When I began my schooling quite a few years ago, we didn’t have computers, there was no such thing as e-mail and we were lucky if we had a functional overhead projector (many of you might remember it as the predecessor to PowerPoint). And before that, teachers had to settle for a plain old blackboard as a means of presenting information to their students. In this ever-changing, fast-paced world, when it comes to presentation of information, it is presumed the quicker, the better. However, when you take into consideration just how quickly we’re moving, I have reason to believe that speed is not always a good thing when the minds of today’s youth are at stake.
With the advent of computers, it seems that a lot has been sacrificed. Writing, penmanship, proper word usage and vocabulary have all been taking a hit now that we have software programs that do all the work. Sure, when someone has horrific handwriting skills, it may be harder for the teacher to make out words; either way, it should be practiced regularly in the classroom for other reasons. Writing aides in the process of forming sentences and learning words and word usage. Like one of my old high school English teachers spouted off on a regular basis: “You ARE spell check.”
While I admit that I rolled my eyes just about every time those words escaped her lips, I totally understand what she was getting at all those years ago. Just because you have a machine that corrects spelling and, sometimes, grammar, that doesn’t mean it will fix everything. For example, if you type “witch” when what you meant was “which” or you type “right” when you should have entered “write,” you’re on your own. If you just let the computer do all the work, you may end up with correct spelling, but you’ll end up looking like an imbecile in the long run.
Having spent the better part of my educational career studying the English language, I have a keen disdain for people who misspell or use the wrong form of words ... especially when we have all this technology to give us the right answers. If it weren’t bad enough that generation X already has a difficult time comprehending the their/there/they’re, to/too/two and you’re/your conundrums, we now have messaging geniuses (and I use that term loosely, mind you) further corrupting the English language. For all of you out there who have, thus far, been lucky enough to avoid this plague, here’s a brief synopsis.
Beginning with the dawn of instant messaging, people, for some reason or another, decided to exercise their right to be lazy, exchanging a few letters for entire words or even whole sentences (i.e. brb = be right back; lol = laughing out loud; your/you’re = ur; nm = never mind; b4 = before). While those are just a few examples, it upsets me that these are becoming part of everyday interaction via this blasted thing we call the Internet and has become even more popularized since cell phone companies introduced text messaging. I’m not going to lie, I cringe every time someone sends me a text that says, “k, thnx.” I mean, I understand the message being conveyed, but did I somehow miss the memo about vowels becoming optional?
I guess I just don’t understand how people can be in such a hurry that all of that quality education just goes right out the window. All I know is I either hope this is just a passing trends or that I’m not around when this abbreviated language becomes everyday practice taught in a classroom. I shudder to think that, one day, there might be a class in school entitled “Introduction to Text Messaging.”
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Equality in Unity
A friend of mine recently made the comment to me that people shouldn’t get married anymore. While, at first, I found fault in that statement, it didn’t take me long to jump on board and agree with that sentiment, especially when you take the staggering divorce rate into consideration. Before I begin my rant, I’d like to take the time to congratulate my parents, who will celebrate their 32nd wedding anniversary this November. Having been there through the majority of their union, I know that it wasn’t always easy.
Marriage is work, meaning you have to actually make an effort if you want it to last. That seems to be a fatal error in most marriages. One or both parties doesn’t put forth the extra effort to work out their differences. Instead, they take so-called “easy” way out by filing for divorce. While, over time, people may grow apart and find that their lives just don’t mesh well anymore, oftentimes people just jump into the commitment too quickly or without thinking through the seriousness of the vows they’re taking. Like I said, I’m not a big fan of marriage; however, I wholly believe that everyone who wants to try their hand at monogamy, in the form of marriage or civil union, should be allowed the right to do so ... no matter what their sexual orientation.
