New OWI Laws Not Stricter ... Just Less Lenient

With the passage of these new so-called stricter laws to curb operating while intoxicated (OWI), I found myself asking one question ... why are people still being allowed second and third chances? Understandably, I realize that Wisconsin is a state that produces and consumes umpteen million gallons of beer and alcohol every year - it’s what we do. However, there’s no excuse for the number of OWI arrests (the highest in the nation) and the outrageous statistics regarding deaths as a result of impaired motorists on our roadways. In 2008, alone, 234 people were killed and another 4,000 injured because of drunk drivers.

What really concerns me is that lawmakers actually think making a fourth drunk driving offense a felony is going to ease the problem. In reality, that just means that people who have been arrested for OWI three times within five years might be slightly more cautious. How does that solve anything? If you ask me, the first OWI should be a felony ... as it is in every other state; it’s not something that should be taken lightly. There’s no excuse for allowing someone convicted of OWI three more attempts to kill innocent motorists, passengers or pedestrians.

While I realize taxpayers could possibly see increased fees for housing inmates, chances are they would rather pay that price than deal with the possibility of having a loved one killed by a drunk driver. If state lawmakers really want to crack down on drunk driving and deaths related to it, maybe they should make a real attempt at passing stricter OWI laws. Changing the felonious nature from fifth offense to fourth offense - and only if the occurrence takes place within a five years of the third offense - can hardly be considered what some of the headlines heralded last week’s actions : “Assembly cracks down on drunk driving”; “Legislature approves stricter drunken driving rules”; “State passes tougher OWI bill.”

From what I’ve read on the issue (and from what Assembly Majority Leader Tom Nelson and Rep. Chris Danou explained to me during a visit on Friday), I’m still not sold on the use of the words “stricter”, “stiffen” and “tougher” to describe the legislation. Personally, I think they should be replaced with words that tell the story the way it is - “less lenient” seems to be a phrase that makes sense and is quite a bit more accurate.

One representative, Marlin Schneider, D-Wisconsin Rapids, even voted no on the bill because he believed it would do nothing to help the drunk driving problem in the state. Perhaps when the legislators gets around to making the second offense a felony, then we can pull out words like “tougher” and “stricter.” The only headline I could get on board with was the La Crosse Tribune stating that the “Bill stiffens DUI penalties,” which it does. Instead of mostly taxpayer money funding the incarceration of those found guilty of OWI, the offender will see increased costs. As far as I’m concerned, that’s only fair.

And since we’re discussing the leniency of OWI laws, I have something else to add. Regardless of what is being done to curb drunk driving, I think it’s hypocritical of the state government to be passing these laws while Rep. Jeff Wood, who received his fifth OWI in October, is still a member of the Assembly.

Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader

It's Not Just For Smoking Anymore

For the past few years, I’ve questioned why pharmaceutical companies haven’t cashed in on the all-natural marijuana plant. Clearly, it has done wonders for those who have struggled with glaucoma. But it has other worthwhile medicinal aspects which could prove that the most overrated illegal drug just happens to be the most under-prescribed healing drug. In all seriousness, allowing medicinal marijuana to be legalized is a step in the right direction as far as I’m concerned. With the economy the way it is, I wouldn’t be surprised if marijuana is legalized altogether. Let’s face it ... if the drug were legalized, police departments wouldn’t have to deal with as many drug lords, the jails wouldn’t be as full and courts wouldn’t have to spend so much money sentencing growers, dealers and users. In essence, that also means less taxpayer dollars will need to be spent on arresting, prosecuting and housing these lawbreakers. But that’s quite a ways off yet; and regardless of how I think the national economy could benefit from the legalization of marijuana, that’s a topic for another day.

When you look at it from a pain patient’s perspective, it seems ridiculous that they cannot legally get rid of that pain without the possibility of being thrown in jail. Instead of receiving prescriptions for an addictive herbal drug, they are prescribed morphine, OxyContin, Vicodin, Percocet or other addictive narcotics ... kind of makes me question which is worse? So, for starters, let’s break down the side effects, shall we?

