Having grown up with music as a vital part of my everyday life, I don't think I could go a day without my iPod, the CD player in my truck or my laptop – no joke, my iTunes library could play for nearly nine days straight without repeating a single song. And considering I grew up in the generation between cassettes and mp3s, my CD collection is beyond immaculate. I haven't counted recently, but I'm fairly certain I have close to 750 albums. Needless to say, music has always been a huge part of my life, as I can recall my brother and I spending hours upon hours listening to 45s on my parent's turntable at a very young age. "Splish Splash" by Bobby Darin "Peggy Sue" by Buddy Holly and "Honey" by Bobby Goldsboro were a few of my favorites.
It's because of this particular love that I acquired for music at a young age that I decided to join band when I was in junior high. Though I never had piano lessons as a kid and had never touched an instrument in my life, I was intrigued when all of my friends started taking lessons for their respective instruments. Not one to always go with the crowd, I figured this was something that my parents would actually approve of me doing. So I signed up for lessons. Originally intending to play either the flute or clarinet, the woodwinds didn't work out for me. After working with my band director to find a better fit, I started playing percussion, which I did until my sophomore year of high school when my studies became a higher priority. It was a great experience that I wouldn't trade for anything.
Regardless of the fact that I didn't stick with it, I thoroughly enjoyed learning about music and understanding the different notes. My brother, on the other hand took a different approach to music, teaching himself how to play guitar and, eventually, attending what is now the McNally Smith College of Music in Minneapolis. He has since made running sound for a couple small-town bands his second job, which, ironically, he loves more than his primary source of income. So when I see a school like Independence having to cut back in areas like music, it pains me. There are so many kids out there who are musically inclined and they're not going to have the opportunity to show off those abilities.
In essence, these kids will end up being punished due to budgetary constraints, something which they, more than likely, cannot even comprehend at this point in their lives. While I understand that something needs to take a hit, I truly believe that the music department is the wrong place. In addition to alleviating stress by increasing the body's release of endorphins, music has been found to play a significant role in childhood development. Not only is learning to play an instrument fun and challenging at the same time, but studies have found that music instruction also promotes cognitive development, verbal skills and emotional intelligence. In this day and age where surfing the Internet, watching TV, playing video games and texting are considered acceptable hobbies, I think now, more than ever, it's extremely important to make sure kids have something like music to occupy their time.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Justice System Fails Us Again
During one of the most controversial and talked about cases of the decade, a jury in Florida was recently asked to decide the fate of a woman accused of killing her two-year-old daughter. While I thought the case was pretty cut and dried, what with the evidence pointing to foul play, the jury in the Casey Anthony murder trial decided otherwise, acquitting the 25-year-old mom of first-degree murder. In my eyes, the justice system has failed us again. This helpless little girl was killed three years ago and, as of yet, no one is behind bars paying for it. In that respect, it eerily reminded me of the O.J. Simpson case, minus the infamous black glove and white Bronco chase, that is.
What disturbs me more is that some of the jurors have come forth saying they don't think Anthony is innocent, blaming lack of concrete evidence on their choice to acquit. Aside from the fact that Casey failed to report her daughter missing for 31 days, she seemed to be a habitual liar. She lied about being employed at Universal Studios and about Zanny Fernandez-Gonzalez being her daughter's nanny. On top of that, it was this "nanny" who Casey accused of kidnapping Caylee. You basically couldn't believe a word that came out of her mouth.
When the remains of the young girl's body were found, there were several pieces of duct tape on the face of the skull; this alluded to the fact that the child was likely suffocated before being disposed of in a wooded area. However, Casey claimed her daughter drowned in the family pool and that her father, George, a former police officer, tried to make it look like a homicide by taping the girl's mouth and dumping her in the woods … near the family's residence, no less. First of all, who would ever take the risk of covering up an accidental death by making it look like a homicide? I mean, I've heard of murderers doing the exact opposite, but her story makes absolutely no sense. If the drowning was determined to be accidental, Anthony would be charged with, at worst, negligence. Why would she want to make it look worse and call herself into question if she were, in fact, innocent?