That said, I think it’s quite obvious by now that I am in complete disagreement with last week’s Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that upheld the ban on gay marriages and civil unions. For some reason, I just don’t see what right the government has in determining who people should marry. I know that I wouldn’t want some matchmaker or – gasp! – my parents, choosing my spouse. So, why then, should the government be able to dictate who each individual can marry?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I have several close friends who just happen to be homosexual. Or maybe it’s simply because I wholeheartedly believe in the old saying that “all men are created equal.” And, as such, we should be treated equally, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. After all, this is the 21st Century. How are we going to continue to evolve as a species if we don’t allow for things like growth, change and open-mindedness? The vast majority of us no longer use a horse and buggy as a primary mode of transportation, so why is it that people insist upon living in the past when it comes to defining what a marriage should and should not be?
While I’ve heard many people take a religious approach to the subject, arguing that the Bible and dictionary both define marriage to be the sacred union of one man and one woman, there are many faults in those arguments.
First, I find difficulty in calling wedding vows sacred. Divorce has become far too common in this country for me to deem marriage a sacred union. Apparently, in this day and age, marriage just doesn’t hold the same bearing it once did. Just ask Elizabeth Taylor.
Next, there are those who believe that allowing homosexuals to legally marry will only devalue and weaken the institution of marriage ... as if the skyrocketing divorce rate is strengthening it.
Last, but certainly not least, is the definition of what constitutes a marriage. I apologize for not having my Bible handy, but if you look up “marriage” in Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary, you will find this definition: “(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law; (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.” How about that? Definitions can be redefined. Hopefully, one day, so will the laws of our great nation, which prides itself on its citizens’ freedoms.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Marriage is work, meaning you have to actually make an effort if you want it to last. That seems to be a fatal error in most marriages. One or both parties doesn’t put forth the extra effort to work out their differences. Instead, they take so-called “easy” way out by filing for divorce. While, over time, people may grow apart and find that their lives just don’t mesh well anymore, oftentimes people just jump into the commitment too quickly or without thinking through the seriousness of the vows they’re taking. Like I said, I’m not a big fan of marriage; however, I wholly believe that everyone who wants to try their hand at monogamy, in the form of marriage or civil union, should be allowed the right to do so ... no matter what their sexual orientation.
That said, I think it’s quite obvious by now that I am in complete disagreement with last week’s Wisconsin Supreme Court ruling that upheld the ban on gay marriages and civil unions. For some reason, I just don’t see what right the government has in determining who people should marry. I know that I wouldn’t want some matchmaker or – gasp! – my parents, choosing my spouse. So, why then, should the government be able to dictate who each individual can marry?
Maybe it has something to do with the fact that I have several close friends who just happen to be homosexual. Or maybe it’s simply because I wholeheartedly believe in the old saying that “all men are created equal.” And, as such, we should be treated equally, regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. After all, this is the 21st Century. How are we going to continue to evolve as a species if we don’t allow for things like growth, change and open-mindedness? The vast majority of us no longer use a horse and buggy as a primary mode of transportation, so why is it that people insist upon living in the past when it comes to defining what a marriage should and should not be?
While I’ve heard many people take a religious approach to the subject, arguing that the Bible and dictionary both define marriage to be the sacred union of one man and one woman, there are many faults in those arguments.
First, I find difficulty in calling wedding vows sacred. Divorce has become far too common in this country for me to deem marriage a sacred union. Apparently, in this day and age, marriage just doesn’t hold the same bearing it once did. Just ask Elizabeth Taylor.
Next, there are those who believe that allowing homosexuals to legally marry will only devalue and weaken the institution of marriage ... as if the skyrocketing divorce rate is strengthening it.
Last, but certainly not least, is the definition of what constitutes a marriage. I apologize for not having my Bible handy, but if you look up “marriage” in Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary, you will find this definition: “(1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law; (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage.” How about that? Definitions can be redefined. Hopefully, one day, so will the laws of our great nation, which prides itself on its citizens’ freedoms.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
The Wait Is Over
I don’t know about y’all (sorry about that; I guess I still haven’t been able to shake off all the Wyoming), but July 5 cannot get here fast enough. In just a few days, those who walk into any restaurant, workplace or bar will be able to breathe a little easier, thanks to the new Smoke-Free Wisconsin Act that goes into effect Monday. Personally, I couldn’t be more thrilled.