Morphine: lightheadedness, dizziness, nausea, anxiety, euphoria, mood swings, loss of balance, seizures, slow heart rate, confusion, low blood pressure, severe constipation, difficulty urinating and addiction ... and those are merely just the most common side effects.
OxyContin: dizziness, weakness, nausea mood swings, loss of balance, confusion, difficulty urinating, severe constipation, slow heart rate, low blood pressure, slow heart rate, irregular breathing, seizures, severe drowsiness and addiction.
Vicodin: lightheadedness, dizziness, anxiety, nausea, irregular breathing, slow heart rate, severe drowsiness, confusion, low blood pressure, difficulty urinating, severe constipation, liver damage and - if you watch “House,” you already know this last one - addiction.
Percocet: dizziness, lightheadedness, euphoria, dysphoria, nausea, severe constipation, liver damage, severe drowsiness, irregular breathing, difficulty urinating, anxiety, confusion and, of course, addiction.

I could name more drugs used to treat pain, but the side effects of most of them are the same as those I’ve already mentioned. And most of them are addictive drugs as well. And, oddly enough, some of the side effects of smoking marijuana are fairly similar: severe drowsiness, confusion, anxiety, increased heart rate, nausea, weakness and lightheadedness. Other side effects caused by marijuana use are increased appetite, hallucinations, aggressiveness, cognitive difficulties, infertility, impaired memory and comprehension, enhanced cancer risk, increased risk of heart disease and addiction. As I look over those side effects, I’m not sure which ones I would rather deal with: increased heart rate or slowed heart rate; increased appetite or severe constipation; liver damage or increased risk of cancer ... chances are doctors would be more able to supply treatment for cancer than to find a matching donor for a liver transplant. And, funny thing about that liver ... it’s one of those “can’t live without” organs.

Jennie Oemig,
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader

Does It Do a Body Good to Pasteurize Milk?

Considering we live in America’s Dairyland, I’m surprised it has taken this long for lawmakers to move on getting legislation approved to allow farmers the right to sell raw milk. However, with the leaps and bounds this country has seen in the way of technological advancement, I’m also shocked that there hasn’t been anything done to improve the quality of milk without adding chemicals via pasteurization, which only reduces the nutritional value.

Before milk is pasteurized, it is chock full of nutrients and vitamins that are good for the body. But once it is pasteurized, it isn’t all that good for you anymore. At 145 degrees, the pasteurization process destroys vitamin A and 38 percent of vitamin B complex. In addition, between 20 and 50 percent of the vitamin C in milk is also destroyed. Aside from vitamins, other healthy aspects of milk are also compromised during pasteurization. The soluble calcium that is important for growth and development is diminished and proteins in the milk are altered, which can increase incidence of heart disease.

But that isn’t all. The lacking nutritional value also results in poor infant development and increased likelihood of tooth decay (sure seems hypocritical that a beverage that’s supposed to be calcium-rich really isn’t). And what really gets my goat is that people who are lactose intolerant wouldn’t be if milk wasn’t pasteurized. When it goes through pasteurization, fat digesting enzymes needed to help digest milk are also taken out with all of the bacteria. Ironically, people aren’t actually intolerant of dairy products after all; they’re just not tolerant of the chemicals removing all of the good stuff. Who knew?

And while milk may be contaminated with bacteria and deemed “dirty” before it’s pasteurized, that’s not necessarily how it has to be. Because the milk has to go through the pasteurization process, it doesn’t have to be healthy to begin with. Anything that is unwanted, such as bacteria, is removed anyway. Thus, farmers can produce and sell “dirty” milk cheaply and not have to worry about keeping a clean dairy. Now, I’m not saying that this is traditional practice for dairy farmers, but pasteurization allows them to slack off a bit on maintaining clean, sterile milk-producing environments. However, if more farmers were held accountable for the production of their milk and weren’t required to have it pasteurized, it would not only improve dairy farmers’ incomes, but also make milk healthier for consumers.