And then there was the evidence of decomposition in Casey's car and the discovery of Internet searches of how to make and use chloroform, as well as the terms "neck breaking" and "death," on Casey's computer. In addition, the same type of laundry bag, duct tape and plastic bags found at the crime scene were also found in the house which Casey and Caylee lived in. Needless to say, when I learned that the jury had rendered a not guilty verdict last week, I was shocked and totally disappointed in our justice system. Now, Casey will be released from prison after serving time for providing false information to the police. All I can hope is that she never, ever decides to reproduce again.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
What disturbs me more is that some of the jurors have come forth saying they don't think Anthony is innocent, blaming lack of concrete evidence on their choice to acquit. Aside from the fact that Casey failed to report her daughter missing for 31 days, she seemed to be a habitual liar. She lied about being employed at Universal Studios and about Zanny Fernandez-Gonzalez being her daughter's nanny. On top of that, it was this "nanny" who Casey accused of kidnapping Caylee. You basically couldn't believe a word that came out of her mouth.
When the remains of the young girl's body were found, there were several pieces of duct tape on the face of the skull; this alluded to the fact that the child was likely suffocated before being disposed of in a wooded area. However, Casey claimed her daughter drowned in the family pool and that her father, George, a former police officer, tried to make it look like a homicide by taping the girl's mouth and dumping her in the woods … near the family's residence, no less. First of all, who would ever take the risk of covering up an accidental death by making it look like a homicide? I mean, I've heard of murderers doing the exact opposite, but her story makes absolutely no sense. If the drowning was determined to be accidental, Anthony would be charged with, at worst, negligence. Why would she want to make it look worse and call herself into question if she were, in fact, innocent?
And then there was the evidence of decomposition in Casey's car and the discovery of Internet searches of how to make and use chloroform, as well as the terms "neck breaking" and "death," on Casey's computer. In addition, the same type of laundry bag, duct tape and plastic bags found at the crime scene were also found in the house which Casey and Caylee lived in. Needless to say, when I learned that the jury had rendered a not guilty verdict last week, I was shocked and totally disappointed in our justice system. Now, Casey will be released from prison after serving time for providing false information to the police. All I can hope is that she never, ever decides to reproduce again.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
No Way Around Raising Debt Limit
As we wrap up the celebration of our nation's birthday, a black cloud, in the form of the national debt limit, still looms. While I can denounce raising the United States' debt ceiling until I'm blue in the face, it seems down right ominous. I, like the Republicans in Congress, would love to deny increasing the debt limit until some huge spending cuts are made. However, the fate of this country hangs in the balance. If the debt limit is not raised by Aug 2, the United States will begin defaulting on its colossal debt. Of course, in order to get everything approved before payments come due, the actual deadline for the increase is, in essence, only a couple weeks away.
So what happens if Congress decides against raising the country's debt limit? Well, for starters, the government will default on a $30 billion interest payment on the debt already owed. As anyone who has ever failed to pay the minimum payment for their credit card can attest, that means higher interest rates. If the United States is already paying $30 billion in interest payments, I'd hate to see what a higher rate would do. But, no matter what, I don't think the economy would ever be able to recover if the government defaulted on those loans.
Depending upon how he chooses to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment, President Barack Obama could go against the wishes of Congress and raise the debt limit anyway. Our forefathers very eloquently worded the Constitution to work for them in 1776, but, since that era, loopholes have been discovered. So, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and included the phrase, 'The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned,' I highly doubt it was meant to give the president the authority to do as he so pleases when it comes to the debt limit. There has also been talk of Republicans agreeing to a mini deal if it were necessary to prevent a governmental shutdown. While it would be a short-term solution, it would allow the government to make the upcoming payments and give legislators time to come up with a long-term solution.
