Obama era Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA program.

In order to gain DACA status, undocumented immigrants had to give the government a comprehensive history of their personal lives, including addresses and employers, which many now fear will be used to as a deportation database.

Trump later announced a deal with democratic leaders to not end the program immediately, but the legal status for DACA’s 800,000 participants is still in limbo.

Although these issues are naturally relevant to many LU members, Marquez said the organization does not take any official political stances.

However, the organization is an open platform for various organizations to advocate for their causes and raise awareness.

“We still strive to be a place where people who feel underrepresented can talk about it and meet people to advocate with them,” Marquez said.

Organizations represented at the meeting gave information for various events and fundraisers, including a Pozole Sale hosted by the Zeta Sigma Chi, Multi Cultural Sorority, and a deep fried oreo sale from the Lamba Alpha Upstein Fraternity.

After these various announcements, which took about 40 minutes of the meeting, a presentation on Mexican history and culture was given by e-board member Abraham Avarez.

Mexico, like all South American nations is an amalgamation of cultures that collided in the colonial order.

Averaz pointed out that the majority of Mexicans are catholic, not by their own origin, but because Spain, which took religion very seriously at the time, mandated the practice for all of its colonial subjects.

However, while the western powers tried to impose their own culture, the indigenous society that existed long before still shapes the present.

Averaz made a point in his presentation to stress the sophistication of the indigenous society that existed for thousands of years, as well as pointing out that much of what is now the United States was part of Mexico for most of its history.

However, of all his country’s cultural achievements, Averaz said the food is his favorite.

“Nothing like it,” Averaz said, “especially when my mom cooks it.”

To close out the meeting, Averaz and other e-board members lead the group through a couple Mexican dances, including El Caballo Datado, which bears a resemblance to the Cha-Cha Slide.                                                                    

Marquez said the structure of this meeting was fairly typical, where about half of the time is spent allowing members to raise awareness for their various causes or events, and the rest is spent focusing on some part of Latino heritage.

Marquez also said he thinks the turnout this year is growing compared to previous years, with more than 60 people showing up to the first meeting, and nearly fifty a few weeks in.

Latinos United meets every Thursday at 5 pm in the University Center.

Nathan Kober

Absorbing the present history online

My newsgathering patterns online are fairly pitiful, and definitely not what they should be. I am probably more informed than the average person, because I am what is known colloquially as “Extremely Online”, but I do not read as many in depth articles as I often mean to. Like most people online it is probably more accurate to say that I read headlines than the news. Most of the headlines I read are shared on Facebook, where I follow a variety of outlets like the NYT, WaPo, The Intercept and some political organizations.

So a typical day of newsgathering, or rather news absorbing, could begin with me scrolling down facebook to see the awful clickbait headlines that every news outlets thinks they should post ([Celebrity] has PERFECT response to Trump tweetstorm), as well as the more direct headlines that are posted for actual news. I’ll also check reddit, specifically the news and worldnews subreddits, which typically offer a better, more concentrated array of stories. I normally don’t click on the actual story but I will look at the reddit comments, where sometimes people will post related stories or updates. As always the experience is strange, as a story about some vapid political sex scandal lays next to a story of ethnic cleansing in Burma, and your mind contorts wildly to absorb both simultaneously.

I do follow a handful of news outlets and journalists habitually. For example I read anything written by Jeremy Scahill, Naomi Klein, or Glenn Greenwald, all of whom work at The Intercept. I’ll also follow journalists on Facebook and sometimes end up checking people’s twitter feeds to see what is going on in the political/media establishment. It’s a dark habit, but as the internet becomes such a central aspect of modern communication, for better and worse, I really don’t think you can understand the modern world without being jacked into the matrix to some extent. I haven’t jumped into the abyss and made a twitter account yet, but I am planning on it, since the platform is weirdly ubiquitous among the media class.