Granted, I believe every individual has the right to do with their body what they will, whether that be covering it with tattoos, filling it with holes or ingesting substances like tar and nicotine. It’s a personal freedom to be able to make those kinds of decisions. But while the choice to smoke is up to the smoker, the state has every right to put a statute of limitations on it, especially when cigarette smoke is proven to be hazardous, not only to the smoker, but also to bystanders who inhale the smoke.
With so many other things in this world that cause cancer and put an end to the lives of many who are far too young to die, I can’t help but wonder why people are increasing their risk of contracting cancer on a voluntary basis. I, for one, went through a horrendous ordeal watching my grandfather slowly succumb to emphysema, which was the product of all his years as a chain smoker.
Believe me, I don’t have anything against people who smoke; they’re not bad people. Quite a few of my friends picked up the habit while we were in high school and, to this day, I still give them grief about it. As much as I would love them to just wake up tomorrow and quit, I realize that it’s easier said than done.
While I was at Country Fest over the weekend, I had numerous people ask me if I had a lighter. My comeback was usually, “No, I don’t smoke. It’s a disgusting habit.” About 95 percent of the time, the smoker was in complete agreement with me, acknowledging that they have either tried to quit at least once in the past or intend to do so when the smoking ban goes into effect. It’s just a very difficult habit to break and it really sucks for those who really want to quit, but simply can’t.
I also understand that some bar and tavern owners may be perplexed by the new smoke-free ordinance, but I really don’t think they should be overly concerned that their establishments will be negatively impacted. Contrary to popular belief, going smoke free will not ruin a business. If anything, the opposite happens.
When I waited tables at a brew pub back in Pinedale, Wyo., the business went through an ownership change. The pub, in turn, went from a smoking to a non-smoking establishment. In the beginning, there were quite a few regulars who didn’t particularly like the change, but eventually grew to accept it. In fact, business actually picked up because people who didn’t like the smoking aspect before started to frequent the place once it became a non-smoking establishment. Overall, I think there were maybe one or two people who refused to come back and chose to go elsewhere because of the no smoking policy.
Regardless, when you have an entire state making the switch, I have a hard time believing that all the people who smoke are going to boycott bars and taverns because they’re not allowed to light up. I mean, after all, this is Wisconsin ... we’re pretty much known for three things: the Green Bay Packers, exceptional cheese and our love of beer. Sure, it’s going to take a bit of time to get used to the idea, but, once that happens, I have a feeling it will lead to good things ... like a decrease in cigarette sales. For all those who have been toying with the idea of quitting, now is the perfect time to do it.
Jennie Oemig,
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Granted, I believe every individual has the right to do with their body what they will, whether that be covering it with tattoos, filling it with holes or ingesting substances like tar and nicotine. It’s a personal freedom to be able to make those kinds of decisions. But while the choice to smoke is up to the smoker, the state has every right to put a statute of limitations on it, especially when cigarette smoke is proven to be hazardous, not only to the smoker, but also to bystanders who inhale the smoke.
With so many other things in this world that cause cancer and put an end to the lives of many who are far too young to die, I can’t help but wonder why people are increasing their risk of contracting cancer on a voluntary basis. I, for one, went through a horrendous ordeal watching my grandfather slowly succumb to emphysema, which was the product of all his years as a chain smoker.
Believe me, I don’t have anything against people who smoke; they’re not bad people. Quite a few of my friends picked up the habit while we were in high school and, to this day, I still give them grief about it. As much as I would love them to just wake up tomorrow and quit, I realize that it’s easier said than done.