While bacteria is taken out of milk before it’s bottled (jugged and put into cartons, I suppose, would be more accurate these days) and ends up in coolers at the local grocery store, people are missing some essential elements that fend off tooth decay and tuberculosis. Sure, pasteurization makes milk safer to drink in some regards, but does it really make milk it as healthy as it could be in the long run? After researching the pros and cons of pasteurization, I don’t think it can be successfully argued one way or the other ... which is why I am in agreement with Rep. Chris Danou and Sen. Pat Kreitlow on this issue. Farmers should have the ability to sell raw milk off their farms and people should be able to make their own decisions when it comes to what they put into their bodies.

Regardless of what happens with the bill lawmakers are trying to pass, something needs to be done to improve the way milk is produced and processed. If farmers aren’t allowed to sell raw milk, the industry needs to come up with a way to process milk without taking out all of the vitamins and other essential nutrients along with the bacteria. If it’s possible to have a little iPod store a gazillion gigabytes of information, why can’t bacteria be removed from milk some other way?

Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader

Unassured and Under-impressed With Insurance Mandates

The First Amendment guarantees everyone in America certain freedoms: the freedom to speak freely, the right to peaceably assemble and, my personal favorite, freedom of the press. But, thanks to the State of Wisconsin, I’m realizing that the freedom to choose a reasonable automobile insurance policy should have been included on that list. If only our forefathers would have known.

While I am required to carry full vehicle insurance for my truck due to my lienholder agreement, I am extremely happy that I have the freedom to decide how much insurance I have and which insurance company I have my policy through. So long as the insurance is legit, the lienholder is OK with it. However, when I went through the process of picking a new insurance policy recently, my parents suggested I shop locally. But seeing as how I don’t have a spotless driving record, I was quoted some pretty hefty numbers by two or three different agents. Thus, I went a different route.

But while I was shopping around, I was a bit put off when the insurance agents tried to tell me how much coverage I should have on my vehicle. Sure, they do this type of thing for a living and know what minimum levels the state expects drivers to carry, but I was not sold on letting someone who doesn’t even know me try to sell me something I didn’t really need. But that’s exactly what insurance agents are trained to do ... after all, they’re salespeople (nice attempt at being politically correct, eh?) In my experience, most salespeople don’t make the consumers’ needs their number one concern; the main priority is selling something in order to make a profit.

In the end, these agents are no different than any other salesperson trying to sell their product - in this case, insurance policies. But insurance agents already have an edge - most people already want or need to have their vehicles insured. Now, all the agent has to do is convince the client to upgrade to a pricier policy and add unnecessary things like roadside assistance.
And in Wisconsin, the insurance agent’s job just got a whole lot easier. With the state easing into mandating that all Wisconsin drivers carry automobile insurance, some requirements have already taken effect. The state government has taken it upon itself to decide what levels of coverage drivers within Wisconsin have to carry for liability, uninsured and under-insured motorists.

As I mentioned earlier, I am not the best driver on the face of the earth and have never claimed to be. However, given my experience behind the wheel, I think I know how much insurance I need, while keeping in mind that accidents do happen and I should expect the unexpected. But sometimes money comes to the forefront of making these kinds of decisions. While I don’t have as much insurance as the state wants me to have, I truthfully can’t afford that kind of coverage ... which brings me to my point. The state, along with the entire country, has just recently started recovering from one of the worst recessions in history. So why are Wisconsin officials creating laws that will only bring about more economic issues for residents? And, if the state is in charge of mandating the amount of coverage we must have, shouldn’t they be helping us out with the added expense we incur? Seems only fair to me.

Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader

A TEXTbook Example of Unnecessary Lawmaking

While I could go on and say how wonderful the new initiative to ban texting while driving is, I’m not so sure I agree with it entirely. And, as far as I’m concerned, there really is nothing that warrants taking this drastic measure. Now before all the anti-texters - yes, mom, that means you - out there get their panties in a bunch, allow me to give my reasoning and clarify my point.

