While the majority of the country was enthralled with the NCAA men's basketball tournament, something significant happened in our nation's history; President Barack Obama launched Operation Odyssey Dawn. Where that name came from, I will never know, but March 19 marked the start of the U. S. military operation in Libya as part of a coalition enforcing the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973. Though the United States has since passed the proverbial torch to the UN and now only serves a support role in the operation, I can't help but wonder why President Obama felt the need to enter this country into yet another battle that isn't even ours to fight. While there has been much criticism over the president's lack of consulting with Congress before deploying the Air Force, Marines and Navy, I feel that he failed to adequately inform the public of what his ultimate intentions were. It was like one minute, we were sitting idly by, letting things unfold, and the next, we were right in the thick of it.
I understand that, at times, the president can be put under pressure and has to act on instincts (take 9/11, for example), but the problems in Libya have been ongoing, meaning that this was likely not a surprise attack, but rather an anticipated next step as the situation in Libya worsened. I think it would have been nice to know that there was a distinct possibility that our nation was going to take a very active role in the fight against Moammar Gadhafi. All along, the Obama administration portrayed the United States' involvement as supportive. If naming the operation, having a U.S. commander in charge of said operation and providing the majority of the firepower is supportive, then the definition clearly needs to be changed.
Either way, I wholeheartedly disagree with the decision President Obama made to deploy troops, mostly because it's not our fight. I know that it's important for the United States, as a superpower and member of the United Nations, to make our presence known and uphold resolutions and beliefs of the Security Council, but I truly feel that we could have sat this one out. No, I am not opposed to war and I'm not opposed to helping out other countries in need, but there comes a point when you're overextended. For starters, close to 150,000 soldiers are still on active duty in combat zones in Iraq and Afghanistan. A Wisconsin soldier, Spc. Justin Ross of Green Bay, was killed just this past weekend serving this country. Why do we need to send more military personnel to risk their lives for something that truly isn't our problem to begin with?
Don't get me wrong, I have absolutely nothing against the military. I have several close friends who serve or have served this country and both my parents enlisted when they were 18. I guess I just don't understand why the United States has to be involved, to some extent or another, in every conflict that arises. We're like that snoopy next door neighbor who always has her nose in everyone's business. I guess the point I'm trying to make in this ongoing diatribe is that, maybe, for once, it would serve the United States better to simply have a truly supportive role in events like these. Letting other nations take the first step to handle and overcome these obstacles is what makes them grow stronger and become more independent. Yes, we have relied on a lot of these particular countries to help us during the numerous wars that have taken place, but I just don't feel as though it's our place to intervene whenever something goes awry.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
Don't Boycott Local Businesses
Lately, there has been a lot of talk about Wisconsin unions encouraging their disciples, if you will, to boycott local businesses who do not come out and formally oppose Gov. Scott Walker and his plan to strip workers of their collective bargaining rights. How in the world is this ever going to help matters? First of all, let politics stay in the political realm as much as possible. I understand that businesses often give contributions to campaigns, but I see no reason to encourage people to stop frequenting Wisconsin businesses, especially at a time when money's tight and the state is trying to attract business. Imagine if large corporations with the potential to expand to Wisconsin get wind of this. If residents of Wisconsin are so eager to abandon some of the most prominent businesses in the state over politics, chances are they'll take their business elsewhere. It just doesn't paint the picture of a promising business environment. Granted, Wisconsin is in an utter state of disarray at the moment, but still.
Kwik Trip and M&I Bank were two institutions that have been threatened by unions that their businesses will be boycotted if they don't formally announce that they are not in favor of Gov. Walker's plan. That's only going to make things worse for the middle class, as most of the people employed by Kwik Trip, which is a family-owned company, fall into that category. Then, of course, you have the business contributions to each community. Kwik Trip has been known to support various charitable organizations and non-profits, as well as donate to other efforts, such as the flood that occurred in Arcadia last fall. If you boycott a business like Kwik Trip, you're basically saying that your community doesn't need their support. Au contraire!