While I was at Country Fest over the weekend, I had numerous people ask me if I had a lighter. My comeback was usually, “No, I don’t smoke. It’s a disgusting habit.” About 95 percent of the time, the smoker was in complete agreement with me, acknowledging that they have either tried to quit at least once in the past or intend to do so when the smoking ban goes into effect. It’s just a very difficult habit to break and it really sucks for those who really want to quit, but simply can’t.
I also understand that some bar and tavern owners may be perplexed by the new smoke-free ordinance, but I really don’t think they should be overly concerned that their establishments will be negatively impacted. Contrary to popular belief, going smoke free will not ruin a business. If anything, the opposite happens.
When I waited tables at a brew pub back in Pinedale, Wyo., the business went through an ownership change. The pub, in turn, went from a smoking to a non-smoking establishment. In the beginning, there were quite a few regulars who didn’t particularly like the change, but eventually grew to accept it. In fact, business actually picked up because people who didn’t like the smoking aspect before started to frequent the place once it became a non-smoking establishment. Overall, I think there were maybe one or two people who refused to come back and chose to go elsewhere because of the no smoking policy.
Regardless, when you have an entire state making the switch, I have a hard time believing that all the people who smoke are going to boycott bars and taverns because they’re not allowed to light up. I mean, after all, this is Wisconsin ... we’re pretty much known for three things: the Green Bay Packers, exceptional cheese and our love of beer. Sure, it’s going to take a bit of time to get used to the idea, but, once that happens, I have a feeling it will lead to good things ... like a decrease in cigarette sales. For all those who have been toying with the idea of quitting, now is the perfect time to do it.
Jennie Oemig,
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Let Us Be Armed
As I've said in the past, I'm not a fan of guns. I don't hunt and I'm fairly certain that I'd be the type of person who would forget to put the safety on and end up shooting myself in the foot. I don't own a gun ... for my own protection. But seeing as how the Second Amendment grants every American citizen the right to keep and bear arms, it concerns me that Wisconsin has not legalized concealed carry of firearms. But what concerns me more is that concealed carry needs to be legalized in the first place. Why should individual states get to define how these constitutional amendments are applied?
First of all, if someone wants to own a gun – for protection, recreation or what have you – they have every right to do so. As of now, Wisconsin legally allows open carry, which requires citizens to keep the firearm in plain sight, but concealed carry is, for some reason, illegal. Given that we have the right to keep and bear arms, the manner in which each individual chooses to express that right should be up to the individual.
And while I'm aware that there are people out there naive enough to believe that maintaining laws against concealed carry is the answer to our problems with violence, it's not so easy. I mean, let's be realistic. Just because our state government says it's illegal to carry concealed weapons, that doesn't mean people don't do it. It's that rebellious nature in all of us. It's illegal to drink before you turn 21, but I'm fairly certain a large majority of the population, myself included, chose to ignore that little piece of legislation a time or two. Like the old saying goes, laws were made to be broken.
So if that's not a good enough solution, then what? Are we going to ban private citizens from owning weapons altogether? While I'm sure that would never happen (hunters simply wouldn't allow it), you can rest assured that, even with the strictest gun laws in place, we wouldn't be safe ... at that point, the only people who'd be armed would be criminals. While I still think that anyone who owns a handgun should go through a certain amount of training with that weapon, it's up to us to make the push to get concealed carry legalized. Besides, the more we allow our state government to encroach on our rights, the fewer we will have.
Limiting our right to keep and bear arms would be like taking away our right to vote ... though with this electoral college crap, it's hard for me to say whether or not our votes even make a difference. But that's a whole other can of worms I'll open some other day. All I know is that we can't let politicians walk all over their constituents. After all, they're supposed to be representing us.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
First of all, if someone wants to own a gun – for protection, recreation or what have you – they have every right to do so. As of now, Wisconsin legally allows open carry, which requires citizens to keep the firearm in plain sight, but concealed carry is, for some reason, illegal. Given that we have the right to keep and bear arms, the manner in which each individual chooses to express that right should be up to the individual.
