2026 Annual Canoe & Kayak Race. Photo by Fritz Swanson.

by Sara & Fritz Swanson

The 60th Annual Manchester Canoe & Kayak Race was held on Sunday, May 17. The weather was beautiful and hot for the first year under the organization of the Manchester Mens Club.

Daniella Kippnick, an organizer of previous races with the Robotics Team stated, “The Men Club did a wonderful job stepping up to continue this fun community tradition. The Robotics Team and parents, along with a couple of long-time community volunteers, helped support and pass info to the Men Club for their first very successful organization of the race! The Boy Scouts also helped with canoe use and a few stellar scouts really stepped up helping at the finish line in the hot sun.”Ìę

60th Annual Manchester Canoe & Kayak Race winners:

Teen Canoe

1. Garrett Smith & Caleb Savage 0:40:59
2. Nico Sark & Noah Sark 0:44:36
3. Caleb Weidmayer & Aiden Hall 0:53:02

Adult Child Canoe

1. Lauren Foley & Reid Foley 0:43:56
2. Eric Walter & Luca Walter 0:44:01
3. Eric Claus & Owen Claus 0:45:02

Men Canoe

1. Case Kittel & Ross Kittel 0:36:19
2. Silas Bialecki & Stas Bialecki 0:39:54
3. Richard Ensley & Rick Gilling 0:41:32

Women Canoe

1. Sara Andrews & Sam Tank 0:49:31
2. Sybil Kolon & Margaret Bialecki 0:50:38
3. Gianna Turek & Ella Turek 0:56:33

Man/Woman Canoe

1. Dave Foley & Cyndy Foley 0:39:24
2. Marcel van der Elst & Gisele van der Elst 0:40:37
3. Mark Irish & Sophia Irish 0:40:44

Single Canoe

1. Shawn Mullaly 0:44:26
2. August Christensen 0:51:39

Corporate Challenge

1. Riteway Pallet — Rick Ensley & Rick Gilling 0:41:29
2. Di-Coat — Joshua Grutza & Chris Ackerman 0:45:29

Single Kayak Woman

1. Katie Bonner 0:39:45
2. Gwenn Stevenson 0:41:53
3. Stephanie Pridmore-Rineir 0:42:03

Single Kayak Man

1. Robert Michalec 0:35:56
2. David Ives 0:37:23
3. Jonathan Cardona 0:39:01

Teen Kayak

1. Lain Earhart 0:44:32
2. Cody Hicks 0:48:51
3. Elena Houttekier 0:52:03

Double Kayak

1. Peter Knox & Abigail Knox 0:44:28
2. Julie Curtis & Kristin Sample 0:45:22
3. Dave Perry & Erik Curtis 0:49:17

Sprint

1. Ross Kittel & Case Kittel 41.84
2. Eoin Flaherty & Sully Flaherty 49.22
3. Carol Khan & Peter Knox 51.19

Click to view all of the results.Ìę

Kippnick concluded, “The day was beautiful and there was a great turnout for a day of fun on our beautiful stretch of river. Huge thanks to everyone involved in racing and helping, especially the Men Club for stepping up to keep this 60 year tradition alive in Manchester!”

Photo by Fritz Swanson.

Photo by Fritz Swanson.

Photo by Fritz Swanson.

Photo by Fritz Swanson.

Photo by Fritz Swanson.

Photo by Fritz Swanson.

State Representative Carrie Rheingans spoke with Manchester-area residents on Saturday, April 12, 2025, at a Coffee Hour in the City of Manchester. Photo credit: Fritz Swanson.

by Fritz Swanson

State Representative Carrie Rheingans held a coffee hour with Manchester-area residents this past Saturday, April 12, from 10am until almost noon. Rheingans, a Democrat, represents the 47th district, which runs from Summit Township in the west to Scio Township in the east, and includes Manchester, Sharon, and Freedom townships. The event was held in the back of Millie Coffeehouse on Main Street in the City of Manchester. ÌÇĐÄÊÓÆ” 20 local residents participated.

Representative Rheingans asked everyone to introduce themselves and give a brief summary of what concerns they would like to discuss. Most were concerned about the situation in Washington. Many were specifically concerned that Social Security and Medicare/Medicaid would be shut down, and what that would mean both for the state of Michigan budget and for their own budgets.

One city resident summed up the feeling of the room by saying, “My concerns are pretty much everything: education, health care, Social Security — which I am on and depend on — Medicare, Medicaid, you know, you name it.” She paused and drew in a breath, adding, “Democracy, the rest of the world 
”

To which Representative Rheingans smiled wryly and replied, “Minor topics, yes?” Which drew a chuckle from some attendees.

Representative Rheingans talked through local issues and worked her way to issues of national concern. Two local issues discussed were local control as it relates to energy infrastructure and the current state of Manchester Community Schools.Ìę

A Freedom Township resident specifically expressed thanks to the representative for her work to adjust state legislation such that some amount of local control was maintained over the deployment of commercial solar arrays in rural areas. She also called on the representative to do more in helping the Pleasant Lake Homeowners’ Association deal with the dense network of gas pipelines in Freedom Township, as well as the proposed co-bio digester, which aims to produce methane gas.

Once the topic turned to education, however, the local issues became national. While the conversation started with the current state of Manchester Community Schools — which a Sharon Township resident described as “dying on the vine” — the representative reminded everyone that school funding ultimately comes from the state, and that much of state funding comes from the federal government.

“Just for reference,” Representative Rheingans said, “42% of Michigan’s $83 billion budget comes from federal sources. Our rainy day fund cannot backfill 42% of our state budget. So, depending on how many cuts come from the federal government, we will not be able to have federal funding for education at the K-12 level.”

As the topic shifted to higher education, attendees expressed concern about international students having their visas revoked without notice.

The Representative offered an observation about the implications of mass visa revocation on the cost of higher education. As she noted, it used to be that Michigan colleges were largely funded by Michigan tax dollars, which kept tuition low. But, over the last 50 years, the amount of state money going to colleges and universities has declined as a percentage of the budget of those schools. In 1970, for example, 64% of the budget of the University of Michigan was covered by state funding, while tuition only covered 26%. Today, state funding covers 13% and tuition covers 75%, a complete inversion. “So the cost of attending university has been pushed more and more to students and families,” the representative noted. As state funding declines, she argued, tuition has gone up. “I am frustrated that we’ve disinvested for years, and that is causing the cost to go up.”

She added that this pressure on tuition for revenue “causes the need for international student enrollment, because international students pay tuition that helps offset the tuition costs of Michiganders and American students.” Because international students pay the highest tuition rate, they effectively subsidize the tuition of in-state students who pay the lowest rate. For reference, the in-state tuition for one year at the University of Michigan is $17,736, while out-of-state tuition for one year is three times higher at $60,946. International students alone make up 14% of students at the University of Michigan.

Rheingans expressed frustration at how driving international students away will cost Michigan students more over time but also dismay over the morality of revoking visas in what she described as a “chaotic” process that is driven by political speech. “Those student visas are being revoked for political purposes, not because those students have committed crimes,” Rheingans observed, to which she added, “​​Anybody who is living in this country is protected by the Constitution. You don’t have to just be a citizen to be protected by this constitution.”

She urged everyone to know their rights when dealing with immigration officials, stating, “Because there is a lack of due process that has been noted in national press about people who are being picked up — like physically picked up — and put in vans, there is no process for deciding whether they’re a citizen, have legal status or anything before they are maybe even flown to El Salvador.” Rheingans stressed that because there was no court process by which people were being deported, American citizens could just as easily be swept up as not. From there, the discussion shifted into what Rheingans viewed as our responsibilities as a community.