As a committed reader, I do try to set aside a long read every once in awhile, if not every day to, actually sit down and fully absorb. I’ve found it is much easier to read a book for a long stretch of time than it is to read something online, where all of the distraction is so available, but it’s not impossible to read a long piece if you set aside the time. These are not always strictly news; sometimes I’ll read an essay, like this one on Colin Kaepernick, or this investigation into Dylan Roof, which was pretty incredible. I’ll also look deeper into a subject that I come across if it seems interesting, in the typical online pattern of going from one link to the next. So for example, the other day I was reading The Sixth Extinction by Elizabeth Kolbert, and ended up searching for related stories online out of curiosity.

Unfortunately there is little rhyme or reason in any of this, other than the habits that form naturally without any planning. I don’t schedule a time of day that I am going to spend looking at news online, or looking into something that interests me. Obviously if I am actually researching something, then the pattern is very different, and I’ll usually just overload myself with various articles on whatever subject I am looking into, until I have three different browsers with 20 tabs open on each. That may at least be a strategy, but it is barely ordered.

In it’s own strange way the internet is a microcosm of history’s control over the present. Tuning into the myriad stories, forces, tragedies and farces that are shaping the world at any moment by going online is like stepping into a  whirlpool that we find ourselves thrown by, rather than controlling. That reality isn’t anything new, but in a more isolated day to day life it is harder to feel the currents of history constantly churning. Being online allows you to be more in tune to current events and their historical context than ever before, but you are still in the maw just like everyone else.

Nathan Kober

The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources created some controversy recently when information regarding Climate Change was removed from the department’s website, and some questionable new statements were added. The website now describes Climate Change in a way that is at odds with the scientific consensus, and it’s own scientific research, saying  “As it has done throughout the centuries, the earth is going through a change. The reasons for this change at this particular time in the earth’s long history are being debated and researched by academic entities outside the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.”

The changes brought criticism and concern from scientists and environmental activists in Wisconsin, including lead scientists from the UW System. Cathy Stepp, the current head of the DNR, did little to alleviate the controversy when she was asked about the changes and her views on climate change. Stepp told the Wisconsin State Journal in an interview that there is substantial disagreement among scientists regarding the cause of global warming. This is in stark contrast to surveys among scientists in the relevant field, more than 98 percent of whom agree that carbon emissions are causing global temperatures to increase. Stepp also said that climate change is not important to the DNR’s mission, which is merely to protect wisconsin natural resources, a task seemingly unaffected by the possibility of global environmental collapse.

The DNR’s scientifically spurious information replaced detailed information on climate change in the great lakes region that had been on the website before. The website previously stated “Human activities that increase heat–trapping (‘green house’) gases are the main cause. Earth’s average temperature has increased 1.4 °F since 1850 and the eight warmest years on record have occurred since 1998. Increasing temperatures have led to changes in rainfall patterns and snow and ice cover. These changes could have severe effects on the Great Lakes and the plants, wildlife and people who depend on them.”

The decision to remove scientific facts from the DNR in favor of misinformation is a noticeable outgrowth of deeper changes in the agency’s public agenda that have been underway for years. However out of line the DNR and Stepp’s position on climate change may be compared to accepted science, they are perfectly in line with the evolution of the agency since 2011. Since Governor Scott Walker took office, the agency has cut hundreds of staff, especially in its scientific research department, and greatly relaxed its enforcement of environmental regulation. The extent of these changes and their effects are widespread, rooted in Walker’s allegiance to ‘business friendly’ politics.

Open For Business

Governor Walker has never hid his contempt for the idea that government should at times restrict individual business interests in order to protect the environment or the broader public interest. In 2011 Walker appointed Stepp, a home developer who criticized the DNR before being appointed to lead the agency, because she had what Walker described as a “Chamber of Commerce Mentality.” The Wisconsin Chamber of Commerce is a business interest lobby, yet a background in that narrow field is ubiquitous in Walker’s appointments to agencies that have wildly different purposes.  A Chamber of Commerce mentality or a background in business have been cited by Walker as the primary qualifications to lead everything from the DNR to the UW Board of Regents, neither of which exist to support business interests.

Walker appointed Stepp with the stated interest of making the DNR more friendly to business. Stepp had previously criticized the DNR as “anti-developer” and “pro garter snake,” in an online rant now infamous among her critics. The decision was immediately criticized by conservation groups and political opponents, not always in good taste. One Democratic state senator described it as “putting Lindsay Lohan in charge of a rehab center.”

Stepp said her plans to make the DNR open to business interest would not interfere with environmental protection. However, the two are often in conflict, and a pattern shows the agency under Stepp has consistently chosen business protection over environmental protection, or simply abdicated its responsibilities. Since 2011 there have been some major changes in the DNR’s operations. The most important early on was the decision to stop the agency from taking a position on laws, or even providing information on laws. The agency now only provides information to lawmakers when they are asked to, which rarely happens under the Republican controlled legislature.

In 2013 Walker signed a law that changed regulations on iron mining, allowing companies to dump mining waste in nearby water sources, doubling the amount of land where mines are allowed to pollute, and allowing the DNR to exempt companies from parts of the law. The early version of the law was written by the Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce, a business lobby, with the help of Gogebic Taconite LLC, the only major metallic mining company in Wisconsin, and Senator Tom Tiffany.

Gogebic was planning a $1.5 Billion mine in the iron rich region of Northwest Wisconsin at the time, and in the years before the law passed Gogebic owners and executives poured money into the Wisconsin political system. John Dickinson, CEO of Gogebic donated $1,000 to Tiffany’s 2012 campaign. Christopher Cline, owner of Gogebic, donated more than $60,000 to Walker between 2010 and the time the law passed, and more than $40,000 to other pro mining candidates. Wisconsin Democracy Project, which tracks political spending, found that Walker received $11 million from interests that support mining deregulation from 2010 to 2012.

Walker argued the mine would create thousands of jobs, citing a study by Gogebic. The company dropped the project later on because the area had more wetlands than they had anticipated, making it costlier to develop, but as of now the law still governs future projects. Before the project was dropped, the DNR conducted a study on the possible environmental concerns regarding mining in the area. The report drew criticism from Tiffany, who said the DNR’s science was biased, and that the DNR should not conduct research on climate change, because it is only a theoretical construct.

In the following 2015-2017 state budget, the number of scientific researchers at the DNR was significantly reduced. The cuts were not a cost saving measure, as many of the positions removed were federally funded at no cost to the state. In fact, the reason for the cuts was explained quite openly on multiple occasions; Republicans did not like the research being done. When Scott Hull, a section chief in the Bureau of Science Services, asked for clarification about the cuts from Mark Aquino, director of the DNR’s Office of Business Support and Science, he was told explicitly that scientists were being cut because of the “legislative perception of research not being well aligned with program needs.”

This was confirmed by the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau, which reported the changes to lawmakers at the time saying “some have argued that the Department should not focus on controversial science projects, such as regarding the study of climate change or mining projects.” However, climate change and mining are not scientifically controversial, only politically so. In his email, Hull said that scientists in the DNR felt threatened by political pressure from the state. “Staff already have low trust in the administration and frankly are beginning to wonder if management team are playing it straight with them.”

Scientific research has not been the only target of personnel cuts. Hundreds of position across the board have been eliminated along with funding in each biennial budget. While the DNR’s funding and staff have been slashed, environmental issues in Wisconsin have developed with little oversight and less intervention.

The Wild West Wisconsin Mines

One of the largest growing industries in Wisconsin over the past five years has been mining sand used in the hydraulic fracturing, or “fracking” industry. In the fracturing process, a well is drilled into a layer of earth containing natural gas that cannot be extracted by traditional methods. In order to release the gas from hard layers of soil, a water mixture is pumped into the well at high pressure. The ‘frac sand’ is pumped as well to hold the cracked layers of soil open so the natural gas can escape. The process has created a new energy boom in the United States, but it has been connected to multiple environmental controversies, including water contamination and a massive increase in earthquakes. Before 2009 Oklahoma experienced about 2 earthquakes per year on average, whereas now it has about as many per day.

A majority of the frac sand in the United States has taken place in Wisconsin, making it an essential part of this massive industry.  As fracking has boomed recently, so has the mining, and so far the industry has only been lightly regulated. The number of sand mines has increased from 5 to over 150 in the past 6 years.

Even though the industry has little regulation, it is still notorious for noncompliance. The DNR is woefully unable to regulate the booming industry due to a combination of understaffing and a lack of clear policy. In 2012 the DNR estimated it would need an additional 10 inspectors in order to properly monitor the 54 mines that were active at the time. Since then two inspectors have been added, while the number of mines has exploded to more than 150.

The major health concern around the mines is silica dust that drifts from the mines, which are often next to residential areas. Although the DNR has limits on how much these mines can process, those limits do not account for that fact that multiple mines are often located in one area. The DNR also conducts almost no inspections of their own to measure air quality by the mines. Independent studies have found Silica dust far above World Health Organization recommendations, and the DNR’s own standards.

The DNR does not require mining companies to monitor fine particulate matter, or PM2.5, which refers for Particulate Matter smaller than 2.5 micrometers. This kind of dust can cause respiratory and heart problems, so the EPA and World Health Organizations say exposure to levels above 12 ppm can be dangerous, especially in the long term. Silica dust specifically it listed as an occupational hazard by OSHA, and fracking companies have been notorious for not complying with legal standards. In a survey conducted by OSHA, 39 percent of sampled job sites had levels of silica dust 10 times the recommended level or higher.

The DNR review process for sand mining companies contains the assumption that the mechanical process of sand mining does not create PM2.5 silica dust. This has been criticized by the EPA, which sent the DNR a letter in 2014, stating it is not “accurate or appropriate” to exempt sand mining from regulating these emissions. In contrast, researchers from UW Eau Claire have said that silica dust from mining could be especially dangerous because recently mined sand is sharper than typically existing dust.

The DNR and Wisconsin Department of Health Services issued a report in September 2011 stating that these emissions would not be regulated because there was little published evidence of health risk caused by “intermittent or occasional off-site exposures” for people near cites. Yet the number of active mines has exploded since that time, and the exposures face by many is no longer intermittent, especially for residents living in towns without zoning restrictions. Researchers have found particulate levels of above 50 near mines, and yet the DNR still conducts no serious research into whether this exposure is dangerous to the nearby public.

The DNR and DHS statement in 2011 was also based on the idea that more research needed to be conducted. Yet since then both agencies have been petitioned to do just that, and have instead completely abdicated that responsibility.

In many small towns, residents have reported respiratory problems since the mining boom started. On windy days, dust covers cars and finds its way into nearby homes. The majority of the mines have been built in towns that often do not have zoning laws, so businesses can mine on whatever land they can buy. This means large scale mining operations with no regulations on the emissions of particles known to be potentially harmful have been placed next to homes, even near schools.

The frac sand mining boom has been followed by a flood of political money. Many of the rural towns where mines operate are stripped for cash, and mining companies strategically donate to communities in order to gain support. At the state level frac sand companies have also donated millions of dollars to legislatures and Walker. Despite growing concerns about the industry, regarding everything from air and water quality, to direct health concerns, to farming and wildlife quality, the industry has not only warded off any major new regulations, but also any serious enforcement of existing policy, or even serious investigation into the environmental effects of their business.