As I write this, more information has come out saying that negotiations are not far from being resolved. Of course, no deal can be complete without some cuts being made; unfortunately, the cuts in question are likely to come from student aid, farm subsidies and federal employee retirement plan. Though it would be nice to see legislators take cuts in their salary, it would likely be a cold day in hell before that would ever happen. For all I know, this could be a moot point and Congress may already be in the process of agreeing to some sort of deal by the time you read this. But, I guess if it was up to me, I'd take the mini deal, which would buy time for politicians in Washington to determine the best course of action on how to deal with the country's debt issues.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
So what happens if Congress decides against raising the country's debt limit? Well, for starters, the government will default on a $30 billion interest payment on the debt already owed. As anyone who has ever failed to pay the minimum payment for their credit card can attest, that means higher interest rates. If the United States is already paying $30 billion in interest payments, I'd hate to see what a higher rate would do. But, no matter what, I don't think the economy would ever be able to recover if the government defaulted on those loans.
Depending upon how he chooses to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment, President Barack Obama could go against the wishes of Congress and raise the debt limit anyway. Our forefathers very eloquently worded the Constitution to work for them in 1776, but, since that era, loopholes have been discovered. So, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and included the phrase, 'The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned,' I highly doubt it was meant to give the president the authority to do as he so pleases when it comes to the debt limit. There has also been talk of Republicans agreeing to a mini deal if it were necessary to prevent a governmental shutdown. While it would be a short-term solution, it would allow the government to make the upcoming payments and give legislators time to come up with a long-term solution.
As I write this, more information has come out saying that negotiations are not far from being resolved. Of course, no deal can be complete without some cuts being made; unfortunately, the cuts in question are likely to come from student aid, farm subsidies and federal employee retirement plan. Though it would be nice to see legislators take cuts in their salary, it would likely be a cold day in hell before that would ever happen. For all I know, this could be a moot point and Congress may already be in the process of agreeing to some sort of deal by the time you read this. But, I guess if it was up to me, I'd take the mini deal, which would buy time for politicians in Washington to determine the best course of action on how to deal with the country's debt issues.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, June 28, 2011
A Lesson in Invincibility
Every time a new superhero movie comes out, children are overcome with the notion that they can do everything Superman, Spider-Man, Batman or The Green Lantern can do. As role models, they are far from ideal; no one can fly faster than a speeding bullet or leap tall buildings in a single bound. Kids were all caught up in having unique powers and fighting crime. Then, along came "Jackass" to ruin that superhero facade. A quirky MTV show in which everyday Joes put themselves through ridiculous tasks and pull outlandish pranks on one other in order to make people laugh and earn big bucks, "Jackass" gave kids something new to aspire to – idiocy.
Though every episode of the series, which eventually went on to make millions of dollars in theaters all over the world, was prefaced with distinct instructions that people not try the stunts at home, I think it's safe to say that was hardly a deterrent. Sad, but true, these gents became heroes in the eyes of many people from my generation. While horribly tragic in nature, I think the events that transpired early last week will leave a lasting impression on everyone who watched the cast of "Jackass" perform raunchy and often life-threatening stunts. And that message is trifold: no one is invincible and speeding, as well as getting behind the wheel drunk, can be lethal.
When I first heard the news that Ryan Dunn's life had been unexpectedly cut short at the age of 34, I was absolutely stunned. I mean, here's this stunt man who risks life and limb to earn his paycheck and it's a car accident that takes his life. It just did not seem possible. Having watched "Jackass" when it first debuted on MTV back in 2000, I continued following the hijinks of Dunn and company on Viva La Bam and Wildboyz, right on through to the box office blockbuster "Jackass 3D." I practically grew up with those guys. As such, when I heard the news of Dunn's death, it took a while to really sink in; like so many others, I never knew the guy personally, but it felt as though I had lost a friend.
And as the details of the accident began to come out, all I could do was shake my head. Dunn had his entire life ahead of him, a career most would kill for and he ruins it by drinking and driving. Not only that, but his recklessness also took the life of his friend, Zachary Hartwell, a newlywed who survived three tours of duty in Iraq. Though his is probably the most controversial passing since Elvis Presley, as some are inclined to believe it's all just an elaborate hoax and that Dunn is very much alive, I hope his death helps open the eyes of today's youth. Sure, parents and teachers can point out the dangers of drinking and driving, but seeing someone they look up to and idolize pay the ultimate price might actually help get the message across.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Though every episode of the series, which eventually went on to make millions of dollars in theaters all over the world, was prefaced with distinct instructions that people not try the stunts at home, I think it's safe to say that was hardly a deterrent. Sad, but true, these gents became heroes in the eyes of many people from my generation. While horribly tragic in nature, I think the events that transpired early last week will leave a lasting impression on everyone who watched the cast of "Jackass" perform raunchy and often life-threatening stunts. And that message is trifold: no one is invincible and speeding, as well as getting behind the wheel drunk, can be lethal.
