Considering the role alcohol played in the most recent drowning tragedy in La Crosse, one thing is certain: bulking up security around the Riverside Park area is not enough. The fact of the matter is that bartenders need to be more observant and take more control over the alcohol consumption of their customers. While serving beer may be the main obligation of the profession, ensuring the safety of patrons falls under the job description as well. As a bartender, there are several rules you must follow when serving patrons ... and they extend far beyond checking IDs. And if you do happen to serve someone who is underage, you’ll likely lose your operator’s license and possibly your job. But, isn’t serving someone who is clearly intoxicated just as illegal? That is one reason why I can’t understand how a community like La Crosse, which has been burying young people due to drinking related drownings for too long, hasn’t come down harder on the taverns and bartenders.
First and foremost, bartenders should be concerned with the safety of the beer-guzzlers they’re serving. Sure, some nights, being able to pull in $100 in tips is wonderful, but the job is about more than just money. While having that extra cash in your pocket may be nice, the lives of the patrons you serve are far more important. Having worked as a bartender for a number of years at a Wyoming microbrewery slinging brews that had upwards of 6 percent alcohol by volume – none of this 4 percent Bud Light crap – I learned the importance of cutting people off. Though Wyoming does not have laws that prevent the sale of alcohol to obviously intoxicated patrons, knowing when to tell someone they’ve had enough is critical. Oftentimes, those who think they can handle one more drink can’t ... or shouldn’t.
And I also remember several different occasions when stings were set up. An undercover police officer would enter the premises with a minor just to see if that person was carded and kicked out. If the bartender served the individual, he or she would be fined and the bar would be in jeopardy of losing its liquor license. Why can’t something like that be done for serving someone who is overly intoxicated? It would certainly open the eyes of bartenders and make them more aware of who they’re selling liquor to. But being able to gauge intoxication levels can be extremely tricky, especially when you have instances when one person orders multiple drinks for multiple people. And having to deal with the crowd levels at bars in college towns like La Crosse can make it damn near impossible to keep track of how many drinks a person has had. However, those who have drowned in that area have been well beyond drunk. You can’t tell me that a bartender wouldn’t have noticed someone they were serving had a blood alcohol content of .20 or .40. Regardless, the extra effort to be more aware of customers’ intoxication levels should definitely be made – and could likely save lives.
I know a lot of people who tend bar try to pass the blame onto the consumer of the alcohol. They often rationalize that people should know their limits and cut themselves off when they’ve had too much to drink. But the problem is, a lot of people don’t know, and if they do, they’re often too drunk to stop themselves. That’s when bartenders need to step in. Just because someone hands you money doesn’t mean you have to serve them anything. And just because someone with a BAC of .32 leaves your bar at closing time, that doesn’t mean you’re not responsible for what happens afterward.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
On Board with High-Speed Rail Route
The way gas prices continue to soar upwards of $2.50 a gallon, it’s a relief to hear that mass transit might be making a comeback. While my immediate reaction to the news of a high-speed rail coming through the region begged the questions, ‘who’s going to ride it?’ and ‘why do we need something like this now?’ the answers to those inquiries become more evident each and every day. First of all, the area could greatly benefit from having a high-speed rail from Madison, through La Crosse, Wis., and Rochester, Minn., and on up to the Twin Cities. Not only does public transit help build an economy, it also cuts down on pollutants and can be an asset to those who live on a tight budget.
Sure, I have a truck, but when it comes to traveling long distances, it can be a gas hog and take a hefty toll on the pocketbook. In order for me to get to Minneapolis and back, it takes at least two trips to the gas pumps. And I don’t care who you are, watching that total roll up to $50 a tank can be excruciatingly painful. And that’s where the high-speed rail makes sense. Instead of tightening the purse strings and taking fewer trips to conserve money, having that convenience available would be great. While I’m not much for letting others determine my schedule, if it can save me $50 in travel expenses, I will be glad to oblige a rail schedule. Funny how being on a budget can broaden people’s views of mass transit.
Of course, as is the case with most projects of this stature, it’s not going to just be given to us, all wrapped up in a neat little package with a bow on top. According to reports, having the line run through Eau Claire to the Twin Cities is also an option being considered. Granted that route makes sense as well, I have a feeling that might end up being more of a hassle, for travelers and taxpayers alike. Though the state is getting grant money for the project, having less railway to maintain in the future might be the best way to go on Wisconsin’s budgetary front. Having the rail line go through La Crosse to Rochester would mean that costs for maintenance and operating of the tracks extending past the Wisconsin border would be covered by Minnesota. So, in essence, the cost to deliver passengers to the Twin Cities would be more equal for both states. If the line were to go through Eau Claire and west toward the Minnesota border, Wisconsin would end up footing the majority of the costs.
In my eyes, it’s a no-brainer; if people from Madison, Milwaukee and Chicago plan on traveling to Minnesota to spend their money at the Mall of America or at Twins and *gasp* Vikings games, it’s only right that some of the cost be pushed onto them as well. That way, it would be more of a shared investment since each of the three states is bound to benefit from it financially. And then, of course, there’s the fact that the line would run through Rochester. I’m sure many people have had to drive all the way to Mayo Clinic for appointments or to visit a loved one. If the rail line goes in, someone could do most of the driving for you. All I know is that, for me, taking regular trips to watch the Twins play at Target Field or see the Brewers at Miller Park would be a lot easier if the line is chosen to run through the La Crosse area.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Sure, I have a truck, but when it comes to traveling long distances, it can be a gas hog and take a hefty toll on the pocketbook. In order for me to get to Minneapolis and back, it takes at least two trips to the gas pumps. And I don’t care who you are, watching that total roll up to $50 a tank can be excruciatingly painful. And that’s where the high-speed rail makes sense. Instead of tightening the purse strings and taking fewer trips to conserve money, having that convenience available would be great. While I’m not much for letting others determine my schedule, if it can save me $50 in travel expenses, I will be glad to oblige a rail schedule. Funny how being on a budget can broaden people’s views of mass transit.
Of course, as is the case with most projects of this stature, it’s not going to just be given to us, all wrapped up in a neat little package with a bow on top. According to reports, having the line run through Eau Claire to the Twin Cities is also an option being considered. Granted that route makes sense as well, I have a feeling that might end up being more of a hassle, for travelers and taxpayers alike. Though the state is getting grant money for the project, having less railway to maintain in the future might be the best way to go on Wisconsin’s budgetary front. Having the rail line go through La Crosse to Rochester would mean that costs for maintenance and operating of the tracks extending past the Wisconsin border would be covered by Minnesota. So, in essence, the cost to deliver passengers to the Twin Cities would be more equal for both states. If the line were to go through Eau Claire and west toward the Minnesota border, Wisconsin would end up footing the majority of the costs.
In my eyes, it’s a no-brainer; if people from Madison, Milwaukee and Chicago plan on traveling to Minnesota to spend their money at the Mall of America or at Twins and *gasp* Vikings games, it’s only right that some of the cost be pushed onto them as well. That way, it would be more of a shared investment since each of the three states is bound to benefit from it financially. And then, of course, there’s the fact that the line would run through Rochester. I’m sure many people have had to drive all the way to Mayo Clinic for appointments or to visit a loved one. If the rail line goes in, someone could do most of the driving for you. All I know is that, for me, taking regular trips to watch the Twins play at Target Field or see the Brewers at Miller Park would be a lot easier if the line is chosen to run through the La Crosse area.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
It's OK to Be Selfish
When we’re young, teachers, parents and everyone older and wiser tell us that sharing is good and it comes to be expected of us. And as we grow older, that sense of sharing tends to continue, whether it be holding potluck picnics, buying someone lunch, lending out money or allowing others to borrow personal items like CDs or tools. But how much is too much when it comes to sharing? There are definitely times when you have to draw the line. If you never get paid back on a loan or someone loses or damages one of your possessions, the chance that you’ll continue to lend your belongings to people diminishes. And, in my opinion, our governing body would benefit from taking a lesson on that common, everyday logic. While I realize the need to keep good foreign relations, I think the U. S. government should set up some kind of boundaries or limits when it comes to helping out countries in need.
Take the current situation in Haiti, for example. The nation just experienced a devastating earthquake that took the lives of over 200,000 people and cost millions upon millions of dollars in damage. Never the one to be greedy, the U.S. government acted quickly in sending aid to help out. And I completely understand the feeling of wanting to help out. But given the our faltering economy, can we really afford to give away money we don’t even have to a country that we know will never be able to repay that debt? That just doesn’t make logical sense to me. And it’s the same old story every time this sort of situation arises. If there’s fighting in a futile foreign nation or a natural disaster has just wreaked havoc overseas, the United States steps in to help.
Though I understand the government does have money budgeted for such instances, that’s most likely a contributing factor in our current economic state. We not only have to support our country, but we throw money at any other nation that needs it for whatever reason. Sure, it’s a great way to be friendly neighbors, but when in the hole we’re in, maybe it’s time for the U. S. government to start focusing on numero uno for a change. Lately it seems whenever a natural disaster hits anywhere in the world, we’re the ones sending money, supplies and emergency personnel. But what happens when we have a national crisis. I’m pretty sure there weren’t too many nations that lent us a helping hand when Hurricane Katrina hit or when the devastation of 9/11 unfolded. For the most part, those were inside jobs. So why does our government feel the need to bend over backwards to help other nations when something bad happens to them?
With Haiti, I realize it’s an impoverished country, but is that really our fault? If people who have the money to spare, like celebrities and athletes, want to lend a helping hand, that’s great. I just don’t think the government should feel obligated to fork over millions of dollars when we clearly need that money here. And speaking of monetary needs, is it really necessary for the U. S. government to continue to fund space expeditions to Mars, the moon or wherever during this time of economic crisis? I’m pretty sure all of that can be put on hold for at least a little while ... or at least until we fix what’s wrong down here first.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Take the current situation in Haiti, for example. The nation just experienced a devastating earthquake that took the lives of over 200,000 people and cost millions upon millions of dollars in damage. Never the one to be greedy, the U.S. government acted quickly in sending aid to help out. And I completely understand the feeling of wanting to help out. But given the our faltering economy, can we really afford to give away money we don’t even have to a country that we know will never be able to repay that debt? That just doesn’t make logical sense to me. And it’s the same old story every time this sort of situation arises. If there’s fighting in a futile foreign nation or a natural disaster has just wreaked havoc overseas, the United States steps in to help.
Though I understand the government does have money budgeted for such instances, that’s most likely a contributing factor in our current economic state. We not only have to support our country, but we throw money at any other nation that needs it for whatever reason. Sure, it’s a great way to be friendly neighbors, but when in the hole we’re in, maybe it’s time for the U. S. government to start focusing on numero uno for a change. Lately it seems whenever a natural disaster hits anywhere in the world, we’re the ones sending money, supplies and emergency personnel. But what happens when we have a national crisis. I’m pretty sure there weren’t too many nations that lent us a helping hand when Hurricane Katrina hit or when the devastation of 9/11 unfolded. For the most part, those were inside jobs. So why does our government feel the need to bend over backwards to help other nations when something bad happens to them?
With Haiti, I realize it’s an impoverished country, but is that really our fault? If people who have the money to spare, like celebrities and athletes, want to lend a helping hand, that’s great. I just don’t think the government should feel obligated to fork over millions of dollars when we clearly need that money here. And speaking of monetary needs, is it really necessary for the U. S. government to continue to fund space expeditions to Mars, the moon or wherever during this time of economic crisis? I’m pretty sure all of that can be put on hold for at least a little while ... or at least until we fix what’s wrong down here first.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)