What these unions are forgetting is that local businesses contribute campaign funds to both parties. If they are boycotted, there's nothing stopping them from refusing support the next time campaign season rolls around. But, in all honesty, does every single business have to pick sides on this issue? What's wrong with just being Switzerland? Is it going to make a difference if Kwik Trip says they're opposed to Gov. Walker's plan? More than likely, it will not. The way I see it, boycotting local businesses is about as effective as thinking that a nationwide boycott of filling up at gas stations for one day will impact fuel prices. And, most certainly, people are not going to inconvenience themselves by shutting down their bank accounts and finding a different institution that opposes Scott Walker's plan. If so, that's just plain sad.
As of late last week, both Kwik Trip and M&I Bank refused to fall victim to the peer pressure of these politics and did not take a position on the issue. I give them a great deal of credit for standing up to these intimidation tactics. If I were a business owner who provided campaign funding for both parties, I think it would be appropriate to maintain neutrality. There's really no need for local businesses to choose sides in this debacle. Why can't we just let the politicians do the job they were elected to do and leave all of these antics out of it for a change?
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Kwik Trip and M&I Bank were two institutions that have been threatened by unions that their businesses will be boycotted if they don't formally announce that they are not in favor of Gov. Walker's plan. That's only going to make things worse for the middle class, as most of the people employed by Kwik Trip, which is a family-owned company, fall into that category. Then, of course, you have the business contributions to each community. Kwik Trip has been known to support various charitable organizations and non-profits, as well as donate to other efforts, such as the flood that occurred in Arcadia last fall. If you boycott a business like Kwik Trip, you're basically saying that your community doesn't need their support. Au contraire!
What these unions are forgetting is that local businesses contribute campaign funds to both parties. If they are boycotted, there's nothing stopping them from refusing support the next time campaign season rolls around. But, in all honesty, does every single business have to pick sides on this issue? What's wrong with just being Switzerland? Is it going to make a difference if Kwik Trip says they're opposed to Gov. Walker's plan? More than likely, it will not. The way I see it, boycotting local businesses is about as effective as thinking that a nationwide boycott of filling up at gas stations for one day will impact fuel prices. And, most certainly, people are not going to inconvenience themselves by shutting down their bank accounts and finding a different institution that opposes Scott Walker's plan. If so, that's just plain sad.
As of late last week, both Kwik Trip and M&I Bank refused to fall victim to the peer pressure of these politics and did not take a position on the issue. I give them a great deal of credit for standing up to these intimidation tactics. If I were a business owner who provided campaign funding for both parties, I think it would be appropriate to maintain neutrality. There's really no need for local businesses to choose sides in this debacle. Why can't we just let the politicians do the job they were elected to do and leave all of these antics out of it for a change?
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Are We Prepared For A 9.0 Quake?
After witnessing the devastation of the earthquake and ensuing tsunami in Japan, I can't help but wonder what would happen if the United States faced a similar crisis on its Pacific coast. While this country has withstood its share of natural disasters, the mere fact that earthquakes can happen at any moment of any given day without any warning is a scary concept. What's worse is that we're not immune to the kind of tragedy that is unfolding on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
For starters, California sits atop the San Andreas fault line and there are several sister fault lines in the San Francisco Bay area alone. That, in itself, makes me cognizant of just how plausible it would be for the United States to face similar devastation. The San Andreas fault has been the epicenter of a handful of serious earthquakes in the past, the largest of them being a 7.9-magnitude tremor in 1857. However, the population of California has grown extensively since then and a 9.0-magnitude quake, as was experienced in Japan, could seriously cripple the Golden State. With three of its major cities, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, along the coast, a 31-foot wall of water would devastate the region. Those three cities have a combined population of close to 6 million.
In addition, the United States has four of the nation's 104 licensed nuclear reactors located in southern California. The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, with two reactors, was built right on the shoreline in San Luis Obispo County, which makes it extremely vulnerable to tsunamis. The San Onofre power plant in southern San Diego County, which also sits on the Pacific coastline, is said to have been built to withstand a 7.0-magnitude earthquake. That's all well and good, but what if a larger quake shook the region?
And then there's the issue of infrastructure stability. In 1989, when San Francisco was hit by a 6.9-magnitude quake, bridges and highways collapsed. A portion of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay replacement bridge is still under construction over 20 years later. And that tremor lasted roughly 15 seconds; the quake in Japan shook the nation for over two minutes. Tom Heaton, an engineering seismologist at Cal Tech, admitted that, compared to Japan, California is nowhere near as prepared for such a violent quake. If that's the case, if I lived in California, I would be seriously considering a move.
If you ask me, it seems that earthquakes have been getting more severe in strength. Consider the devastation that was caused by the 9.1-magnitude earthquake and tsunami near Indonesia in 2004 – over 200,000 people killed. Then, of course, there was the 8.8-magnitude tremblor that rocked Chile just over a year ago – over 500 people killed. While the earthquake in Haiti only registered as a 7 on the Richter scale, it caused severe damage due to the fact that the epicenter was near a very populated location – between 50,000 and 200,000 people killed.
That many major quakes in a seven-year span is quite rare and has been deemed a statistical anomaly by some. With the death toll in Japan still rising and Prime Minister Naoto Kan describing the ordeal as the nation's worst crisis since World War II, I can't even begin to fathom what would happen if we were faced with similar devastation. Let's hope we don't have to.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
For starters, California sits atop the San Andreas fault line and there are several sister fault lines in the San Francisco Bay area alone. That, in itself, makes me cognizant of just how plausible it would be for the United States to face similar devastation. The San Andreas fault has been the epicenter of a handful of serious earthquakes in the past, the largest of them being a 7.9-magnitude tremor in 1857. However, the population of California has grown extensively since then and a 9.0-magnitude quake, as was experienced in Japan, could seriously cripple the Golden State. With three of its major cities, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, along the coast, a 31-foot wall of water would devastate the region. Those three cities have a combined population of close to 6 million.
In addition, the United States has four of the nation's 104 licensed nuclear reactors located in southern California. The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, with two reactors, was built right on the shoreline in San Luis Obispo County, which makes it extremely vulnerable to tsunamis. The San Onofre power plant in southern San Diego County, which also sits on the Pacific coastline, is said to have been built to withstand a 7.0-magnitude earthquake. That's all well and good, but what if a larger quake shook the region?
And then there's the issue of infrastructure stability. In 1989, when San Francisco was hit by a 6.9-magnitude quake, bridges and highways collapsed. A portion of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay replacement bridge is still under construction over 20 years later. And that tremor lasted roughly 15 seconds; the quake in Japan shook the nation for over two minutes. Tom Heaton, an engineering seismologist at Cal Tech, admitted that, compared to Japan, California is nowhere near as prepared for such a violent quake. If that's the case, if I lived in California, I would be seriously considering a move.
If you ask me, it seems that earthquakes have been getting more severe in strength. Consider the devastation that was caused by the 9.1-magnitude earthquake and tsunami near Indonesia in 2004 – over 200,000 people killed. Then, of course, there was the 8.8-magnitude tremblor that rocked Chile just over a year ago – over 500 people killed. While the earthquake in Haiti only registered as a 7 on the Richter scale, it caused severe damage due to the fact that the epicenter was near a very populated location – between 50,000 and 200,000 people killed.
That many major quakes in a seven-year span is quite rare and has been deemed a statistical anomaly by some. With the death toll in Japan still rising and Prime Minister Naoto Kan describing the ordeal as the nation's worst crisis since World War II, I can't even begin to fathom what would happen if we were faced with similar devastation. Let's hope we don't have to.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Preserve the Reserves
While I will admit that it’s a little bit too eerily ironic that, less than a week after my column berating NASCAR for wasting fuel, there’s speculation that President Barack Obama may tap the United States’ oil reserves, I am absolutely, positively, 110 percent opposed to that move. Whether or not it is being seriously considered, I don’t think it is the time to tap into the 727 million barrels of fuel that the U. S. government has stockpiled. Why? First of all, the Strategic Petroleum Reserves are there for emergencies. Though some Democrats are urging Obama to tap into and sell some of the petroleum in reserve, a letter written to the president states that doing so would “combat crippling price spikes in the short term.”
What about the long-term? Do we just use up those resources and merely hope that things get better? That doesn’t sound like a very solid solution, nor does it sound like a solution at all. Though the economy is still not in great shape and distress in the Middle East has sent oil prices soaring, I would find it immensely difficult to justify tapping into our supply. We’re not really in a state of emergency; the world is, as we know, a very unstable place to begin with. Besides, those fuel reserves, when accessed, would only be enough to supply the nation with gas for several months. Yes, that’s right, months. So why would we want to waste those reserves at the slightest flux in oil prices? Sure, paying $4 a gallon for gas, as is predicted, will be difficult for many, especially considering the economy is on the rebound from a recession. But, just because high gas prices may hinder the recovering economy, tapping our oil reserves likely would not make much difference at the pump.
When President George H. W. Bush sold over 10 million barrels from the reserves in 1990 after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, prices dropped at first, then rose as fighting in the Persian Gulf continued. Only after war was waged did oil prices drop. I don’t consider that a very good alternative when the U. S. government could simply let the tension in Libya run its course. Originally created in 1973 due to an Arab oil embargo, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has also been tapped in other instances – most recently in response to hurricanes Ike, Gustav and Katrina. Those were emergencies. What we’re experiencing now is far from what could be classified as an emergency. Though the crisis in Libya has wreaked a lot of havoc in the way of fuel supply, it is likely just a temporary setback – nothing significant enough to warrant using up or selling reserve oil … at least not yet.
If history’s taught us anything, it’s that anything can happen. What’s to say there won’t be more turmoil yet to come in the Middle East for which we’ll need the reserves? And with the U. S. dollar consistently losing its value in comparison to other currencies, I think tapping the oil reserves now would be a severe detriment to this country. Clearly, there will be bigger fish to fry down the road, so the last thing we need is to eat up the oil we have for the mere benefit of saving a penny here or a nickel there.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
What about the long-term? Do we just use up those resources and merely hope that things get better? That doesn’t sound like a very solid solution, nor does it sound like a solution at all. Though the economy is still not in great shape and distress in the Middle East has sent oil prices soaring, I would find it immensely difficult to justify tapping into our supply. We’re not really in a state of emergency; the world is, as we know, a very unstable place to begin with. Besides, those fuel reserves, when accessed, would only be enough to supply the nation with gas for several months. Yes, that’s right, months. So why would we want to waste those reserves at the slightest flux in oil prices? Sure, paying $4 a gallon for gas, as is predicted, will be difficult for many, especially considering the economy is on the rebound from a recession. But, just because high gas prices may hinder the recovering economy, tapping our oil reserves likely would not make much difference at the pump.
When President George H. W. Bush sold over 10 million barrels from the reserves in 1990 after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, prices dropped at first, then rose as fighting in the Persian Gulf continued. Only after war was waged did oil prices drop. I don’t consider that a very good alternative when the U. S. government could simply let the tension in Libya run its course. Originally created in 1973 due to an Arab oil embargo, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has also been tapped in other instances – most recently in response to hurricanes Ike, Gustav and Katrina. Those were emergencies. What we’re experiencing now is far from what could be classified as an emergency. Though the crisis in Libya has wreaked a lot of havoc in the way of fuel supply, it is likely just a temporary setback – nothing significant enough to warrant using up or selling reserve oil … at least not yet.
If history’s taught us anything, it’s that anything can happen. What’s to say there won’t be more turmoil yet to come in the Middle East for which we’ll need the reserves? And with the U. S. dollar consistently losing its value in comparison to other currencies, I think tapping the oil reserves now would be a severe detriment to this country. Clearly, there will be bigger fish to fry down the road, so the last thing we need is to eat up the oil we have for the mere benefit of saving a penny here or a nickel there.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Not A Fan of NASCAR
While many of you are wondering why a column about the National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) isn't on one of the sports pages, I'm going to come right out and say it … I don't consider it a sport. Now that I have several of you riled up and forming your arguments as to why NASCAR is a sport, I will sum up my reasoning in two words: physicality and purpose. But, to satisfy all those who don't agree with me, I will meet you halfway. From this point on, I will refer to this racing phenomenon as a "sport" … and, yes, the quotes are intended to convey sarcasm, which, by the way, I am fluent in.
As you all know, the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series began its 63rd season the Sunday after Valentine's Day with its renowned Daytona 500. When you think about the greatest sporting events that take place on a yearly basis – the Super Bowl, the World Series, March Madness, the Stanley Cup, the NBA Finals – all of them have something in common: pure athleticism. Though I have heard many a race car driver say that they have to be in good shape to drive their cars to victory lane, personally, I don't think the "sport" requires the same physicality as, say, guarding Clay Matthews from sacking the quarterback or keeping Kobe Bryant from making a layup. Simply put, NASCAR doesn't ideally fit the definition of a sport, which, according to Mr. Webster is "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment."