And while I'm aware that there are people out there naive enough to believe that maintaining laws against concealed carry is the answer to our problems with violence, it's not so easy. I mean, let's be realistic. Just because our state government says it's illegal to carry concealed weapons, that doesn't mean people don't do it. It's that rebellious nature in all of us. It's illegal to drink before you turn 21, but I'm fairly certain a large majority of the population, myself included, chose to ignore that little piece of legislation a time or two. Like the old saying goes, laws were made to be broken.
So if that's not a good enough solution, then what? Are we going to ban private citizens from owning weapons altogether? While I'm sure that would never happen (hunters simply wouldn't allow it), you can rest assured that, even with the strictest gun laws in place, we wouldn't be safe ... at that point, the only people who'd be armed would be criminals. While I still think that anyone who owns a handgun should go through a certain amount of training with that weapon, it's up to us to make the push to get concealed carry legalized. Besides, the more we allow our state government to encroach on our rights, the fewer we will have.
Limiting our right to keep and bear arms would be like taking away our right to vote ... though with this electoral college crap, it's hard for me to say whether or not our votes even make a difference. But that's a whole other can of worms I'll open some other day. All I know is that we can't let politicians walk all over their constituents. After all, they're supposed to be representing us.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Cancer Touches Everyone
Because of its many forms and how common it has become, there is no doubt in my mind that everyone in the world knows at least one person who has been affected by cancer. It’s a terrible disease and, sadly, there is no cure ... at least, not yet.
Personally, I have not met a single person who hasn’t known someone – a relative, neighbor or friend – who has succumbed to, is battling or has overcome some form of cancer. My grandfather had skin cancer at one point and it is because of breast cancer that I was never able to meet my maternal grandmother. However, one of the saddest things about the disease is that it is not age discriminant. Infants, youth, teenagers, elderly ... they are all susceptible. And while, oftentimes, cancer tends to sneak up on people and take them by surprise, my personal story is a little different. I am in no way saying that I am worse off than anyone else who has had to deal directly or indirectly with cancer, but, like I said, everyone has a story. This is mine.
Imagine living your life knowing that, regardless of what you do, your chances of contracting cancer are about 80 percent. Welcome to my world. When I was 11, I developed a rash on my leg that was eerily similar to that caused by poison ivy. Considering I played Little League and was always running around in the backyard, it didn’t seem all that peculiar. My mom blotted some calamine lotion on it and I was good to go. Or so we thought. The next morning when I awoke, the rash had not only spread, but both my ankles were completely swollen. I could barely walk and, by the end of the day, my hands had swelled to the size of grapefruits, as well. From my perspective, it was unbelievably scary not knowing what was happening to me, so I can only imagine how my parents felt.
On my first visit to the doctor’s office, which would be the first of hundreds, my family physician was stumped by what was happening to me. I vividly remember him paging through textbooks and calling for consultations to try to figure out what it was I had. After being referred to a pediatrician in Marshfield, it was determined I had ulcerative colitis, a disease that affects about 50 out of every 100,000 people in the United States. Over the next few years, I became a human pincushion, in and out of clinics so often that the receptionists and phlebotomists knew me by name. Because of my age, UC seemed like the right diagnosis, but it wasn’t until a few years later that physicians determined I was afflicted with Crohn’s disease, which has very similar symptoms to UC, making it difficult for doctors to tell the difference. But, since there is no cure for Crohn’s disease, all I can do is hope that it stays in remission. Thus, I have been and will be on medication for the rest of my life.
If that weren’t enough, those who have Crohn’s for eight years or more are increasingly more prone to develop colon cancer – the longer you have it, the greater the chances. So, 16 years in, that risk is already becoming too great for my liking. All I can do now is wait ... wait for the cancer or hope I’m one of the lucky ones who doesn’t develop it. But, given my track record, luck is rarely on my side. I’m better off hoping a cure for cancer comes along. And that cannot be done without the generosity of people who donate to the American Cancer Society and partake in events like the run/walk. I’ve never lived in such a giving community like Arcadia and it warms my heart to know that there are so many people who care so much to give their time and hard-earned money to such a worthy cause. You all deserve huge pats on the back for all that you’re doing to make a difference.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Personally, I have not met a single person who hasn’t known someone – a relative, neighbor or friend – who has succumbed to, is battling or has overcome some form of cancer. My grandfather had skin cancer at one point and it is because of breast cancer that I was never able to meet my maternal grandmother. However, one of the saddest things about the disease is that it is not age discriminant. Infants, youth, teenagers, elderly ... they are all susceptible. And while, oftentimes, cancer tends to sneak up on people and take them by surprise, my personal story is a little different. I am in no way saying that I am worse off than anyone else who has had to deal directly or indirectly with cancer, but, like I said, everyone has a story. This is mine.
Imagine living your life knowing that, regardless of what you do, your chances of contracting cancer are about 80 percent. Welcome to my world. When I was 11, I developed a rash on my leg that was eerily similar to that caused by poison ivy. Considering I played Little League and was always running around in the backyard, it didn’t seem all that peculiar. My mom blotted some calamine lotion on it and I was good to go. Or so we thought. The next morning when I awoke, the rash had not only spread, but both my ankles were completely swollen. I could barely walk and, by the end of the day, my hands had swelled to the size of grapefruits, as well. From my perspective, it was unbelievably scary not knowing what was happening to me, so I can only imagine how my parents felt.
On my first visit to the doctor’s office, which would be the first of hundreds, my family physician was stumped by what was happening to me. I vividly remember him paging through textbooks and calling for consultations to try to figure out what it was I had. After being referred to a pediatrician in Marshfield, it was determined I had ulcerative colitis, a disease that affects about 50 out of every 100,000 people in the United States. Over the next few years, I became a human pincushion, in and out of clinics so often that the receptionists and phlebotomists knew me by name. Because of my age, UC seemed like the right diagnosis, but it wasn’t until a few years later that physicians determined I was afflicted with Crohn’s disease, which has very similar symptoms to UC, making it difficult for doctors to tell the difference. But, since there is no cure for Crohn’s disease, all I can do is hope that it stays in remission. Thus, I have been and will be on medication for the rest of my life.
If that weren’t enough, those who have Crohn’s for eight years or more are increasingly more prone to develop colon cancer – the longer you have it, the greater the chances. So, 16 years in, that risk is already becoming too great for my liking. All I can do now is wait ... wait for the cancer or hope I’m one of the lucky ones who doesn’t develop it. But, given my track record, luck is rarely on my side. I’m better off hoping a cure for cancer comes along. And that cannot be done without the generosity of people who donate to the American Cancer Society and partake in events like the run/walk. I’ve never lived in such a giving community like Arcadia and it warms my heart to know that there are so many people who care so much to give their time and hard-earned money to such a worthy cause. You all deserve huge pats on the back for all that you’re doing to make a difference.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Words of Advice For The Class of 2010
With graduation right around the corner, I would like to take the time to share some words of advice with the Class of 2010 ... I'd say words of wisdom, but the approach I took to secondary education could barely be described as wisdomous. Nine years ago, I was in the same position as many of the high school seniors, I'm sure. Donning my cap and gown, the question of 'what next?' echoed in my head all throughout the commencement ceremony. Sure, I had signed up to take online accounting courses via Chippewa Valley Technical College, but was that what I really wanted? Clearly, I'm not a CPA or in a field even remotely related to accounting. Throughout high school, I excelled in math and was really good with numbers ... but the same was true for English and writing.