First, let’s look at this initiative from a lawmaking standpoint. Banning texting while driving doesn’t mean that people are going to cease doing it while they are behind the wheel. If you don’t believe me, take Prohibition as an example. Just because it became illegal to manufacture, export, import or sell alcohol, people didn’t quit drinking altogether. All they had to do was become more sneaky if they wanted to wet their whistle. And once the smuggling and rum-running began, it wasn’t long before organized crime took over the distribution of alcohol. In the end, Prohibition turned out to be a giant failure.

OK, that may be an extreme example to use, but the same goes for texting. If Wisconsin legislators do decide to ban the act of sending and receiving text messages while driving, it doesn’t necessarily mean everyone who has a cell phone is going to stop texting the day it goes into effect. All it means is that people are going to try harder to avoid being caught texting while they are operating a motor vehicle ... making the roads even more unsafe. And while I don’t foresee the same methods of rebellion as in the 1920s and ‘30s, I do think the result will be the same: failure.

Now, if you look at the situation from an enforcement standpoint, it will become clear how unnecessary banning the act of texting while behind the wheel really is. First of all, police officers already have the authority to stop and cite individuals for inattentive driving. I’m pretty sure texting while driving would qualify as inattentive driving, so what’s the point of banning it? The fines would be the same if the initiative was approved. Also, just because texting would be made illegal while in the driver’s seat, it doesn’t mean that officers will be able to seek out and ticket everyone who does it. Drunk driving is illegal, but, lo and behold, people still do it ... and oftentimes get away with it.

From the texter’s point of view, this whole initiative is poppycock. In this day and age, multi-tasking is not only the norm, it’s expected. If people are allowed to have cell phones and a driver’s license, chances are they will be used simultaneously, however great the risk. After all, that’s likely how the car radio came about. People just got tired of trying to drive while playing the banjo. But, all jokes aside, I don’t think texting while driving is any more of a nuisance than trying to drive with other people in the vehicle with you. Talking with even one other person (let alone parents who have to deal with their children) while behind the wheel is a distraction. So what now? No more carpooling? No more family trips?

Clearly, those things won’t happen in today’s society, especially with the whole green mentality in place. But, to me, it just doesn’t seem necessary to put a ban on texting while driving. And if it does pass, I say we look into banning eating while driving as well. Sorry Burger King, Wendy’s, McDonald’s and all you other fast food joints, it’s a distraction; you’ll have to discontinue to-go orders. And about that drive-thru window ...

Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader

A Huntin' I Won't Go

I don’t hunt. I never have and, most likely, never will. In fact, the closest I’ve come to deer hunting is hitting those swift buggers with my vehicle. If that’s the case, I’ve had a couple hunt me as well. But, in all honesty, I just don’t see the point of killing poor, defenseless creatures. Yes, I hear all of you out there simultaneously murmuring about controlling the herd and all that, but my mind is made up on that topic.

Regardless of how I feel about it personally, I’m not the kind of person who would chain myself to an animal to protest hunting or anything. If people want to hunt, so be it. After all, that’s how our ancestors survived. But what I don’t agree with is the Department of Natural Resources’ recent slew of cockamamie ideas to alter the hunting regulations.

Earn a buck? I say, if hunters are lucky enough to see one while out in the blistering cold, freezing their you-know-whats off, he or she shouldn’t have to earn it. It should be a given. I mean, it’s the least that could be allowed for those who still get a thrill out of the hunt. And now our friends at the DNR are suggesting the 9-day season be extended to 16 days?

In an effort to reduce the whitetail population, the DNR has proposed starting the gun-deer season one week earlier. And while the first four days would be restricted to antlerless deer, I don’t think starting the hunt an entire week before normal is a good idea. In my experience, the gun-deer season has always coincided with the Thanksgiving holiday. And that makes a great deal of sense. In addition to gathering with relatives, the hunters in the family have the opportunity to get in some early-morning bonding time.