Meanwhile the industry is violating regulations at an exceptional rate. Typically, inspectors find the large majority of businesses to be in compliance with the law, yet for frac sand mining the ratio is reversed. According to data from the DNR, about 40 percent of sand mining companies in Wisconsin have committed Stage 2 violations, meaning they violated a regulation and failed to comply after being cited. Inspectors from the DNR say they send noncompliance notices to more than 80 percent of sites they visit.

The case of Smart Sands illustrates the DNR’s regulation of this industry. In 2012 the company’s operation in Monroe County was found to be violating seven different compliance standards from their permit, including air pollution standards. The company was not properly controlling dust and was also removing top soil at a rate 10 times higher than they were permitted. In spite of those serious violations, the company has been admitted into the DNR’s Green Tier program, an environmental regulation standard given to companies that have shown an outstanding record of exceeding the DNR’s standards. In exchange the company is given more flexibility to control its own operational standards.

Water and Wildlife

Wisconsin’s enforcement of water protection has led to the state coming under federal investigation. The state’s enforcement of water quality has changed in a few dramatic ways under Walker and Stepp. The DNR’s wetland protection policy has been relaxed in multiple ways, allowing for more developments and pollution in wetland areas. The state has also allowed an incredible increase in commercial well building, and relaxed enforcement of fertilizer runoff.

In 2015 the DNR removed its water department. Functions including wetlands protection were transferred to the department of business services, described as the agency’s “one stop shop for business needs” on its website. This was just another step in Walker’s relaxing of wetlands protection. In 2012 Walker signed a controversial wetlands deregulation bill in front of real estate developers, to a standing ovation. The bill allowed for a new permitting process for projects smaller than 10,000 square feet, and forced the DNR to process the permits in 40 days or it is automatically approved.

A major component of wetlands development is the mitigation process, where developers have to finance wetlands replacement projects for any wetlands area they remove. The concept is scientifically dodgy, as wetlands areas are incredibly complex ecosystems that cannot be created from scratch. It is especially difficult, if not impossible to guarantee that whatever new wetland is created will be similar to the area remove. There is also an issue of compliance, as scientists find that many wetlands mitigation projects amount to little more than ponds. This is compounded by the fact that wetlands replacement projects are genuinely difficult to complete, requiring advanced scientific knowledge and years of follow up inspections.

Following the new wetlands bill the number of permit request for wetland development increased dramatically. In 2015 the process reached a tipping point, where viable land for mitigation projects were temporarily exhausted. Wetland replacement projects have to be carried out on land adjacent to already existing wetland, which is limited.

Yet the major environmental concerns related to Wisconsin’s water have come from two other major sources. First, the states lose regulation on high capacity wells, which have the ability to drain nearby water sources if used unrestrained, and second, the DNR’s nearly total abdication of their regulations on pollution.

High capacity wells are essential to many of Wisconsin’s major businesses, especially agriculture. However, there is currently no standard for regulating these wells in total, only individually. A new law currently in waiting has caused division between Wisconsin’s agriculture and other major industries, and private landowners and conservationist. Waterfront property owners especially are worried about the effects unregulated wells may have on their property value if the water is drained.

This issue is more nuanced than pollution or regulatory violations, since both sides clearly have legitimate concerns. However, the absence of any concerted government effort to address the major problem, which is controlling the total amount of water that can be used by industry, shows the danger of Wisconsin’s current absentee governance on the environment. Overuse of water, like overfishing or hunting, is a classic example of commons use that needs public policy. Scientists have also warned the problem will grow worse with Climate Change, showing the need for more research on that topic as well.

The Long View

Yet a state audit, federal investigations and internal reports show that Wisconsin DNR, under direction from partisan leadership, is no longer a functioning government agency. A State audit found the agency only issued 33 notices for water violations out of 558 cases that should have been enforced according to their own standards. From 2005-06, the DNR inspected 95 percent of major industrial facilities. That number dropped to 21 percent in 2010-2011. During the same period inspections for municipal wastewater treatment plants saw a similar plummet, from 92 percent to 45 percent.