Many of my instructors told me that I had an aptitude for writing, but, as I looked to the future, all I saw were dollar signs. Accounting was a much better paying career than anything that had to do with writing. But, as I got older – and wiser, if I do say so myself – I realized that no amount of money would make it worth doing something I hated. I have seen so many of people out there whine about how they hate their jobs that I knew I didn't want to end up like that. After a semester and a half of online classes, I was barely eking out a C average, most likely because I wasn't enjoying the coursework. So, when spring rolled around, I applied to UW-River Falls and was accepted.
At first, I declared myself a business major, but after dropping out half way through my first semester for medical reasons, I wanted to start over. Taking some much-needed time off, I was refreshed. With a clean slate, I went back with an undeclared major and took lots of elective courses until I found my niche. From there, it was smooth sailing; after working at the college newspaper, I was more sure than ever that I wanted to go into journalism. Funny thing is that back when I was in high school, everyone in my class had to meet with the guidance counselor and take tests to determine interest, as well as skill set, for particular careers.
When all was said and done, each of us had to write down what we wanted to be ... even if we weren't sure. Last summer, while I was cleaning my old room in my parent's house, I found that very piece of paper with the career I had intended for myself written upon it. Lo and behold, I did not write accountant; ironically, I had written the word journalist. Who would have guessed I knew, before I had even entered college, where I would end up in life? It's said that it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind (I sure take advantage of that), but I think it's everyone's prerogative to be able to change their path in life. After all, it's your life. You can't look to others to make you happy and you certainly shouldn't let others make up your mind for you.
As Stevie Wonder once said, "You can't base your life on other people's expectations." My parents were pretty disappointed when I decided not to follow through with accounting, but I think, when they see the smile on my face when I talk about my job now, they know it was the right choice for me. So, in essence, I think the whole point of this long diatribe about my experiences is not to be afraid to make mistakes; learn from them, grow. And while it may sound cliche, when choosing a career path, don't put your salary before your life's passion because money will never be able to buy you happiness.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Many of my instructors told me that I had an aptitude for writing, but, as I looked to the future, all I saw were dollar signs. Accounting was a much better paying career than anything that had to do with writing. But, as I got older – and wiser, if I do say so myself – I realized that no amount of money would make it worth doing something I hated. I have seen so many of people out there whine about how they hate their jobs that I knew I didn't want to end up like that. After a semester and a half of online classes, I was barely eking out a C average, most likely because I wasn't enjoying the coursework. So, when spring rolled around, I applied to UW-River Falls and was accepted.
At first, I declared myself a business major, but after dropping out half way through my first semester for medical reasons, I wanted to start over. Taking some much-needed time off, I was refreshed. With a clean slate, I went back with an undeclared major and took lots of elective courses until I found my niche. From there, it was smooth sailing; after working at the college newspaper, I was more sure than ever that I wanted to go into journalism. Funny thing is that back when I was in high school, everyone in my class had to meet with the guidance counselor and take tests to determine interest, as well as skill set, for particular careers.
When all was said and done, each of us had to write down what we wanted to be ... even if we weren't sure. Last summer, while I was cleaning my old room in my parent's house, I found that very piece of paper with the career I had intended for myself written upon it. Lo and behold, I did not write accountant; ironically, I had written the word journalist. Who would have guessed I knew, before I had even entered college, where I would end up in life? It's said that it's a woman's prerogative to change her mind (I sure take advantage of that), but I think it's everyone's prerogative to be able to change their path in life. After all, it's your life. You can't look to others to make you happy and you certainly shouldn't let others make up your mind for you.
As Stevie Wonder once said, "You can't base your life on other people's expectations." My parents were pretty disappointed when I decided not to follow through with accounting, but I think, when they see the smile on my face when I talk about my job now, they know it was the right choice for me. So, in essence, I think the whole point of this long diatribe about my experiences is not to be afraid to make mistakes; learn from them, grow. And while it may sound cliche, when choosing a career path, don't put your salary before your life's passion because money will never be able to buy you happiness.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
Whatever Happened to "An Eye For An Eye"?