And if the state does decide to extend the season, what about the kids? Typically, students get out of school for at least three days to celebrate Thanksgiving ... and to go hunting. When I was growing up, attending school the other two days after the gun-deer season began was pretty much optional; the teachers would usually just pop a movie in the VCR (no, that’s not a typo) because over half of the class was expected to be absent.

Surely the school system wouldn’t think too highly of young hunters who don’t attend classes the week before and the week of Thanksgiving. And I doubt parents would want their children to miss out on that quality education either. Sure, maintaining the herd is a superb and necessary idea, but I have a feeling that, if the state wants to continue having successful hunting seasons and encourage youngsters to get out and hunt, then maybe this isn’t the right approach. Giving hunters another full week out in the woods would, unquestionably, decrease the herd; but how long will it be before that herd is large enough to provide a healthy hunting season again?

My guess is hunters would like to maintain the current regulations or tweak them a little in order to have prosperous hunting in the future. At least that’s what I would want if I were to ever venture out into the woods in late November wearing blaze orange and wielding a shotgun.

Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader

Allow Me To Introduce Myself

As most of you already know, my name is Jennie and I am the new editor of the News-Leader, taking over for Jessica, who is on to a much warmer, sunnier place (OK, so maybe I’m a little jealous).

Born and raised in Cornell, Wis., which is just a hop, skip and a jump up the highway (if you want to spend nearly two hours hopping, skipping and jumping, that is), I attended the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, where I received my bachelor’s degree in journalism. From there, it was off to the mountains. Right out of college, I was offered a reporting position at a weekly newspaper in Pinedale, Wyo.

While I had wanted to venture west and live near the mountains since I was a little girl and took my first glimpse of the Rockies, I definitely wasn’t prepared for the desolation that came with the gorgeous scenery. As far as I’m concerned, in this day and age, it shouldn’t take an hour-long drive to get to civilization or a fast-food joint. But that was what I was stuck with. Imagine having to drive 90-some miles to get to a Wal-Mart ... or a McDonald’s. That lifestyle was definitely not my cup of tea.
Ergo, I’m back in Wisconsin bringing you the news every week ... and I’m loving every bit of it. At some point in my life, I just had to face the facts. You can take the girl out of the Midwest, but you can’t take the Midwest out of the girl. Don’t let the business attire fool you ... I’m definitely a country girl at heart.

And though I have changed the backdrop in my life, you’ll have to forgive me for not adapting back into Wisconsin in every aspect. That said, if you see a maroon Chevy Avalanche with Wyoming plates driving around town, don’t worry. I’m not a tourist ... I just haven’t gotten around to getting Wisconsin tags yet. And seeing as how I had to fork over $450 for the snazzy blue Wyoming license plates - which don’t expire until December - I am going to get my money’s worth out of them.

But I digress. Seeing as how I grew up in Wisconsin, it’s only fitting that I am a diehard Cheesehead. And while I will always appreciate all that Brett Favre did for the franchise, he crossed enemy lines and is pretty much dead to me ... and especially so this week with the big rivalry coming up.

And, in case any of you are wondering, my professional sports teams of choice are the Packers, obviously, the Atlanta Braves, the Phoenix Suns and the Detroit Red Wings. And for those of you who have been in my office and seen the Bobblehead doll, it’s true; I am a Jeff Gordon fan. I figured I had better just get that one out of the way now and let the harassment begin.

But, one thing you must know about me is that I’m very opinionated. I’m sure that will become more apparent after reading several of my editorials - this one being an exception. Sure, I may seem quiet and timid when you first meet me, but give it a few weeks and you’ll be able to see the real me. And that girl is one who is hard to shut up once you get her going. But, all in good time.

I am really looking forward to meeting more of you and getting to know you all better. So far, everyone has been very welcoming and that is much appreciated. I’m sure I won’t be able to fill Jessica’s shoes, but I will work my hardest to be a good editor.

Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader