The World's Worst PR Guy

     [UPDATE 9/21/20: Just when I thought we were done with this whole ridiculous saga forever, tonight my family's been treated to no less than 20 harassing phone calls from this joker or one of his Cleveland-area associates demanding some post of mine, likely this one from three years ago, be taken down. As it turns out, however, harassing people I care about is not only not likely to get me to take the post down, but is also likely to get this post bumped up to the top of the blog. Don't ya kinda wish you would have just let this one lie?]

     [UPDATE: 9/22/20, 1:15: Over 100 calls and counting, as recently as two minutes ago. Apparently he's following the updates on here as well.]

     Once again, I really hoped I was done with the scandal involving our favorite ex-representative.

     But unfortunately, a consultant for his mistress's campaign decided to bring it back into the public eye, and drag us back into it.

     So, here we go again.

     The state police report came out a few weeks back regarding the investigation into the alleged "blackmail" over Todd Courser and Cindy Gamrat's affair. And the results came out that Gamrat's husband was the one that sent the texts to Courser, who naturally went on to accuse the "bastards"... er, his ex-employees, of being in on the plot, which has yet to be proven. Of course, this is the same guy who told the police that Detroit News reporter Chad Livengood was the blackmailer, so take that as you will. Naturally, he wasn't happy when I called him out on that.

     After that, Lapeer prosecutor Tim Turkelson decided that Joe Gamrat's attempt to end his wife's affair did not rise to the level of criminal blackmail, so no charges were ever filed. One would think that would be the end, but if you think that, you haven't been paying much attention.

     Enter John E. Pavlish, owner of a "reputation management firm" out of the Cleveland area (what, was there nobody in Michigan who would take up this case?), who decided he was going to clear the "good" names of Courser and Gamrat. A few weeks ago, friend requests started going out to members of the various anti-Courser and Gamrat groups on Facebook from the aforementioned Pavlish, I didn't think much of it at the time, until sponsored posts from his consulting business started coming across my news feed, including one where he attacked Detroit News editor Nolan Finley as a "dirtbag' for having written an article blasting Courser and Gamrat. And any dissenting opinion on Pavlish's page was met thusly:

     You read that right; John Pavlish will send drones to spy on you and your family if you post anything he doesn't like on his company's page or say anything he doesn't like anywhere about his clients. This is where I come in.

     Apparently the "half-naked picture" John refers to was a picture the Toddmeister posted on his public state rep page of his son, gun in hand, about how he's training up his kids for... something. Probably to fight the "liberal on slot," whatever the hell that is. I'm not exactly sure who "everyone else" is that he wanted to get online to see him being the bully he claims to fight against, but once again we see Pavlish's main tactic, that being to threaten to expose "everything you've done since you were potty trained." Because clearly I have so much to hide on my public Facebook page and public blog, via which I've engaged publicly with Pavlish's clients. (Until they delete and block me, anyway.) As you're about to see, though, clearly he didn't do his job half as well as he said he would, as he gets several basic details about my life hilariously wrong.

     "National media show," eh? So far, the only people to give this loser any air time have been "Trucker Randy" Bishop and Brian Sommerfield of WYPV in Onaway, a far-right talk station in northern Michigan with so few listeners that one needs an electron microscope to find their ratings.

     So, apparently Pavlish has decided he no longer wants to have this conversation on record, which is most unfortunate for him, as I have no intention of calling his office so he can make his threats against me via phone. And as it turns out, I'm also an unemployed drug addict that's too spineless to not have his words be on public record. Which seems the exact opposite of spineless to me, but what do I know?

     And as it turns out, I was right; he deleted my last comment so that he would, in fact, have the last word. Later, he'd delete all of my comments, prompting someone else to suggest that I deleted my comments to make him look foolish, when in reality, he would have looked every bit as much so by leaving them intact.

     Because why would a public business, particularly one in the business of public relations and reputation management, care about it's reputation or the public's opinion of it? And if calling people "spineless cowards" and "dumb shits" was part of a "well thought out plan," then I'm forced to question how well thought out the plan was in the first place. Now, mind you, this report of his was supposed to finally drop last Monday, and so far, as of nearly a week later... crickets.

     

     The rest of his comments were telling posters that he'd never want to take them on as clients, which doesn't sound like so much a threat as a promise that most would be glad to have him uphold. From there, it would appear Pavlish almost realized the error of his ways and started removing posts, but at this point, the good stuff is already archived, including the time where he threatened to out another critic's MLive username, among other things, despite the fact that she'd never posted on that website. And, of course, the time he promised to go easy on a well known Michigan progressive blogger if he left one of the anti-Courser Facebook groups, while being completely unaware of the site said blogger ran.

     So, if you're still out there, John, I'm curious as to what dirt you think you've got on me or any other Gamrat critic that might be worthy of making it into this alleged report of yours. You have all my pertinent contact information, and if this radio show of yours does indeed exist (which I highly doubt), I'm more than happy to be a guest in studio at any time. Just remember that the internet does indeed go both ways, and the harassment done on your behalf is doing your client no favors.

     But it would appear that's a lesson you learned far too late.

Life During "Quarantine," And Other Thoughts

     It's been a long year these last three weeks, hasn't it?

     Are we sure we're still in 2020?

     I've mostly avoided writing about the current pandemic at hand, in as much as you can really avoid discussing the thing that has pretty much ground most of civilization to a screeching halt, other than to correct blatant misinformation when it comes up. As I've said multiple times, I'm not a doctor, nor do I play one on the radio; don't look to me or any other talking head, be it on TV or Facebook, to tell you how to live your life. I prefer to leave the medical guidance to the actual medical professionals, and quite frankly the world doesn't need another social media warrior to lecture the rest of us on how we're supposed to live. But there's a few things that have been on my mind the last few weeks, none of which I have the time or energy to devote an entire column to. So instead, you get bullet points:

• Is anybody honestly surprised the "stay at home" order was extended? Given that we're just now getting to a point where new cases are seemingly starting to level off, one would think the most sensible course of action would be to give it a week or two and get a better grasp on whether this actually is a trend and whether there ends up being a corresponding drop in the number of deaths as well. And even if that is the case, if the treatment, such as it is, is indeed working, do you stop it at the first slight drop in the numbers? Or wait until things are closer to stable? Common sense would suggest the latter.
  
  And if it is working, could we get a little bit of good news here? Again, common sense would suggest if you expect people to continue doing what they're doing, some sort of positive reinforcement, or at least an indicator that everybody's efforts haven't been completely for naught, would be helpful. (Also, I keep seeing these reports that Michiganders are doing better than average in the whole social distancing thing, yet, all I see on Facebook is that nobody's doing enough. Which the hell is it already?)
  
• But the issue for most this week isn't necessarily the extension of the original order, which anyone who pays attention saw coming. It's the introduction of additional restrictions at the same time that limit what goods can be purchased at your traditional "big-box' retailers, restrict travel between two or more residences, and would appear to ban businesses such as lawn care services from operating. It doesn't help that from the beginning...
  
• There's been a stunning lack of clarity from Governor Whitmer's office on a number of things. Between the supposed ban on prescribing medications being used as an experimental treatment for COVID-19 that, it turns out, wasn't a ban on anything other than hoarding, to the ongoing questions on what businesses are and are not allowed to remain open, it's safe to say the communication from Lansing has not been great, which only adds to the social media outrage and the panic buying that ensues every time a statement comes down from Lansing. But despite all that...
  
• I don't see how people find it so easy to believe that the governor of their state actively wants to destroy small businesses and put people out on the streets. If you spend enough time on social media, you'll find a large number of people that honestly believe that the economic devastation caused by this is intentional. Presuming that Whitmer would, in fact, like to be re-elected as governor come 2022 (yes, I'm well aware of the VP rumors), it would certainly seem that throwing Michigan into a recession would not be the most effective way to make that happen. Even going back to the argument over hydroxychloroquine, there were a rather disturbing amount of people that found it easier to believe that the governor of the state of Michigan actively wants people to die, than that perhaps she didn't want people panic buying that drug, leaving none for those who are prescribed it to treat other conditions.
  
  Perhaps I'm just the naive sort, but I find it hard to believe that our government, be it state or federal, actively wants a bunch of people to die from this. And while you could make an argument that at a federal level, we should have been more prepared for this, a pandemic of this scale only happens about once every 100 years or so. There's only so much you can really do to prepare to combat something that hasn't happened in over a century. And given what we know about how this disease spreads and how long it can lay dormant before symptoms show, if they do at all, what are your other options? Do nothing and let the death toll rise even higher? Britain and Sweden both tried some form of that. Britain already abandoned it not long before their prime minister ended up in intensive care, and Sweden is on the verge of doing so. Or you could go the exact opposite route...
  
• And let's be honest, the methods utilized by China and other countries to fight this thing never would fly here. America as a whole is a lot of things, but particularly tolerant of the government telling them what they can and can't do is not historically one of them. I seem to remember a war or two being fought over that sort of thing. Military-enforced national lockdowns? Mandatory apps installed on your smartphone? Good luck. Plenty of people in this country already believe the government has taken away too much of their freedom as it is, and that the current statewide "shelter-in-place" orders are already too draconian. Think they'd really stand for the "martial law" that would be required to enact a true national lockdown that some have suggested, and that other countries have actually enacted? And while we're on the subject of extremes...
  
• Is it possible that somewhere there is a middle ground between "reopen everything, damn the consequences" and "if you even mention the economy, you want people to die?" Can I, perhaps, not want people to die and at the same time not want my friends who own small businesses to lose everything they've worked for? Why does it have to be one or the other? I know of a few friends that have contracted COVID-19, and all have thankfully recovered. I also know of a few friends who are contemplating right now whether they'll be able to reopen their doors once all this has passed, one of whom has already had his business burned to the ground at one location, then broken into and ransacked at another. Obviously you can't equate these two things, but yet when you even bring up the latter, some are quick to brand you as "selfish" and "heartless" for doing so. Sure, there are a few loans out there for those sorts of things, but many banks have already stopped taking applications for them, and others are forgoing the process entirely because they don't know that they'll even be able to pay back that loan when they reopen, and can't afford to add another bill onto their current expenses. It seems there's a great deal of people who, as soon as you bring up the economy, immediately think stock traders and corporate retailers and CEO's of failing banks with multi-million dollar golden parachutes. Those aren't the people anybody's worried about. (Well, other than Congress.) it's your neighbors that poured their entire life's savings into opening up their own business, only to find themselves on the verge of losing it all. All this to say...
  
• Between the folks who have given themselves honorary Facebook PhD's, the people who have too much time on their hands and nothing better to do than shame the people who dare to leave their houses for any reason, I've come to the conclusion that there are more than a few people out there who could stand to self-quarantine from social media for a while.
  
  Myself included.
  
  Truth be told, over the last few weeks I find myself getting more and more irritated with the stupidity that seems to force its way across my news feed, be it the tinfoil hat-clad people suggesting that 5G somehow causes COVID-19, people who still somehow think this is an outright hoax perpetrated by the media because reasons, and people who are judgemental to an absurd extreme over the coming and going of others, best personified by this gem.
  
  
  
  That one was enough for me to log off from Facebook for the next 48 hours, lest I become "guy who goes on an unfriending spree," which ranks just below "guy who goes on an unfriending spree then brags about all the people he just unfriended" on the list of Facebook's Greatest Jackasses. Do the people insistent on taking the "shame everybody" route really think they're changing anybody's minds? Or are they just doing it to reinforce their own sense of superiority? At this point, I don't really see it being my place to tell anybody that they're wrong for doing whatever they need to cope with being "quarantined." Nor can I really begrudge the people who do feel as though something has been taken from them. (Well, most of you. Guy who's pissed the government's infringing on his right to drive without a license or insurance, you're the exception to that rule.) Let's be honest here: this isn't something that any of us have had to deal with in our lifetimes, nor have most of our parents or, in some cases, grandparents. But for most, this is, to say the least of it, a life-altering, for some even traumatic, experience. And while for some folks it may be easier than others, asking people not leave their homes and forgo most social contact with anyone that they don't share living quarters with for an indefinite amount of time is a pretty big ask. And as such, it gets pretty difficult at times to maintain anything resembling a positive attitude through it all.
  
  Hell, even my normal fun of sparring with folks in the various discussion groups on Facebook isn't quite as fun as it used to be once it becomes the only remaining acceptable social activity. As a bit of fun in between pints or commercial breaks, enjoyable enough. As your only means of social interaction?  A lot less so. Hell, I'd just went and rejoined one discussion topic group whose moderator-with-a-god-complex was a particularly heavy-handed sort, just to have something to occupy my time! But somehow, even with more time than I know what to do with and less than ever to do with it, it just seems like an even bigger waste, as though literally doing nothing would be more productive than this.
  
  Which leads me to think it might just be time to unplug til this all passes.
  
  For a guy whose hatred of everybody around him is codified in the very name of this place, I'd like to think I'm not quite as negative as one would assume from my online presence. But lately, every time I open up my phone to check the latest nonsense on Facebook, I find it increasingly difficult not to lose faith in the human race. And what's worse, I'm watching normally positive-minded people who usually stay above the fray jumping in to the argumentative abyss and losing a little piece of themselves every time they do. It hardly seems worth it anymore.
  
  So with that, I'm forcing myself to sign off from here for the time being. Will it last more than a day or two? A week? Who knows. But at this point, the attempt is probably worth it.
  
  Don't think for a second that, in doing this, I haven't thought about just where "guy who brags about turning off social media" rates on my above mentioned list.
  
  But that's a small price to pay for sanity, I suppose.