When I first heard the news that Ryan Dunn's life had been unexpectedly cut short at the age of 34, I was absolutely stunned. I mean, here's this stunt man who risks life and limb to earn his paycheck and it's a car accident that takes his life. It just did not seem possible. Having watched "Jackass" when it first debuted on MTV back in 2000, I continued following the hijinks of Dunn and company on Viva La Bam and Wildboyz, right on through to the box office blockbuster "Jackass 3D." I practically grew up with those guys. As such, when I heard the news of Dunn's death, it took a while to really sink in; like so many others, I never knew the guy personally, but it felt as though I had lost a friend.
And as the details of the accident began to come out, all I could do was shake my head. Dunn had his entire life ahead of him, a career most would kill for and he ruins it by drinking and driving. Not only that, but his recklessness also took the life of his friend, Zachary Hartwell, a newlywed who survived three tours of duty in Iraq. Though his is probably the most controversial passing since Elvis Presley, as some are inclined to believe it's all just an elaborate hoax and that Dunn is very much alive, I hope his death helps open the eyes of today's youth. Sure, parents and teachers can point out the dangers of drinking and driving, but seeing someone they look up to and idolize pay the ultimate price might actually help get the message across.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, June 21, 2011
GOP Prospects Look Promising
Though the 2012 election is well over a year away, the politicking is already in full swing. Seven candidates are vying for one spot on the Republican ticket to go head to head with President Barack Obama come November of next year. Considering the fact that John McCain and Sarah Palin were the last duo to grace the ballot on the Republican side of the presidential ballot, the most recent GOP debate has given me reason to believe that Obama may have his work cut out for him. Former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney, former Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty, Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, Atlanta businessman Herman Cain, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and Texas Congressman Ron Paul all took part in last week's debate and I think a few of them could actually make good on the promise to make Obama a one-term president.
Of the seven, Romney and Bachmann stood out as viable opponents; of course, there's always the chance that people will find more confidence in businessman Cain over career politicians. Regardless of who ends up on the ballot, there's no way any of them could be considered a worse choice than leaving Obama in office for another four years. First of all, I don't think anyone has been impressed with the so-called change that Obama promised before he was elected to become the 44th president of the United States. With oil prices through the roof and the housing market in the toilet, I think it's safe to say that more change is in order. That is, unless, you're happy paying $4 a gallon for gas, watching the U. S. dollar rapidly decrease in value and don't have a problem with record unemployment rates.
When I took economics back in college, I was taught that a lot of the economy's ups and downs were a pattern that would occur no matter who was in office at the time. And, typically, the president in office at the time is blamed for a great deal of the hardships the country sustains. So, could all of the problems we're facing be chocked up to bad timing due to the fluctuating economy? Perhaps. But there is definitely room for improvement when the leader of our nation doesn't consider having 24 aides on staff for the sole purpose of providing support for the first lady wasteful spending. Keeping that many staffers on the payroll for someone who doesn't perform any official duties is absolutely ludicrous.
And, without a doubt, the repeal of Obamacare should be a high priority for Republicans; I can't imagine how putting the federal government in control of healthcare could accomplish anything positive. And resurrecting the floundering outlook for manufacturing jobs is something that needs attention, as well. Regardless of who ends up representing the GOP, the next presidential election will certainly be one for the history books – and, hopefully, one that brings about the right kind of change this country needs.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Of the seven, Romney and Bachmann stood out as viable opponents; of course, there's always the chance that people will find more confidence in businessman Cain over career politicians. Regardless of who ends up on the ballot, there's no way any of them could be considered a worse choice than leaving Obama in office for another four years. First of all, I don't think anyone has been impressed with the so-called change that Obama promised before he was elected to become the 44th president of the United States. With oil prices through the roof and the housing market in the toilet, I think it's safe to say that more change is in order. That is, unless, you're happy paying $4 a gallon for gas, watching the U. S. dollar rapidly decrease in value and don't have a problem with record unemployment rates.
When I took economics back in college, I was taught that a lot of the economy's ups and downs were a pattern that would occur no matter who was in office at the time. And, typically, the president in office at the time is blamed for a great deal of the hardships the country sustains. So, could all of the problems we're facing be chocked up to bad timing due to the fluctuating economy? Perhaps. But there is definitely room for improvement when the leader of our nation doesn't consider having 24 aides on staff for the sole purpose of providing support for the first lady wasteful spending. Keeping that many staffers on the payroll for someone who doesn't perform any official duties is absolutely ludicrous.
And, without a doubt, the repeal of Obamacare should be a high priority for Republicans; I can't imagine how putting the federal government in control of healthcare could accomplish anything positive. And resurrecting the floundering outlook for manufacturing jobs is something that needs attention, as well. Regardless of who ends up representing the GOP, the next presidential election will certainly be one for the history books – and, hopefully, one that brings about the right kind of change this country needs.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, June 14, 2011
Migraines Possibly Genetic
Having suffered from migraines for the better part of a decade, I've always been curious as to why I am afflicted with them. Though the exact cause of migraines has long been a mystery, over the years, I have blamed it on my job, which has required that I sit in front of a computer monitor for hours at a time, as well as my love for loud music. There are a great deal of possible triggers that have been linked to migraines, namely stress, fatigue and hunger, but something as simple as bright light or exposure to loud noises, can also set off migraine attacks. Aside from the fact that migraines can last for days, the one thing that is truly unnerving about migraines is that popping three or four Tylenol doesn't have the least bit of an impact on the pain. Add to that the fact that the slightest sound can make the intensity of these headaches increase exponentially, and even the simple act of sleeping can be agonizing.
While sitting here writing this column, my head throbbing intensely just from staring at the computer screen (which is dimmed as far as it can be so as not to further anger the beast), I came across an interesting article regarding migraines. However, a recent study has shown that genetics could play a role in this debilitating condition, which is described as a brain disorder in which neurons, or brain cells, respond abnormally to stimuli. Well, how about that. After all these years, my dad's theory that I'm not right in the head is somewhat true. Regardless, migraines, which are three to four times more common in women, only affect about 20 percent of the population.
If only I had the same luck at winning the lottery as I have with medical anomalies. This new study, which was published in Nature Genetics, found variations in three genes that appeared more frequently in migraine sufferers. One of these genes was found to only be present in females who are afflicted with migraines. To think, after all these years of dealing with migraines, I have blamed my lifestyle choices when I should have been blaming my relatives.
Now, many of you are probably wondering why this is such a big deal to me. To think that, one week ago, I knew absolutely nothing about why I was suffering from migraines, this new information provides great optimism for not only me, but for millions of migraine sufferers. Though I don't necessarily think research into migraines is as important as, say, cancer research, this discovery is a step in the right direction. My hope is that this is only the first in a series of revelations that will help scientists gain a better understanding of migraines. As much as it would be wonderful to eliminate cancer once and for all, it would also be a huge relief to never have to deal with migraines again.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
While sitting here writing this column, my head throbbing intensely just from staring at the computer screen (which is dimmed as far as it can be so as not to further anger the beast), I came across an interesting article regarding migraines. However, a recent study has shown that genetics could play a role in this debilitating condition, which is described as a brain disorder in which neurons, or brain cells, respond abnormally to stimuli. Well, how about that. After all these years, my dad's theory that I'm not right in the head is somewhat true. Regardless, migraines, which are three to four times more common in women, only affect about 20 percent of the population.
If only I had the same luck at winning the lottery as I have with medical anomalies. This new study, which was published in Nature Genetics, found variations in three genes that appeared more frequently in migraine sufferers. One of these genes was found to only be present in females who are afflicted with migraines. To think, after all these years of dealing with migraines, I have blamed my lifestyle choices when I should have been blaming my relatives.