Rheingans expressed concern about the federal budget bill recently passed in the U.S. House but not yet voted on in the Senate. She stated that if passed, it would cut deeply into that 42% of state budget dollars that come from the federal government.Ìę

“It would come entirely from Medicaid,” Rheingans said of where the cut money would come from. According to the representative, 70% of Michigan Medicaid money comes from the federal government, and if all of that money were lost, Medicaid would be deeply impacted. She listed some statistics: “Of all the people currently living in a nursing home in Michigan or a skilled nursing facility, 60% of those people are covered by Medicaid. Of the births in Michigan, 40% are covered by Medicaid.”

She continued, “Substance-use-disorder residential treatment, largely covered by Medicaid; special needs 
 ​​services for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities, like group homes and services that help people live their daily lives. It covers people with severe mental illnesses, treatments and therapies that they might need. Youth with severe emotional disturbance and people with substance use disorder can receive services covered by Medicaid,” adding, “These cuts will devastate our state. Rural hospitals, especially, and community health centers across the state heavily rely on Medicaid funds, so this will close community health centers, especially in rural parts of our state, and it will close rural hospitals, which are already closing rapidly.”

In the face of all these potential cuts, Rheingans noted that Republicans who control the state House have prepared a bill that cuts 92% of the state budget. This included completely eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services in Michigan, which oversees things like Medicaid. Cuts also include eliminating the offices of the Attorney General and the Secretary of State, as well as many other state departments.

“Yeah, so I just, I’m very worried about this, and I think part of the design of all of this is to have chaos and have us not know what happening, so we can’t respond, and we can’t coordinate the response adequately,” Rheingans said.

She called on residents who were concerned to organize locally, to speak with others about the issues they care about, and she called on residents to take action together. “We need people to march,” she said. “We do need people to post on social media. We need people to talk to your family and friends. We need people to take to the streets when you’re called. We need people to strike. But you’ll notice that it takes all five fingers to make a fist to punch back.”

She then said, “How is this going to end? I do think that there will be a conflict point where there will be either U.S. National Guard or active duty perpetrating violence on American citizens in a direct way, and that when we have our National Guard looking at the crowds.” She then looked around the room, which was almost entirely filled with elderly people, mostly gray-haired women, and said, “If they see a bunch of people who look like anarchists out there, it’ll be easier for them to take that action than if they see a bunch of people who can be their grandparents.”

Jeff Irwin at Manchester Coffee Hour, Saturday, March 15, 2025. Photo by Laurie Lutomski.

by Fritz Swanson

State Senator Jeff Irwin, who represents the 15th district, including the City of Manchester, Manchester Township, and Bridgewater Township, in Lansing, held a coffee hour at Millie Coffeehouse on Main Street. The event was on Saturday, March 15, and ran from 11am until almost 1pm. ÌÇĐÄÊÓÆ” 20 people from across the district were in attendance, though most were from the Manchester area. The event captured the contrasting energies of the current political moment, with people there to talk with their state senator about both the fine details of state policy as well as the intense drama of current national politics.

One Manchester resident, for example, opened by introducing himself and his concerns both about longstanding issues with disability benefits but also that disability benefits appear to be at risk at a national level.

Meanwhile, a second introduced herself by saying, “I am scared and angry right now. That kind of where I’m at, and it affecting my sleep and other things.”Ìę

People in attendance were concerned about veterans’ issues, environmental safety, gravel pits, road repairs, and many other issues. But the concern almost everyone expressed was that what is happening in Washington is scaring people, and they were looking to Senator Irwin for leadership and guidance.

In response to the anxieties of the crowd, Senator Irwin delivered the following opening remarks:

“One of the great things about being a state legislator is that I get to work on a wide range of different things, and I’m always learning about new things, right? The state budget this year is proposed to be $82 billion and I’m always learning new things about where those dollars are going and how it happening and how it deployed, and who does it. So I’m sure there a lot I can learn from each one of you about how state government could do better. Having said that, before I move on to any of these state government topics, I heard [from you all] a lot of frustration, concern, and fear, maybe some anger about what happening in Washington, D.C., and I’ll address it to the extent that I can.Ìę

“I share your frustration and fear. I wouldn’t do this work if I didn’t care about our community, if I didn’t care about my neighbors, if I didn’t care about our country, and I’m very worried about what happening to our country right now when you see such a reckless and illegal set of actions, things that are straightforwardly against the law, and yet the president is demanding that they be done [by] executive orders. That a red flag.Ìę

“When you see that same president fire all of the top generals and replace them with sycophants, that really scary. When you see the president get rid of the lawyers at the military, the judge advocate generals, that a big red flag, and I share your concern. I do not, as I said at the town hall we had a little while ago, I don’t feel like I have terribly satisfying answers right now for you, but all I can say is I think you need to be attentive, stick together, build that sense of community you were talking about, so that we’re ready to defend the country going forward, because, you know, we’re already seeing some negative impacts of what happening in D.C., and I don’t want to, I don’t want to overreact, but I don’t want to underreact.Ìę

“[…] I think there going to be more that going to have to be done to fight back against the ugly things that are happening in our government, the people who are trying to basically take away democracy. We have to stand up against that in every way possible. But I’m really hoping that it doesn’t lead to the types of things that will cause economic devastation or political violence. I would rather avoid that.Ìę

“[…] I’m trying not to jump ahead to the end of the story and hope that we can do some things here in the meantime to avert the worst possible crises that we seem to be hurtling towards. There are a lot of things happening in the courts that are somewhat hopeful. You’re seeing judges rule against the administration, which I think is positive.Ìę

“Now I will say one of the things I’ve noticed during my time in politics and government is that as you go up the chain with judges, the further up you go, the more political it gets. And so I’m very worried that as these cases go to the court of appeals and go to the U.S. Supreme Court, that there might be judges who are willing to subvert the Constitution, subvert our democracy, and imperil our republic to stick on their team, so I’m really worried about that.Ìę

“But, you know, right now, we’re not at that point yet. Right now we’re not at that point where, you know, normal processes of government are not happening, but it feels like we’re on the precipice. And I share your fear.”

The senator then set out to discuss the many detailed policy issues he has been working on. He concerned about water quality and the road budget and the local school budgets. He got very detailed plans for solving issues related to the finances of foster children and the struggle people have transitioning off of state support programs such as Medicaid. He has strong opinions about the fees multi-axle trucks should pay.

But for the nearly two-hour-long event, the attendees repeatedly returned to what is happening in Washington. The attendees wanted to know what they could do, and what the senator could do, to stop it.

Irwin returned to the fact that only mass collective action would have any effect on national events. He called on residents to organize locally and to seek and build community.Ìę

“I’ve heard a lot of people talking about a general strike […],” Irwin suggested to the room. “I think that even more effective. [It] a bigger action. But once again, you need to have mass participation for these things to work.” He then said, “Temperatures will go up, up, up, up, and, you know, at a certain point it going to boil over. And for some it already has.”

Jeff Irwin Coffee Hour in the back of Millie Coffeehouse, March 15, 2025. Photo courtesy of Laurie Lutomski.