While I'm sure it gets hot in those vehicles and the competitors sweat up a storm, I don't think going from the brake to the clutch to the gas is sport enough for me. I mean, if driving a car and weaving in and out of traffic for three hours is deemed "physical exertion," then anyone who has traveled the Interstate to Minneapolis or Chicago is an athlete. Though I will admit to enjoying the "sport" when I was a youngster, the luster began to fade when I grew up and started to realize that, in the grand scheme of things, those race car drivers were earning millions of dollars a year to waste one of our most precious resources. The amount of fuel that is wasted during one of these practices and races is outrageous, something like 8,000 gallons, which amounts to about 288,000 gallons a year. Sure, I understand that the "sport" is legendary, but back when Richard Petty was winning championships, our country had the means to support the weekly competitions. In those times, there was no concern about limited fuel resources.
Things have changed, however, and we now find ourselves on the fast-track (no pun intended) to using up this vital resource. Every weekend, 43 NASCAR drivers suit up, get into their cars and commence driving in circles for hours on end. And when you add in the 43 drivers who partake in the Nationwide Series races, which began accompanying the Sprint Cup Series in 1981, that's nearly 90 vehicles a week that use gas during practices and actual races. While the ultimate winner of these events typically gets out of his vehicle, climbs on the roof and celebrates the victory, I honestly feel that, with each drop of fuel consumed during the races, every American ends up a loser. If it weren't for the exorbitant amount of fuel that has been used up during these events for the past 63 years, we likely wouldn't be paying upwards of $3 a gallon for gas at the pumps.
Though I won't be so bold as to say that eliminating the "sport" would change anything, I just don't understand the attraction to watching a bunch of vehicles going around in circles for hours on end every Saturday and Sunday for nine months out of the year. Don't get me wrong, I like watching the road course races every now and then – mostly because they actually involve right turns – but I certainly think 36 races a year is far too many.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
As you all know, the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series began its 63rd season the Sunday after Valentine's Day with its renowned Daytona 500. When you think about the greatest sporting events that take place on a yearly basis – the Super Bowl, the World Series, March Madness, the Stanley Cup, the NBA Finals – all of them have something in common: pure athleticism. Though I have heard many a race car driver say that they have to be in good shape to drive their cars to victory lane, personally, I don't think the "sport" requires the same physicality as, say, guarding Clay Matthews from sacking the quarterback or keeping Kobe Bryant from making a layup. Simply put, NASCAR doesn't ideally fit the definition of a sport, which, according to Mr. Webster is "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment."
While I'm sure it gets hot in those vehicles and the competitors sweat up a storm, I don't think going from the brake to the clutch to the gas is sport enough for me. I mean, if driving a car and weaving in and out of traffic for three hours is deemed "physical exertion," then anyone who has traveled the Interstate to Minneapolis or Chicago is an athlete. Though I will admit to enjoying the "sport" when I was a youngster, the luster began to fade when I grew up and started to realize that, in the grand scheme of things, those race car drivers were earning millions of dollars a year to waste one of our most precious resources. The amount of fuel that is wasted during one of these practices and races is outrageous, something like 8,000 gallons, which amounts to about 288,000 gallons a year. Sure, I understand that the "sport" is legendary, but back when Richard Petty was winning championships, our country had the means to support the weekly competitions. In those times, there was no concern about limited fuel resources.
Things have changed, however, and we now find ourselves on the fast-track (no pun intended) to using up this vital resource. Every weekend, 43 NASCAR drivers suit up, get into their cars and commence driving in circles for hours on end. And when you add in the 43 drivers who partake in the Nationwide Series races, which began accompanying the Sprint Cup Series in 1981, that's nearly 90 vehicles a week that use gas during practices and actual races. While the ultimate winner of these events typically gets out of his vehicle, climbs on the roof and celebrates the victory, I honestly feel that, with each drop of fuel consumed during the races, every American ends up a loser. If it weren't for the exorbitant amount of fuel that has been used up during these events for the past 63 years, we likely wouldn't be paying upwards of $3 a gallon for gas at the pumps.
Though I won't be so bold as to say that eliminating the "sport" would change anything, I just don't understand the attraction to watching a bunch of vehicles going around in circles for hours on end every Saturday and Sunday for nine months out of the year. Don't get me wrong, I like watching the road course races every now and then – mostly because they actually involve right turns – but I certainly think 36 races a year is far too many.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)