Now, many of you are probably wondering why this is such a big deal to me. To think that, one week ago, I knew absolutely nothing about why I was suffering from migraines, this new information provides great optimism for not only me, but for millions of migraine sufferers. Though I don't necessarily think research into migraines is as important as, say, cancer research, this discovery is a step in the right direction. My hope is that this is only the first in a series of revelations that will help scientists gain a better understanding of migraines. As much as it would be wonderful to eliminate cancer once and for all, it would also be a huge relief to never have to deal with migraines again.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
How Lewd!
Seeing as how we live in a society that pretty much revolves around the Internet, smartphones and social media, I think it's safe to say that scandalous events are, sadly, becoming more and more common. Whether it be a professional athlete, movie star, politician or just your average citizen, our ever-growing dependence on technology has made it more and more difficult for individuals to maintain any sort of privacy. And that begs another question; why is what anyone does in the privacy of their own home any of our business?
That being said, I think the fact that so many public figures are being outed for their lapses of judgment has been inevitable – and even more so since social media has evolved to what it is today. Yes, public figures should be more cautious about how they are portrayed and try to be the best role models they can be, but I have serious qualms about the way in which their privacy is constantly invaded. I honestly think our society has become so wrapped up in what celebrities are doing that we have lost sight of what's truly important. Did the fact that Brett Favre sent lewd photos to a sideline reporter really affect how he played football? No more than the late Wilt Chamberlain's reputation as a womanizer affected his basketball skills, I'm sure.
But I digress. This week, Rep. Anthony Weiner, a democrat from New York, admitted that he sent a lewd photo to a female college student over Twitter and lied repeatedly to protect himself. While Weiner declared that what he did was a "hugely regrettable mistake," especially since he's a public figure, he has refused to resign. So, does this married politician not think what he did, as well as lying and admitting to inappropriate contact with six other women via social networking sites and over the phone, was inappropriate? Apparently not, as he has adamantly declared that he had done nothing wrong.
Though I'm sure he will continue to be the butt of many jokes in late-night talk show monologues, I can somewhat understand why he has chosen not to step down. When you look at the indiscretions of former president Bill Clinton and former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, who had extra-marital affairs while in office, what Weiner did is a somewhat trivial matter. To be honest, if every politician were to step down for their unsavory actions, it would be difficult to keep people in office. After all, these individuals are only human and, as humans, they are sure to have lapses in judgement just like anyone else. Regardless of the fact that they are held to a much higher standard, they, too, deserve second chances.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
That being said, I think the fact that so many public figures are being outed for their lapses of judgment has been inevitable – and even more so since social media has evolved to what it is today. Yes, public figures should be more cautious about how they are portrayed and try to be the best role models they can be, but I have serious qualms about the way in which their privacy is constantly invaded. I honestly think our society has become so wrapped up in what celebrities are doing that we have lost sight of what's truly important. Did the fact that Brett Favre sent lewd photos to a sideline reporter really affect how he played football? No more than the late Wilt Chamberlain's reputation as a womanizer affected his basketball skills, I'm sure.
But I digress. This week, Rep. Anthony Weiner, a democrat from New York, admitted that he sent a lewd photo to a female college student over Twitter and lied repeatedly to protect himself. While Weiner declared that what he did was a "hugely regrettable mistake," especially since he's a public figure, he has refused to resign. So, does this married politician not think what he did, as well as lying and admitting to inappropriate contact with six other women via social networking sites and over the phone, was inappropriate? Apparently not, as he has adamantly declared that he had done nothing wrong.
Though I'm sure he will continue to be the butt of many jokes in late-night talk show monologues, I can somewhat understand why he has chosen not to step down. When you look at the indiscretions of former president Bill Clinton and former South Carolina governor Mark Sanford, who had extra-marital affairs while in office, what Weiner did is a somewhat trivial matter. To be honest, if every politician were to step down for their unsavory actions, it would be difficult to keep people in office. After all, these individuals are only human and, as humans, they are sure to have lapses in judgement just like anyone else. Regardless of the fact that they are held to a much higher standard, they, too, deserve second chances.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)