Early Manchester Adult Education

Small towns on the western frontier in the 1840s hungered for the latest educational, social, and literary developments, particularly by those residents who had come from the larger cities in New York. Manchester was no exception. This hunger was largely fed by touring lecturers, and by local societies such as the Manchester Lyceum which was established in November 1836. The Lyceum movement was particularly influenced by the development of the Erie Canal and the railroad, which allowed noted lecturers and entertainers to easily travel from city to city. After the Civil War, lyceums evolved into the Chautauqua Movement and vaudevilles, and became more entertainment in nature and elaborate. Manchester also formed organizations such as the Manchester Clay Club in 1840, to attract followers to and promote Henry Clay, the Whig Party and its principles.

One of these noted lecturers who made several visits to Manchester in this period was a “Dr. B. A. Parnell.” Students of Manchester early history may be familiar with two publications: Annetta English 1930 “History of Manchester Township” and Jane Palmer 1964 “History of Manchester, Michigan”. While referencing these works for a story on Manchester Old Burying Ground, the authors noted that both of these histories contained a similar story regarding this Dr. Parnell who came to town in 1847.

From English History, page 58: “A select school was kept for years in the [Presbyterian] church basement.Ìę The church bell, now in the tower of the Roman Catholic church, was purchased by personal gifts of money added to a fund received from the proceeds of a lecture delivered by a Mr. Parnell in the basement of the church.Ìę He was to give a second lecture, but was taken ill after the first lecture was over, and died following a severe hemorrhage of the lungs. He asked that his brain be sent to Fowler and Wells, New York City, noted phrenologists, and the village physicians, Dr. Wm. H. Bessac, and Drs. Bennett and William Root, performed an autopsy.Ìę He was buried at his request, with his feet toward the South (for he was an ardent anti-slavery lecturer), in the old cemetery in the North Bend of the Raisin River.Ìę This was about 1850 or later.Ìę The spot, where he rests, is no longer discernible, for no stone was erected and the wooden picket fence about the lot soon rotted away.”

From Palmer History, page 123: “The church bell was secured by a personal subscription, and proceeds of a lecture by a Mr. Parnell, noted antislavery lecturer, were donated.”

The authors were intrigued by this story and decided to pursue it using modern research tools (particularly Google Books), and the resources of the Bentley Historical Library at the University of Michigan. Our initial questions were: Who was Dr. Parnell? Why was his brain sent to New York City? Why was he buried in Manchester, and apparently forgotten in the old cemetery? Is there more to this story?

First Steps

Google Books is an amazing tool. By entering “Parnell” and “Manchester”, we were immediately taken to a fully digitized copy of the 1847 publication: “The American Phrenological Journal and Miscellany”, Volume IX, edited by Orson S. Fowler. On page 211, we found a letter to Fowler from Calvin S. Townsend, a prominent Manchester resident, attorney and phrenologist. He lived in Manchester in 1837-1859 before moving to Rochester, N. Y. An excerpt follows:

Manchester, Washtenaw Co., Michigan, May 1, 1847

“Gentlemen:—I write for the purpose of announcing to your readers the sudden death of B. A. Parnell! He was a man very universally known throughout the western and southwestern States, as a popular lecturer and indefatigable laborer in the field of phrenological science. Few men have done as much in that particular department of labor, and fewer still have been as successful in convincing their fellow men of the truth of the great leading features of the interesting science to which his life was chiefly devoted. He died at the “Manchester Hotel,” in this village, on Thursday, the 22d day of April, at 20 minutes before 12 o’clock (noon), of hemorrhage of the stomach. He visited our village on Monday the 5th of April, for the purpose of delivering to our citizens a course of lectures upon a variety of subjects; and has lectured thereafter, for fifteen successive week-day evenings, to crowded and attentive audiences. His health had been feeble for the last nine or ten months immediately preceding his death; but still, with an energy and zeal which knew no obstacles too formidable to be vanquished, he continued to labor. His time, attention, and commanding talents have been devoted to the investigation and dissemination of the principles of the science of Phrenology for the last sixteen or eighteen years. He has Lectured almost incessantly ; and it is to be regretted that he lectured so Much, and wrote so Little : for had his observation and experience been placed on record, the hundreds of thousands who have been delighted with his instructions might still have continued to take lessons from their teacher. But Oral instruction seemed to be his Forte. He was a ready, captivating, and persuasive speaker.


ÌÇĐÄÊÓÆ” two weeks before his last and fatal attack, being confident that his days were few, he made the singular request, and often repeated and insisted upon it, that he should be buried North and South, with his feet directed to the South, and that the writer should take his head from his body, and secure its perpetual safe preservation. His first wish has been complied with; he is buried in our village grave-yard with his feet to the South; and I have his head in my possession, and have adopted such measures as cannot fail to secure it. He often said that the contemplation of the human head had been a matter of great and absorbing interest with him for many years, and he could not bear the thought that His should become food for worms.”

The remainder of the letter provided a detailed listing of Dr. Parnell strengths and weaknesses, written from a phrenologist point of view as if Parnell head had been examined.

That Dr. B. A. Parnell died in Manchester, was buried in the Old Burying Ground, and his head removed and preserved was a given at this point. That his primary fame was as a phrenologist, not an anti-slavery lecturer, also seemed evident. But many other questions were left unanswered. What additional information about the man existed? What exactly is phrenology, and what role did it play in the mid-nineteenth century? And who were Fowler and Wells mentioned by Annetta English in her History?

Figure 1 – The original Presbyterian Church in Manchester, and subsequently both a Methodist and Baptist church, currently housing offices at 122 W. Main – site of Dr. B. A. Parnell lectures in 1847

Ìę

What is Phrenology?

Phrenology is the study of the structure of the skull, to determine a person’s character and mental capabilities. It originated in the late 18^th century with a Viennese physician named Franz Joseph Gall, who postulated that the mind is composed of several distinct, innate faculties, with separate seats or “organs” within the brain. The size of an organ, other things being equal, is a measure of its power, with the shape of the brain determined by the development of the various organs. Since the skull was believed to conform and take its shape from the brain, its surface was considered an accurate index of psychological aptitudes and tendencies. By examining the shape and unevenness of a head or skull, one could discover the development of different intellectual aptitudes and character traits.

Phrenology became a rapidly growing “science” in the United States in the 1820s and 1830s, and persisted into the first decades of the 20^th century. It was a common practice for traveling phrenologists to give lectures and conduct examinations in small towns as part of an “educational” tour. A phrenological exam involved running the fingertips and palms over the skulls of patients to feel for enlargements or indentations. The phrenologist would usually take measurements of the overall head size using a caliper. With this information, the phrenologist could assess the character and temperament of the patient, and address each of the 27 “brain organs” in which specific attributes were centered. This type of analysis was often used to predict a child’s future, determineÌę university admissions, assess prospective marriage partners, and provide background checks for job applicants.

In the Victorian age, phrenology, as a forerunner of psychology, was taken seriously and permeated the literature and novels of the day. Many prominent public figures actively promoted it as a source of psychological insight and self-knowledge. Consequently, the idea of phrenology as a science waned and became more closely associated with the popular psychology of the day. It can be compared to psychoanalysis which would influence social thought and relationships a century later. Beginning in the 1840s, phrenology in North America also became part of a counter-culture movement evident in the appearance of new dress styles, communes, mesmerism, and a revival of the use of herbal remedies.

Figure 2 – A Phrenological Illustration of a Person Innate Mental Organs, by Orson Fowler

Back to Dr. Parnell

Internet research provided an extensive listing of Dr. Parnell appearances and the accolades that followed him throughout the Midwest during the 1830s and 1840s. In addition to this regional recognition, he received support from national phrenologists such as Fowler & Wells. So great was his esteem as a lecturer that he addressed Ohio House of Representatives in 1842.