It is not surprising then that fines issued from the DNR have decreased dramatically as well. Fines for pollution fell 78 percent in one year from 2014 to 2015. Specifically, penalties for wastewater management fell from a 10-year average of $455,407 to $12,057 in 2015. The state audit drew criticism from both sides of the political aisle, not just conservationists. That is not surprising, as Wisconsin has one of the largest hunting, fishing and general outdoor communities in the country. It took decades of concerted efforts from wildlife enthusiasts and conservationists to bring wildlife such as native Sturgeon, which were once endangered, back to sustainable levels.

The inability to view the environment outside of a political lense is a condition that affects the most strident partisan ideologues, but not the public at large. For most, Wisconsin’s environment is not a political chess piece, or some abstraction that only incessant liberals care about, but rather the wildlife, lakes, streams, game and forests the state is renowned for. Polls show the majority of Americans support stronger government action to deal will climate, not a more hands off approach.

As Scott Walker has said, economic improvement and environmental protection do not have to be in conflict. That is to say, strong environmental regulations do not automatically harm economic activity or growth. A reckless absence of regulation does however, damaging the economy, as pollution of the air and water, overuse of natural resources and environmental harm generally take an environmental toll on society.

While Scott Walker has said he wants to make Wisconsin open for business, the economic results of his deregulation campaign has been mixed. Since he took office Wisconsin’s economic recovery has lagged behind the rest of the country. For every quarterly jobs report of Walker’s first five years in office Wisconsin was below average. Walker and his political allies have attacked environmental regulation under the basis that it kills jobs, yet there is no evidence that the two are even related. Regulations may restrict specific jobs, but the idea that fewer regulations means more economic growth is simply not supported by large scale evidence. In the neighboring state of Minnesota, the government has enacted much stronger environmental policy in the last 5 years that Wisconsin, and the state’s recovery has surpassed Wisconsin’s by every metric.

This dynamic will become even more impactful as the inevitable effects of global warming start to seriously affect Wisconsin’s environment and economy. Already winter tourist attractions are being affected, as winter starts to recede. In recent years, ski visits to Wisconsin has dropped by more than a third, as winter temperatures have increased by 4 degree Fahrenheit since 1970. Recently Madison had its hottest day in the history of winter, and nationally, spring is arriving early along much of the east coast. Certain predictable effects of climate change include damage to wetlands, drying up of certain water resources, more severe weather including storms and flooding, all of which will damage infrastructure both public and private, costing taxpayers’ money. Denial will not change that reality, and the costs of those changes to the public will go far beyond the damage of a few unnecessary regulations.

Yet the DNR’s ability to protect Wisconsin’s environment is being curtailed with no end in sight. Recently lawmakers floated the idea of splitting the DNR in order to separate its regulatory functions from its park and wildlife management services. This proposal was not supported by Stepp, and Walker has not indicated he supports it either, but the DNR is still being cut in other ways. In February this year, Walker proposed cutting the DNR’s monthly magazine, which is self-supporting, in order to be more efficient. Lawmakers say they have been flooded with complaints about the decision, and the magazine’s subscription has gone up since the announcement.  Among Wisconsin’s hunting and fishing enthusiasts, information about the state’s wildlife, and strong safeguards to protect it are not political obstacles, but rather the state’s best attraction.

Nathan Kober

The Whitewater common council learned on Tuesday Feb 7 that local businesses have pulled their support for the annual Spring Splash party, after negative feedback from last year’s event.

Spring Splash is a party for college students finishing their spring semester that includes specials at local bars, house parties and other social gatherings. The event was never officially authorized by the University of Wisconsin Whitewater or the city of Whitewater.

At the 2016 Spring Splash there were reports of public intoxication, large scale littering and property damage. Police Chief Otterbacher said her department was overwhelmed by the number of people and was unable to control the large crowds that had gathered. In one instance Otterbacher said that bottles were thrown at officers who tried to break up a party.

“How nobody died last year is a gift,” Otterbacher said.

The council reported that Wisconsin Red, which has coordinated the event since 2013, will not be sponsoring it this year.

City Manager Cameron Clapper reported that he met with Wisconsin Red owner Steve Farina along with other city officials to address their concerns. After the meeting Clapper said they decided it would be best for Wisconsin Red not to sponsor the event this year.

Members of the local community that sponsored the event last year had also withdrawn their support. Clapper reported that Kurt Patrick or Pumpers & Mitchell, a tavern in downtown Whitewater, had sponsored events in 2016 but would not do so this year.

Council member Stephanie Goettl said she was disappointed that the city had not made plans to safely host the event this year.

“I was under the impression that after last year, this year would have a better controlled event because we would be better prepared for it,” Goettl said.

In a post on Facebook, Wisconsin Red expressed similar disappointments, saying they had hoped to plan a safe event with the city.

“Instead, we were essentially forced to step back from our involvement this year, or be subject to a myriad of unwanted consequences,” the post reads.

However, council member James Allen said that Wisconsin Red needed to be held accountable for the problems with the 2016 Spring Splash.

“This is an organization that, through manipulation of social media, created a mob scene, but called it a party in Whitewater,” Allen said.

Goettl, who joined the council as a student from UW Whitewater, accused the council of being derogatory toward students.

“This has to be one of the most blatantly anti-student discussions we have ever had,” Goettl said.

Council member James Langnes, a student at UW Whitewater, said he was also concerned that Wisconsin Red leaving the event would make it more difficult to control.

“I think Wisconsin Red was our only control point in this ordeal,” Langnes said.

However, while other members of the council said they would like to be able to safely hold an event like Spring Splash in the future, they felt there was no way to hold the event this year while guaranteeing public safety.

Other issues addressed by the common council included the selling of K-9 officer Boomer to his handler who left the department for another city.

Boomer, who has served at the department for less than 3 years, was purchased using crowdfunded money due to state mandated caps on municipal revenues.

Otterbacher said that it would be risky for the city to keep Boomer, because he might not be able to work with a new handler.

Boomer’s handler, officer Joe Matteson, resigned unexpectedly for personal reasons. Otterbacher said the department needed to support him in his decision.

“He gave 15 fantastic years to this community and to this department,” Otterbacher said.

There was no guarantee that Boomer would be effective with another one of our officers,” Otterbacher said. “If we transferred him, it was going to be a risk”

The council unanimously voted to sell Boomer, but members addressed the need to create a policy to handle similar cases in the future.

The council also addressed the need to place speed bumps or a stop sign at a local intersection where multiple accidents have occurred.

City Manager Clapper also formally introduced the new Public Relations and Communications Manager Kristin Mickelson. Mickelson graduated with a Journalism degree from UW Whitewater in 2008.

Steve Jobs, CEO of Apple Computer Inc., told Stanford graduates to follow their ambitions in his commencement address on Sunday June 12.

Jobs told students that sometimes they would have to do what they love and trust their instincts to find success. Jobs said the things that change your life will not always be clear at the time.

“You have to trust that the dots will somehow connect in your future,” Jobs said.

Jobs gave his advice by telling three stories of moments and chapters that shaped his life in unexpected ways.

Jobs himself did not graduate college. He attended Reed College in Portland, Oregon for two years, but at that point Jobs felt he was not getting anything out of college, and he felt guilty spending his parents’ life savings on tuition.

After dropping Jobs said his future looked uncertain. However, he still attended various lectures for three months, and in this time he said he was free to follow his curiosity instead of a planned schedule.

“It was pretty scary at the time,” Jobs said, “but looking back it was one of the best decisions I ever made.”

Another chapter in his life Jobs reminisced about was after being fired from his company.

Jobs started Apple Computers with Steve Wozniak, working out of his parents’ garage. The company started with the two of them selling computer parts in a bag to people, who would then have to assemble it themselves.

The company found success with its Macintosh computer, a high end but sophisticated personal computer.

However, after the company went public Jobs ended up losing ownership.

In 1985 Jobs was forced out of the company by John Sculley, who Jobs had hired to help run the company. Jobs said the two of them had diverging views of where the company was headed, and Sculley ended up pushing him out.

“How can you get fired from a company you started?” Jobs said.

Without his company Jobs said he felt lost, but not having that responsibility also allowed him to chase other passions.

“I didn’t see it then, but it turned out that getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have ever happened to me,” Jobs said.

Jobs found success with the animation company Pixar, which pioneered computer animation in the film industry. Jobs was credited as executive producer in Pixar’s breakout film Toy Story, the first feature-length computer-animated film.

During this time Jobs also met his wife Laurene Powell and started a family.

Apple, on the other hand, had difficulty finding success without Jobs. In 1997 the company let go of then CEO Gil Amelio, and Jobs stepped in as interim CEO.

After coming back to Apple, Jobs restructured the company’s product line and helped it branch out into new and unknown markets. The company has found new success with its IPod, a portable music playing device.

Jobs said that often his moments of failure and uncertainty ended up shaping his life for the better.

Jobs recently had a cancer diagnoses that he said helped put his life in perspective. Doctors told him he had months to live, before further testing showed the cancer was treatable.

Fear of death, jobs said, is a good reminder to make the most of life. Jobs told the graduates to not let the fear of failure get in the way of them taking risks.

“Stay hungry, stay foolish.” Jobs said.

Emotions ran high at a public forum to discuss a controversial mining proposal on the Menominee River in Stephenson MI.

Hundreds of people poured into the sweltering gymnasium at Stephenson High School where the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality gave them a chance to voice their support or opposition to the project.

Most of those speaking against the mine focused on the environmental dangers, while those in support brought up the need for economic benefits.

As more than 100 people signed up to speak, the time for each person was limited to 3 minutes.

Members of the Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin in attendance also spoke about their sacred cultural landmarks on the proposed mining site. Joan Delabreau, Menominee Tribal Legislature, voiced this concern early in the meeting.

“This is our ancestral land and with that there are a number of cultural resources, like mounds, garden beds and dance rings,” Delabreau said.

On the economic side there were conflicting voices. Some focused on the prospect for jobs while others worried about unintended negative effects. One economic downside mentioned was the loss of property value caused by the mine.

Ted Sauve, a member of the Marinette County Board of Supervisors, said the economic impacts of the mine were a major reason the board voted unanimously against the mine.

“Menominee River properties values were anticipated to be lowered,” Sauve said, “and Marinette County was very, very happy to pass a resolution in opposition to the mine.”

The environmental and economic concerns were also intertwined. The area relies on tourism for much of its revenue, and locals worried the mine could damage the wildlife people come to see.

The proximity of the mine to the river, only a few hundred feet, was the principle concern for those opposed. Kathleen Heideman, president of Save the Wild U.P., was one of many environmental activists who brought this up.

“With a sulfide mine, there are a lot of dangers because it can get into water ways and accidents could be catastrophic,” Heideman said.

If the mine goes through as proposed more than 20 million tons of waste, including cyanide and metallic acid will be placed on site within a mile of the river.

The Menominee Indian Tribe of Wisconsin and the other environmental groups plan on actively opposing the mine regardless of the permit outcome.

Al Gedicks, emeritus professor of environmental sociology at the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse and executive secretary of the Wisconsin Resources Protection Council, said that social opposition to the mine will make the project not be profitable.

“When you have a failure of a social license to operate the economics of the project go downhill,” Gedicks said.

Public comments on the mine are open until Nov. 3, and the Michigan DEQ has to make a decision on the mining permit by Dec 1.