While I’ve never been one to consider myself an inhumane individual – I’m the type of person who swerves to avoid hitting squirrels ... not to mention I absolutely hate guns – I’ll be the first to admit that abolishing capital punishment is a heinous idea. Recently, there have been a slew of articles written in favor of abolishing the death penalty all across the country. Personally, I don’t see why Wisconsin, or any of the other 14 states (and Washington, D.C.) that have already abolished the death penalty, chose to do so. I once read somewhere that revenge is the primary motivation behind capital punishment and that true healing can only happen through forgiveness and repentance. As true as that may be for some, it still astounds me that taxpayers would rather keep murderers alive – and pay to do so – instead of ridding the world of them altogether. And in this faltering economy, there seems to be a peculiar upswing in murder rates.
In Chippewa County, alone, there have been three murders since late February. That’s an average of one a month, people. Speaking as a former resident of that county, that’s a staggering statistic. Clearly, criminals are not perturbed by the thought that life in prison is the worst punishment they will receive if convicted. Hell, for some, that may be a step up from how they’re living now. I mean, in prison, they’ll be served three meals a day and have free room and board without having to go out and earn a living or have any major responsibilities. Aside from living with the guilt – though some may not even feel that emotion – of taking a life, it’s a fairly easy way to get by ... and on taxpayer dollars, no less. I don’t know about you, but it really burns my toast that our hard-earned money is going toward housing these criminals. Whatever happened to the old “eye for an eye” philosophy?
According to Amnesty International, one of the primary anti-capital punishment organizations, “the death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life ... It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.”
Surely our forefathers would look at us and laugh that we’re refusing to put people to death because it’s “cruel and unusual,” especially considering how said human being got to that point in the justice system in the first place. I, for one, think it’s cruel and unusual for a deranged man to stab a teenager to death while he sleeps. But given that Wisconsin doesn’t have the death penalty and he’s entered an insanity plea, I’m sure he’ll get off easy. And, while we’re on that subject, I don’t care much for the idea that murderers can plead insanity and be given the benefit of the doubt – and the possibility of a lesser sentence. Sure, that individual may have been acting in a fit of rage or in the heat of the moment, but does that make them any less of a threat to society? Not in my eyes. Is it just me or is our liberal justice system being a little too liberal in its treatment of cold-blooded murderers?
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
In Chippewa County, alone, there have been three murders since late February. That’s an average of one a month, people. Speaking as a former resident of that county, that’s a staggering statistic. Clearly, criminals are not perturbed by the thought that life in prison is the worst punishment they will receive if convicted. Hell, for some, that may be a step up from how they’re living now. I mean, in prison, they’ll be served three meals a day and have free room and board without having to go out and earn a living or have any major responsibilities. Aside from living with the guilt – though some may not even feel that emotion – of taking a life, it’s a fairly easy way to get by ... and on taxpayer dollars, no less. I don’t know about you, but it really burns my toast that our hard-earned money is going toward housing these criminals. Whatever happened to the old “eye for an eye” philosophy?
According to Amnesty International, one of the primary anti-capital punishment organizations, “the death penalty is the ultimate denial of human rights. It is the premeditated and cold-blooded killing of a human being by the state in the name of justice. It violates the right to life ... It is the ultimate cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment.”
Surely our forefathers would look at us and laugh that we’re refusing to put people to death because it’s “cruel and unusual,” especially considering how said human being got to that point in the justice system in the first place. I, for one, think it’s cruel and unusual for a deranged man to stab a teenager to death while he sleeps. But given that Wisconsin doesn’t have the death penalty and he’s entered an insanity plea, I’m sure he’ll get off easy. And, while we’re on that subject, I don’t care much for the idea that murderers can plead insanity and be given the benefit of the doubt – and the possibility of a lesser sentence. Sure, that individual may have been acting in a fit of rage or in the heat of the moment, but does that make them any less of a threat to society? Not in my eyes. Is it just me or is our liberal justice system being a little too liberal in its treatment of cold-blooded murderers?
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)