As noted during his Ohio visit: “Dr. Parnell has been lecturing, for several evenings, to crowded houses, on the science of Phrenology. Last evening, he was blindfolded, and requested to examine the head of a distinguished citizen, whom, though entirely unknown to him, he described, it is said, ‘to the life’. Phrenology ain’t dead yet. Better come to us, and buy some of O. S. Fowler’s books, the cheapest and best practical work.”

In 1835, he lectured in Quebec at a large St. Patrick Day gathering, where, “having examined and turned all the heads before and being present at said dinner”, he was toasted to the tune of the popular children song of the time “The Hunting of Hare”:

Oh what science can compareÌę

To the one that through our hair,Ìę

Can by feeling, can by feeling,Ìę

Tell the feelings that must guide us:Ìę

To Phrenology I’ve turned,Ìę

And I sing of what I’ve learnedÌę

From Parnell,— Dr. Parnell,—Ìę

Who’s a monstrous clever fellow,Ìę

Clever fellow.Ìę

This song went on to achieve widespread popularity throughout North America.

Another Michigan believer in phrenology wrote: “We had the pleasure, during the winter of ’39, of hearing that prince of phrenologists, Dr. B. A. Parnell of Maine, lecture. He was an able and eloquent lecturer, and was not only the first who introduced that would-be science to the people of Battle Creek, but he was the best, not excepting the Fowlers. He was a Webster, not only in physique and personal appearance, but in intellectual and oratorical powers as well. He was the great expounder of phrenology, and gave it more prominence with the general public where he lectured than any other advocate of that new science during his day.”

The authors found dozens of glowing references to Dr. Parnell work in Michigan and the Midwest. All records refer to him simply as “Dr. B. A. Parnell”, never identifying his first name or any other biographical information about him. It took considerable research in early editions of the Ann Arbor Argus to locate his first name. Early newspapers in Washtenaw County would identify mail being held at the post office for pickup by the addressee, and it was here that several references to mail waiting for Dr. Buckley A. Parnell were found. Land purchase records for Buckley A. Parnell in the 1830s were also found in Ionia and Van Buren Counties. We surmise that he felt his given birth name was not dignified or appropriate to a man of his education or beliefs in those times, so he simply stopped using it.

There are no known records of his parents, early life, his age, any marriage or any other biographical information on Dr. Parnell. Census records prior to 1850 list only the head of the household, and he has not been found in any census data. One admirer referred to him as coming from Maine, but that is the only detail we have. Dr. Parnell apparently was a true “road warrior” who had no permanent home. Instead, he lived an unencumbered life, traveling from town to town giving lectures for 15-20 years, subsisting on speaking fees and the generosity of patrons along the way.

The True Democrat (Ann Arbor), May 4, 1847, reprinted an obituary originally appearing in the Marshall Expounder. It repeated much of what Calvin Townsend wrote as described above, adding that, even in ill health, Parnell agreed to a lecture, the proceeds of which would be devoted to the purchase of a bell for one of our village churches. The remainder of the obituary includes a very graphic description of his last hours. The funeral was attended by all the clergymen of Manchester village, plus a large audience of townspeople.Ìę Rev. Taylor of the Presbyterian Church preached an impressive discourse from Psalms 90^th, 3^rd verse.Ìę Parnell burial, which was carried out in accordance with his requests, was in the most beautiful part of the graveyard; a high steep bank overlooking the river, i.e., on the northwest corner of the grounds near Washington Street.Ìę The obituary concluded with a plea to Mr. Parnell friends in Marshall to help provide a suitable monument to mark his final resting place. This was not done, and Parnell grave was eventually lost among the other 75-100 Manchester pioneers still resting in the Old Burying Ground.

Click HERE to read part 2!

Figure 3 – Manchester Old Burying Ground on Washington Street. Dr. Parnell grave is at the high point of the cemetery, overlooking the River Raisin.

Have you read part 1? Click HERE to read part 1!

Parnell Head

As he requested, Dr. Parnell head was removed, preserved and shipped to Fowler & Wells in New York City. The brothers Lorenzo Niles Fowler (1811-1896) and Orson Squire Fowler (1809-1887) were two of the leading phrenologists of their time. But their success lay more in commercialization and entrepreneurial activities than in advancing the scientific theories of phrenology. Orson, together with his associate Samuel Wells, started the Fowler & Wells phrenological business and publishing house in 1838. Orson Fowler is also well known for his promotion of octagonal homes and the presumed therapeutic power they contained. Lorenzo spent much of his life in England where he developed the phrenology head (a china head showing the location of a person phrenological faculties). It soon became a symbol of the discipline. Many Victorian homes displayed such heads as evidence of an educated and liberal-minded family.

Figure 4 – Victorian-Era Phrenological Bust, Typically Kept in Homes for ReferenceÌę

Figure 5 – The Traveling Phrenologist, as Portrayed by Joseph Becker in a 19^th Century Newspaper

Fowler & Wells also maintained an extensive collection of papers and a museum of phrenological specimens (preserved heads, crania, skulls, etc.) in New York City. Among this collection, a sketch of Dr. Parnell was recorded as being in the archives. The museum operated until its closure in 1911, and most likely was the final resting place of Dr. Parnell preserved head until the final bankruptcy of Fowler & Wells occurred in 1914. The authors contacted the New York Public Library for any records concerning the disposition of the archives and museum contents after the bankruptcy, both to track down the Parnell sketch, and, out of perhaps morbid curiosity, what had become of Parnell head.

The family business papers were located in archives at Cornell University, where Parnell sketch may still exist. There is no specific mention of the museum artifacts at Cornell, but a 1971 publication entitled Heads and Headlines: The Phrenological Fowlers, by Madeleine B. Sterns, states that Charlotte Fowler Wells, both a sister of the Fowler brothers and the wife of Samuel Wells, maintained a cabinet collection of busts, crania and portraits assembled by Fowler & Wells through the years, and was seeking an $18,000 donation around 1910 to construct the necessary museum for housing these artifacts at Cornell. The required funding could not be raised due to the growing dismissal of phrenology as a valid science by this time, and the collection of busts, crania and other materials were dispersed or destroyed. An 1875 catalogue of the Fowler & Wells collection of physical busts, preserved heads, etc. is also listed as being at Yale University Library, but contact with Yale indicated this book as “missing” from the shelves.

Now for the Ghost
.

Dr. Parnell came back to haunt Manchester in an unexpected way some 53 years after his passing. On May 24, 1900, Mat Blosser reported in the Manchester Enterprise a story entitled “Now Wants His Head”. After a fairly inaccurate summary of Dr. Parnell background, Blosser related the burial story as we have described it above, and then stated:


“One of our citizens who is troubled somewhat with insomnia, informed the ENTERPRISE that he often wanders over there to the old grave yard in the gray of the morning, before the glorious orb of the day has gilded the clouds or the birds begun their songs of praise. He told us how he once sat down on the little mound [Parnell grave], and must have fallen asleep. Finally he heard a voice saying, “I want my head”, and asking who made the demand was told that it was Parnell. “Well”, replied our friend, “I haven’t got your head.” “But you’re a citizen of this place, aren’t you?” “Yes.” “Well, fifty years ago they cut off my head, and now I want it back.” “I don’t know anything about that”, our friend replied, “but say, if you have gotten along all this time without a head, I don’t see why you should be in such a hurry for it now.” ÌÇĐÄÊÓÆ” this time our friend awoke
”

Blosser often editorialized about the sad state of the original burying ground during his ownership of the paper, demanding the Village and its residents remove and rebury the remaining bodies in Oak Grove Cemetery, and thus continued his preaching:

“The old burying ground is also the resting place of some of our earliest residents. A few marble slabs, and an occasional board once painted white, can be found hidden in the tall grass or tangle of brush and vines. The grounds might be made a pleasant spot, but they have been abandoned. If something is not done before long, there may be a rattling among the dry bones over there and more of our citizens be disturbed by “Low from the grave a doleful sound”.

As of 2014, Dr. B. A. Parnell is still there on top of the hill, and Manchester original cemetery remains unmarked.

Phrenology still exists as a “science” under study by several individuals and organizations. See . As proof of its practice today, in 2007 the State of Michigan included “phrenology services” among those businesses to be subject to a 6% service tax. We guess the State still believes in probing the skulls of its taxpayers for useful information.

Figure 6 – Dr. Parnell Broadside, Printed in Ann Arbor, 1830s

by Fritz Swanson

In order to know that we know things, we have to have justification for our beliefs. We justify our beliefs using arguments that we accept can be proven false. We build our arguments out of claims and support. And all the while our goal isn’t victory, it the truth, whatever the truth may be.

Argument for me is both a discipline and it is an ethic. It there to help me shape my thoughts, and to provide me with guidance for action.

Toward that end, I’d like to add another useful concept to this discussion so that we can really apply this discipline in our lives practically. In the ancient world, at the first stage of argument there was a process of investigation called Stasis Theory.

The idea of Stasis Theory is that every claim is, on some level, an answer to a question. And there are only a minimal set of questions possible. Defining these questions helps us in a few ways. It gives us clear guidance as to how we can structure our own arguments. It gives further guidance in assessing other people arguments. And when we are in conflict with someone that we didn’t plan for, it can help us discover the exact nature of our conflict.

In all ways, Stasis Theory is designed to calm a debate. When Stasis Theory provides a question, it gives the argument a clear endpoint. If we can answer the question, we can settle that part of the dispute. It is SO IMPORTANT that you understand this element. If you enter into a debate, you have to agree to the terms of the debate. Stasis Theory helps to set those terms clearly. If you agree to those terms, then when the question is answered you have to accept the results. If you don’t accept the answer to a question, the argument just ends there. If you DON’T agree to those terms, then you aren’t really arguing at all. You’re just fighting, and that doesn’t get anyone anywhere.

As they say, we must shed light, not heat.

So, what are the questions? Historically there were four, but today we recognize five. And they flow in a very natural order. They are questions of Fact, Definition, Evaluation, Cause and Policy.

1. Fact: Is this real? Did this happen?
2. Definition: Does this thing qualify? Does this fit our definition?
3. Evaluation: What is the quality of this thing? Is it good or bad? How do we judge it?
4. Cause: What has caused this thing? What will this thing cause?
5. Policy: Who should handle this thing? What should we or they do?

Basically every argument out there is either purely the answer to one of these questions or, more likely, an answer to some combination of these questions.

And just as these questions can define the kind of claim we might make, they also give us some structure to the reasoning we would use when presenting our evidence. As we look at each in turn, we can see both the kinds of claims it produces, as well as the form its reasoning will take.

ARGUMENTS OF FACT

An argument of fact is an argument about whether an event occurred or a thing exists.Ìę

Murder cases, for example, must always start with this argument. Someone might be missing, for example, but unless we can find a body, we can’t even start a homicide investigation. So our first question here is: Did death occur? If we find a body, we can at least answer that first question and then proceed.

Science, similarly, starts with this kind of argument. Questions about the Loch Ness Monster always start with basic questions of fact. Did you see something? Do you have a photograph? A Video? But the same is true when investigating more mundane stuff.

Often we don’t know we need to make this argument, because we don’t know we are looking for anything until it appears. That why I sometimes think of this as the Argument of Discovery. While it can seem very basic, obviously it also includes big events in history.

This kind of argument relies most heavily on the presentation of evidence. Though, depending on the question, actually acquiring the evidence can be subtle and difficult. It easy to prove that it is raining. It is harder to prove there is moisture in the air. Still harder to demonstrate that germs are present on a surface, or that radiation exists.

Special tools are often the outcome of a debate about a fact. The microscope and the telescope are both good examples.

ARGUMENTS OF DEFINITION

Arguments of fact almost immediately slip into this second argument. Arguments of definition look at the thing discovered and ask, “What KIND of thing is this?”

The reasoning of a Definitional Argument is criteria based. That means that we take the object we are investigating and compare it to a list of criteria to see if it matches the list or not.

For example, there has long been a debate in Michigan as to whether there are mountain lions in the state. This starts as a factual argument: Did you see a cat? And then it becomes a definitional argument when you wonder: What kind of cat is it? You’ll see this play out when a trail cam photo of a cat is shared in the news and people argue over how big the cat is. When they do that, they are comparing the cat in the picture to a definitional criteria, which is Size.Ìę

The key to definitional arguments is where you get the criteria. You can either have Formal Criteria that you draw from expert sources, or you can develop your own criteria using what is called Operational Reasoning.Ìę

So, in the mountain lion argument, you might go to a zoological textbook and just gather the descriptive elements and use those to study the evidence. Those elements would be Formal Criteria.

Alternatively, Operational Criteria are gathered by comparing your subject to things that are similar. You might, for example, observe that the cat in the photo is bigger than the log it is standing by, and you’ve seen the log on the trail. You might then compare it to some house cats you have seen, and determine that the house cats are smaller than the log. By that operational reasoning you would say that the cat in the trail cam picture is larger than several house cats you have examined, which would suggest that it is NOT a house cat.

Whichever way you go, you are testing your subject against the criteria that you have established.Ìę

As you might imagine, you have three main tasks. First you need to observe your subject closely and collect all the facts that you can. Then you need to establish what criteria you will use. This is its own mini-argument, because you have to prove that your criteria are useful. Finally it is a simple test. It like testing a key in a lock. The key is the subject, the lock is the criteria, and your question is: “Does it fit?”

ARGUMENTS OF EVALUATION

Evaluative Arguments assess the quality of a thing. We are very familiar with these kinds of arguments. Product reviews, movie reviews, and even advertisements are evaluative in nature. And like definitional arguments, evaluations are built around criteria lists.

You might ask, which of these cars is the best? And of course the next problem you will have is, “What do I mean by ‘best car’?”Ìę

This is how evaluations are different from definitions. The criteria here are completely generated within the argument. With a definition you always have the fallback of going to an expert source. And even with Operational Criteria, you are constrained by the facts you can observe. But in Evaluations, it all basically operational.

The criteria here are Quantitative and Qualitative. A Quantitative Criteria for a car might include the speed of the car, or the horsepower. It could also include fuel economy and number of cup holders.

Qualitative Criteria are more difficult. Here you ask less certain questions like, “Which car is the most beautiful?” “Which car has the most interesting brand history?” “Which car owning community do I want to belong to?”

Picking your criteria is the key to an evaluative argument. If I recommended a car to you, and you asked WHY I liked the car, I am sure Color wouldn’t be enough to persuade you.

ARGUMENTS OF CAUSATION

Causal arguments are very tricky. They try to answer one of two questions: “What has caused this thing?” and/or “What will this thing cause?”Ìę

A lot of science is dedicated to these kinds of questions, and the answers can often be pretty technical. But still, we run into these arguments occasionally in our day to day lives. Whenever we try to figure out why something has gone wrong, we use causal reasoning. Another name for this reasoning can be Troubleshooting. Bakers do it, and handymen as well. Why has the light in the living room stopped working? Why is the cake so dry?

The key to causal reasoning is recognizing that there are different kinds of causes.

First there are NECESSARY causes. These are all the things that are needed for an effect to occur. Like, if someone gets into a car accident, driving a car would be a necessary cause. The fact that cars were invented is another one. The fact that a specific tree grew along the road is a third. You can see that there are many many NECESSARY causes, but they aren’t very helpful.

Second, there are PROXIMATE causes. These are the immediate events which precede, and precipitate an effect. So, again, with a car accident, the man hit the tree because he swerved. Or, the porch roof fell in because a boy leaned against a pillar, and the pillar fell over, so the roof was no longer supported and the roof fell.

But the real secret to causal arguments is to find the SUFFICIENT cause. The SUFFICIENT cause is the thing which, if you removed it, the effect wouldn’t have happened. If the deer had not leapt in front of the car, the man would not have swerved and hit the tree. If the pillar hadn’t been eaten away by termites, the boy never could have pushed it over, and the roof would not have fallen.

But figuring out what is SUFFICIENT is tricky.Ìę

ARGUMENTS OF POLICY OR PROPOSAL

Here we are asking “What should we do?” but we are also asking “Who should do it?” In the ancient world, this stage was a legal question. It was specifically focused on which official body should address the issues raised. And as you might have noticed, Stasis Theory today forms much of the basis of legal reasoning. But for our purposes, we can think about the Policy question as drawing on all the previous questions.

We might ask a definitional question here: “Which person or group best fits with the problem?”

Firemen put out fires for example. Or we might argue that parents are properly suited to teach their children about sex.

But if there are multiple things to be done, we might argue about which is best. Should we put this fire out with water or with sand? (And clearly, such a question might be framed by a question of fact: Which do we have on hand?)Ìę

And of course causal arguments naturally flow into policy arguments. We noticed for a long time that when people got into car accidents, it was their head crashing against the steering wheel that was the sufficient cause of death. And since we couldn’t remove the steering wheel, or make it out of pillows, we proposed to install a seatbelt that would hold the body upright during a crash. And then we supplemented it with an airbag.

Policy arguments in the real world are a combination of all the stasis questions, and can often get quite jumbled up. Which is why arguments in real life can feel so confusing.

WHAT THIS IS ALL ABOUT

In fact, right here, I am making a causal argument. The fact that policy arguments contain so many different kinds of arguments as defined by stasis theory is the SUFFICIENT cause of the confusion those arguments can create when we are talking to one another. And confusion can make people angry.Ìę

This is the SUFFICIENT cause of anger on Facebook, for example. It not because people are bad. People are arguing for complex policies on Facebook, and those policies rest on a whole series of often unstated and/or unexplored simpler arguments.Ìę

The anger on Facebook is because people are not systematic in the way they argue. They aren’t patient with one another, because they don’t have the tools to structure that patience. And maybe they aren’t thinking through the proper goal of argument, which is to discover what is true rather than to “win”. And maybe some people are doing all these things because they don’t care. And maybe some people WANT to bully, and to just “win” through force. But I don’t think that’s true for most people. I think most people want to discover what is right, and to do the right thing. But that’s a hard thing to do.

And that WHY I chose to write these editorials. Because I feel like I am well-suited to help. I can’t tell you what the outcome of an argument should be. But I can tell you how arguments are structured, and what they are for. And I think that information can help good people find the truth.

I love argument. But I hate fighting. We should cherish the first, because it is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. We NEED to argue because we need to know what is true. We can’t govern ourselves without argument. But we cannot allow undisciplined argument slip into mere ‘fighting’. Because fighting obscures truth, and it seems that some people would prefer fighting over finding truth.

Notice that now I am making both a definitional and an evaluative argument here. I am distinguishing arguments from fighting by saying that the key difference is that arguments are a search for truth. Arguments don’t presume what the conclusion should be. But I am also saying that arguments are good because they help us to make good decisions, and to work together for a common good. Fighting is bad, because it reveals no truth and forces people into tribal factions.Ìę

Fighting makes you ignore people who oppose you. Fighting prevents you from discovering the truth.

Ultimately, I am making a policy argument. I am arguing that in order to be a better citizen, or at least to be a kinder community member on Facebook, you should take the time to understand how to argue, and to understand WHY to argue.

Please read these editorials and think about them. And more importantly, use them as a starting point for your own investigation. I am an imperfect vessel. I can only explain these ideas in the ways I understand them. But these are ancient ideas, described by many thinkers, most of whom are much wiser and clearer than myself.

Learn how to argue. So we can stop fighting.

by Fritz Swanson

Arguments are for distinguishing true things from false things. And arguments are for making our best guess when we can’t be sure.Ìę

Imagine you have a pile of apples you’ve had for a while. You have to sit down and sort them, find the ones with bruises and with worm holes, and set them aside. The bad apples have to be pulled out so you can use the good apples. When you do this, you are going through a kind of argument.

This is important as a starting point, because many people think of arguments as a way to bully people, or as a way to exert power. But fundamentally, arguments are about sorting stuff. Arguments sort ideas into three piles: true ideas, false ideas, and ideas we don’t know enough about to judge yet. (That third pile is a lot bigger than you think).

The basic moves of argument are easy enough to understand, and can be described pretty quickly. An argument is made of two main parts, which are themselves made of two main parts.

An argument is a CLAIM that rests on SUPPORT. That the kernel of it.

A CLAIM is any statement. Literally any statement is a kind of argument. “Chairs are for sitting,” is a claim. “Captain America is a hero,” is another. “Netflix is not really television,” is a third. As you can see, some claims are more interesting than others. “John is a murderer” is probably a more interesting claim than “John is a florist.” But both are claims. These are claims because they can be proven false.

To understand this, you have to understand what a claim is made of. A claim is made of two parts.Ìę

The first part of the claim, the subject of the sentence, is an ISSUE or TOPIC. So if we look at the claims above, we can see that “chairs,” “Captain America,” “Netflix,” and “John” are all ISSUES or TOPICS raised for argument.

Basically any noun can be an issue that we argue over. Love, guns, democracy, etc. All of these are ISSUES.

The second part of a claim, the predicate of the sentence, is the POSITION you take on the issue. And the key here is that we know it is an argument because the position can be changed while the issue stays the same.

ISSUE + POSITION = CLAIM

I say that chairs are for sitting. My wife says that chairs are for standing on to reach things. My son says that chairs are for rocking in at the dinner table. And my cats say that chairs are for sleeping on, especially when they are in the sunshine.Ìę

Some of these claims might be right, some might be wrong. But the only way we can know for sure is if we SUPPORT the claim.

SUPPORT is also made of two parts. The obvious thing you may already know is that CLAIMS need to be supported with EVIDENCE. EVIDENCE is just any fact you can point to in the world. Chairs have flat seats designed for our backsides. That evidence.

But evidence alone only takes you so far. The other SUPPORT we need to make an argument is REASONING. REASONING is basically another argument, or a way of arguing. It a structure that you fit the evidence into. Imagine EVIDENCE like the pieces of colored glass in a stained glass window. REASONING is the metal frame that holds all those pieces in place.Ìę

EVIDENCE + REASONING = SUPPORT

So, I might say: A chair is for sitting because it has a flat part. That flat part was designed for my backside because, on this wooden chair, I can literally see the shape of a human backside carved into the wood.

The physical features of the chair are factual evidence. But my analysis of the intent of the designer of the chair is an inference that I am making. That is reasoning. Reasoning is itself a little argument, and so we can see that arguments can go in little loops. Arguments never stop because they are naturally finished. They stop when they arrive at an answer that is “good enough”. You can see here that even a simple argument about what chairs are for is not 100% airtight. There is always a bit of uncertainty in any argument.

It important to remember that arguments will always have these uncertainties. First, this should encourage you to be humble about everything you think you are certain about. If the use of a chair isn’t 100% clear, then your opinions about politics are probably even less certain. Second, this should encourage you to be patient with other people. Making arguments is hard, and you can’t ever prove anything definitively. If you think you have proven something definitively, that probably an indication that you haven’t thought about it hard enough. Certainty, in that sense, is a warning sign you should take seriously.

And remember, the goal of argument is to get as close to truth as we can. But what we can see right away is that there will always be uncertainty, even with things we think are obvious.

The final fundamental element of argument is that they always travel in pairs. Technically, any statement can be an argument. But we generally don’t bother to treat most statements as arguments. We don’t, for example, spend very much time worrying about the deep meaning of chairs. We just sit on them. Unless a cat is already there.

Instead, we pursue arguments when other people make claims that are different from the claims we make. And so we can see that arguments are a type of conversation. This is why we need to remember what arguments are for. If we approach a conversation as an opportunity to bully someone, or as a chance to exert power by “winning” we miss the point of argument. Argument is about finding truth. And that means, if we REALLY intend to argue, we have to accept at the start that we could discover a truth that is contrary to our claim.

We have to be willing to be proven wrong.

This is what makes arguments so hard. Because we have to choose our love of truth over the comfort of not ever being contradicted.

If we don’t accept that, then we aren’t really arguing at all. We’re just fighting. And that a very different thing.

by Fritz Swanson

In philosophy, one of the basic questions is “How do we know things?”Ìę

This is called “epistemology.”Ìę

It is worth thinking about HOW we know things. This is because nobody can know EVERYTHING. We will always have to rely on other people for knowledge.Ìę

For example, I know a lot about writing and about argumentation. I teach those skills for a living at a pretty good school. But I don’t know how to fix my car. I don’t know how to milk a cow. And I don’t know how to diagnose an illness. I have to rely on a mechanic to fix my car. And I have to rely on my doctor when I get sick. And I rely on dairy farmers to get the milk ready for my table.

The stuff that you don’t know is ALWAYS way bigger than the stuff that you do know.

But often, we have to make decisions about things that we don’t know about. And so, the first thing we have to be is HUMBLE.Ìę

For my part, I think a lot about all the things I don’t know. And I am especially thinking about all the things I CAN’T know.

But still, we have to make decisions. And so, we have to figure out how to JUDGE statements even if we can’t be certain about them. We should be cautious and humble when we look at new information, but we can’t be skeptical to the point of being cynical. Because distrusting everything can be just as dangerous as trusting everything. Distrust YOURSELF, not the world.

When I am worried about this hard to pin down kind of stuff, I go back and look at what philosophers have said. Because that what THEY know.

There are two powerful ideas about knowledge that I want to recommend to you as worth thinking about. First, there is a very old idea called Justified True Belief. This idea isn’t perfect in all cases, but I like it as a starting point. It was first proposed by Socrates more than 2,000 years ago, and it still pretty solid.

Let take it apart. We’ll start at the end with Belief. Belief is thinking any thought, and believing it to be true. Trees are made of fish. The sky is an upside down bowl. Cars are angry with me. If you choose to believe any sentence, then you believe it. Simple.

But it is the TRUE part that is important. “True” here just means that the belief you hold is an accurate description of the world. And you might think the definition of knowledge ends there. If I believe something that is true, I know it, RIGHT?Ìę

Wrong. The final part, Justification, is the key. Justification means that you have a well-reasoned and well-grounded belief. It means you have a valid argument that supports your belief, and that argument is founded in verifiable evidence.

This three-part theory may seem obvious, but it is the ground upon which our understanding of the world is built. This is what we teach when we teach students how to select evidence and build their arguments.

Socrates observed that a Justified True Belief and a True Belief may look the same, but that appearance is deceptive. He gave an example where there are two men who give directions to the same town, and they are both correct. But one man knows the way to the town because he has been there, and the other man has merely guessed. While both men have given good advice, if you went back to each man for further directions, you might find yourself in trouble. Because the man who only gives information he is sure of may not be able to give you directions to another town, because he has not been everywhere. But the man who merely guesses will happily give you directions, and may easily send you over a cliff.

The humble man, though he often admits ignorance or gives no opinion is more useful than the man who is always confident in his knowledge, but frequently wrong.

And so, when we look at the statements of others, we need to approach them with humility. We need to ask ourselves:

Is this just something that they believe? Can they show me evidence to support their statement? Can they EXPLAIN in a clear way how they got from their evidence TO their statement?

If not, then you don’t have to believe them. Because we want advice from people who have gone on the journey that gives them true knowledge. We don’t want mere guesses, even if they are sometimes correct.

The second idea I think is important is called “falsifiability.” To me, this idea gives us a better understanding of the “Justified” part of JTB Theory. When we say something is well-reasoned, part of what we mean is that the idea CAN be proven false, but evidence has not YET proven it false.Ìę

We can only KNOW something if it is something that can be proven false. Take the question: Is it raining outside? We can KNOW if it is raining or not, because we can check. It is falsifiable. The answer is either yes or no. By contrast, consider: Does a dragon dream of jelly beans? This is unknowable. We can’t check.Ìę

If you can’t check it, you can’t know it. And that where TRUST comes into knowledge. We have to think about things that CAN be checked, even if we personally can’t check them.Ìę

“Falsifiability” is a productive kind of humility. You operate from a position that you are uncertain about what you know, and that you are willing to be corrected if you are proven wrong. Falsifiability is an attitude that says you are ready to test your own ideas.

When you listen to other people, you want to ask yourself: Are they talking about things that can be checked? Do THEY have the ability to check on those things? Do they talk about their ideas in a way that shows they have checked? Do they have a process for changing their mind if further investigation shows they were wrong?

Or: Are they talking about things that can’t be checked? Are they talking about things they can’t check? Are they making statements that suit them? Are they open to being corrected? Have they ever changed their mind when new evidence was presented? And do they explain themselves in a way that you can follow?

On the one hand, these are simple ideas. But they are also challenging to actually fully comprehend. They force us to be disciplined and careful. They force us to accept our own limits, and to move slowly. They force us to be HONEST with ourselves. Am I believing something because I WANT to believe it? Am I believing something because it flatters me, or makes things more convenient for me? Or am I believing something because it is true, and because I can explain to others HOW it is true?

When you try to pin knowledge down with that kind of care, you quickly discover how little you ACTUALLY know.

Maybe a simple way to look at this is to pay attention to where people place their doubt. Do they doubt everyone else? Do they tell you to doubt everyone else? Or do they doubt themself, and encourage other people to put their ideas to the test? Do they change their thinking when presented with good evidence?

And for yourself, always ask: Are my beliefs well grounded? Or do my beliefs only tell me the things I want to hear? Can my belief be proven wrong? And if it was proven wrong, would I change my mind?

These are some of the questions to ask if you want to KNOW that you know things.

Former Riverfolk president and current board member Jim Horton is hard at work on the “Passport to Manchester” project.

Riverfolk and the Manchester Area Historical Society will be presenting eight live events over the course of 2021, and these physical passports will allow you to collect a record of each event as it occurs. As you can see, these handmade passports will be treasured keepsakes in their own right, and a perfect complement to the memories you will make when attending the event series over the course of the summer. (You can read our full coverage of the passports here.)

Horton, a lifelong resident of southeast Michigan, is an internationally renowned artist and printmaker. Each passport will have been letterpress printed and hand assembled by him in his studio on Waters Road. Each page will have a pocket for storing a keepsake from each event, as well as the space for a custom hand-stamp to be applied.

“Passports” may be obtained via Eventbrite and links will be provided for each event to help limit crowd size at events. All events are planned in four-hour blocks, from 10 am to 2 pm on Saturdays.

The proposed schedule of events:

• June 12,Ìę “19th Century Industries and living in East Main Street Homes” at the Village of Manchester
• June 26, “The Role of Water Power Industries and the Underground Railroad” at Sharon Mills County Park
• July 10, “19th Century homes on West Main” will be centered upon Wurster Park with a presentation on founder John Gilbert vision of a “village green”
• TBD, An agri-tour featuring the development of rural agriculture around Manchester, will feature the Gary Bross Farm in Sharon Township and Earl Horning Farm in Freedom Township
• August 14, “Native American Settlements in Manchester” will be hosted by Wayne and Julie Oliver at River Bend Gardens at the north edge of the village
• August 28, “Ford Village Industries” will be feature Henry Ford Conversion of Historic Water-Powered Mills to Industrial Production at both the Manchester Village Hall and Sharon Mills
• September 11, Farm Tour hosted by Manchester Blooms on Bethel Church Road
• September 25, Alber Orchard and Cider Mill will wind up the activities

The south side of the DD building and the pet grooming business does not yet have exterior siding on the walls. Building official Doug Parr says that according to state law, he cannot issue a certificate of occupancy until that is completed.

Everyone loves ice cream, and wants it to be available in Manchester!

Kids want ice cream after their baseball games. Parents want someplace they can let the kids go and not be worried about them. Seniors enjoy having a place to stroll and being able to find a nearby bench so they can watch the river go by. Visitors to town love having a place to grab a cool drink and an ice cream treat while browsing the businesses and other eateries around the village.

Owners Jeff and Crystal Fahey also want their ice cream shop to open. The Faheys have long served Manchester. For many years they operated the Dairy Queen along the river. A few years ago, they decided to convert the Dairy Queen into a non-franchise ice cream operation called the DD. As part of that transformation, they decided to remodel the building with an eye toward improving their business, and better serving the community.

So, why isn’t it open?

The Faheys have been speaking publicly on this issue for several months now. We spoke with Western Washtenaw Construction Authority (WWCA) Official Doug Parr to find out how he sees this situation.

Nearly two years ago, in July 2019, the remodeling work on the DD was still not complete. It was at that time that Parr allowed a temporary certificate of occupancy to operate for a shortened summer season, which ran through early November.

(During their last day of business that season, the Faheys donated all of the profits from their last day of sales, a total of $850, to the Community Resource Center.)

That temporary permit, however, had allowed the DD to be open only for the 2019 season. The permit was issued on the condition that necessary work would be completed before re-opening in 2020. At the end of that season, there still remained work to be done to fulfill the terms that Jeff Fahey had set himself in July. In public statements at village council meetings, and in other settings, the Faheys say that with the uncertainty of the COVID-19 crisis, they had trouble finding contractors who would do the work that was required for completion of the DD section of the building.

Parr explains, “The Michigan Building Code is set up so that if you have multiple uses or occupancies in a single structure, you can finish them one by one, get an occupancy permit for each one, and then move on. With the site being well under construction (in 2019) and going fine, I gave the Faheys a temporary Certificate of Occupancy on the DD portion, based on their letter establishing a timeline for the remainder of the work.”

Parr’s view is that because the Faheys were remodeling many parts of their building, the Code gave him the discretion to be lenient in the short term while they finished several different connected projects. As part of that leniency, however, Parr requested a letter from Jeff Fahey laying out a firm timeline for completion of the project.

According to documents shared by Parr under the Freedom of Information Act, thatÌę letter, signed by Jeff Fahey on July 14, 2019, cites the work that remained to be done and estimated a six-month timeline for completion, which would have been January, 2020 — two months before the COVID-19 pandemic arrived in Michigan in earnest.

“Some of the work mentioned in the letter still is not done,” Parr added.

The main sticking point is that full siding on the back of the building has not been completed. Until the back of the building is complete, Parr doesn’t view the DD as being in compliance. Parr acknowledges that Fahey believes the pandemic has prevented him from completing the back of the building. But Parr argues that the pandemic is not, to him, a sufficient excuse.

As Parr says: “[Fahey] is saying that the pandemic set back his schedule but I can tell you that for the 46 weeks we [the WWCA] were open in 2020, we set a record for building permits. In the past nine months, the last half of 2020 and the first quarter of 2021, we have already met our budgeted income for the year. So I can say that COVID really hasn’t stopped construction [for anyone else].

Parr went on to say: “When [Fahey] wanted to open last spring, I explained to him we could not do it like we did the year before. But I told him if you get a reputable contractor to set the timeline, I will accept those contracts as you making steps toward completing the project.

Parr does acknowledge that some progress has been made, saying: “He did get the cement work done, but I still have seen nothing about siding the building.”

Parr explained that siding the building with an approved material is extremely important to keep out the elements of Michigan’s winter weather, not to mention that insects and rodents can get in through cracks. Parr went on to note that there has been no caulking done on the parts of the building that have been exposed for a year and a half.

At the end of the day, Parr is adamant that the siding on the building must be completed before anything else can happen.

“I’m standing fast on the codebook,” Parr said. “I have to have some kind of guarantee that exterior siding will be finished before we can issue any occupancy permit.”

Fahey responds by saying that he has a permit to open from the Washtenaw County Health Department, and (during public comments at a recent village council meeting) asked why the village and the WWCA would hold him up if the Health Department would not.

Parr replies by saying that the Health Department’s permit is contingent on the building satisfying all building codes. Because the siding on the back of the building is incomplete, the building does not meet the code. And because it does not meet the code, the Health Department Permit is not valid. When the building meets the code, then the permit can be considered valid.

“I called Joel Underwood (at the Health Department),” Parr said. “He was very open with me. He told me straight out that the Health Department’s permit clearly has a contingency upon the business satisfying all state and local zoning and building codes.

Parr views the situation as very clear cut.

“The code book is State of Michigan Law,” he emphasized.

Parr went on to say, “I can reference Michigan Common Laws and show you where it says that everything in the building codes is state law. That’s how my position works.

Parr anchors his argument in his many, many years of experience. “What I bring to the table,” he noted, “is 52 years in the construction industry, 45 years with a master license; I’ve been a registered code official 16 years, and I’ve also served 30 years in local government. I know how the two have to mesh.

“I’m not a newbie in this field, and I’m not going to risk my reputation and my position.”

He concluded, “We can open the DD, but [Fahey] needs to get some contractors lined up. The prices are giving everyone sticker shock this spring, but we have a lot of construction going on despite that. Now, it’s the safety aspect I’m going at — I don’t think the building is safe for occupancy; it has been exposed to the elements for too long. There could be mold, bees nests, or other infestations.

“He needs to get it sided, get it caulked and get it done. That’s the only real issue right now.