Having grown up with music as a vital part of my everyday life, I don't think I could go a day without my iPod, the CD player in my truck or my laptop – no joke, my iTunes library could play for nearly nine days straight without repeating a single song. And considering I grew up in the generation between cassettes and mp3s, my CD collection is beyond immaculate. I haven't counted recently, but I'm fairly certain I have close to 750 albums. Needless to say, music has always been a huge part of my life, as I can recall my brother and I spending hours upon hours listening to 45s on my parent's turntable at a very young age. "Splish Splash" by Bobby Darin "Peggy Sue" by Buddy Holly and "Honey" by Bobby Goldsboro were a few of my favorites.
It's because of this particular love that I acquired for music at a young age that I decided to join band when I was in junior high. Though I never had piano lessons as a kid and had never touched an instrument in my life, I was intrigued when all of my friends started taking lessons for their respective instruments. Not one to always go with the crowd, I figured this was something that my parents would actually approve of me doing. So I signed up for lessons. Originally intending to play either the flute or clarinet, the woodwinds didn't work out for me. After working with my band director to find a better fit, I started playing percussion, which I did until my sophomore year of high school when my studies became a higher priority. It was a great experience that I wouldn't trade for anything.
Regardless of the fact that I didn't stick with it, I thoroughly enjoyed learning about music and understanding the different notes. My brother, on the other hand took a different approach to music, teaching himself how to play guitar and, eventually, attending what is now the McNally Smith College of Music in Minneapolis. He has since made running sound for a couple small-town bands his second job, which, ironically, he loves more than his primary source of income. So when I see a school like Independence having to cut back in areas like music, it pains me. There are so many kids out there who are musically inclined and they're not going to have the opportunity to show off those abilities.
In essence, these kids will end up being punished due to budgetary constraints, something which they, more than likely, cannot even comprehend at this point in their lives. While I understand that something needs to take a hit, I truly believe that the music department is the wrong place. In addition to alleviating stress by increasing the body's release of endorphins, music has been found to play a significant role in childhood development. Not only is learning to play an instrument fun and challenging at the same time, but studies have found that music instruction also promotes cognitive development, verbal skills and emotional intelligence. In this day and age where surfing the Internet, watching TV, playing video games and texting are considered acceptable hobbies, I think now, more than ever, it's extremely important to make sure kids have something like music to occupy their time.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
Tuesday, July 12, 2011
Justice System Fails Us Again
During one of the most controversial and talked about cases of the decade, a jury in Florida was recently asked to decide the fate of a woman accused of killing her two-year-old daughter. While I thought the case was pretty cut and dried, what with the evidence pointing to foul play, the jury in the Casey Anthony murder trial decided otherwise, acquitting the 25-year-old mom of first-degree murder. In my eyes, the justice system has failed us again. This helpless little girl was killed three years ago and, as of yet, no one is behind bars paying for it. In that respect, it eerily reminded me of the O.J. Simpson case, minus the infamous black glove and white Bronco chase, that is.
What disturbs me more is that some of the jurors have come forth saying they don't think Anthony is innocent, blaming lack of concrete evidence on their choice to acquit. Aside from the fact that Casey failed to report her daughter missing for 31 days, she seemed to be a habitual liar. She lied about being employed at Universal Studios and about Zanny Fernandez-Gonzalez being her daughter's nanny. On top of that, it was this "nanny" who Casey accused of kidnapping Caylee. You basically couldn't believe a word that came out of her mouth.
When the remains of the young girl's body were found, there were several pieces of duct tape on the face of the skull; this alluded to the fact that the child was likely suffocated before being disposed of in a wooded area. However, Casey claimed her daughter drowned in the family pool and that her father, George, a former police officer, tried to make it look like a homicide by taping the girl's mouth and dumping her in the woods … near the family's residence, no less. First of all, who would ever take the risk of covering up an accidental death by making it look like a homicide? I mean, I've heard of murderers doing the exact opposite, but her story makes absolutely no sense. If the drowning was determined to be accidental, Anthony would be charged with, at worst, negligence. Why would she want to make it look worse and call herself into question if she were, in fact, innocent?
And then there was the evidence of decomposition in Casey's car and the discovery of Internet searches of how to make and use chloroform, as well as the terms "neck breaking" and "death," on Casey's computer. In addition, the same type of laundry bag, duct tape and plastic bags found at the crime scene were also found in the house which Casey and Caylee lived in. Needless to say, when I learned that the jury had rendered a not guilty verdict last week, I was shocked and totally disappointed in our justice system. Now, Casey will be released from prison after serving time for providing false information to the police. All I can hope is that she never, ever decides to reproduce again.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
What disturbs me more is that some of the jurors have come forth saying they don't think Anthony is innocent, blaming lack of concrete evidence on their choice to acquit. Aside from the fact that Casey failed to report her daughter missing for 31 days, she seemed to be a habitual liar. She lied about being employed at Universal Studios and about Zanny Fernandez-Gonzalez being her daughter's nanny. On top of that, it was this "nanny" who Casey accused of kidnapping Caylee. You basically couldn't believe a word that came out of her mouth.
When the remains of the young girl's body were found, there were several pieces of duct tape on the face of the skull; this alluded to the fact that the child was likely suffocated before being disposed of in a wooded area. However, Casey claimed her daughter drowned in the family pool and that her father, George, a former police officer, tried to make it look like a homicide by taping the girl's mouth and dumping her in the woods … near the family's residence, no less. First of all, who would ever take the risk of covering up an accidental death by making it look like a homicide? I mean, I've heard of murderers doing the exact opposite, but her story makes absolutely no sense. If the drowning was determined to be accidental, Anthony would be charged with, at worst, negligence. Why would she want to make it look worse and call herself into question if she were, in fact, innocent?
And then there was the evidence of decomposition in Casey's car and the discovery of Internet searches of how to make and use chloroform, as well as the terms "neck breaking" and "death," on Casey's computer. In addition, the same type of laundry bag, duct tape and plastic bags found at the crime scene were also found in the house which Casey and Caylee lived in. Needless to say, when I learned that the jury had rendered a not guilty verdict last week, I was shocked and totally disappointed in our justice system. Now, Casey will be released from prison after serving time for providing false information to the police. All I can hope is that she never, ever decides to reproduce again.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, July 5, 2011
No Way Around Raising Debt Limit
As we wrap up the celebration of our nation's birthday, a black cloud, in the form of the national debt limit, still looms. While I can denounce raising the United States' debt ceiling until I'm blue in the face, it seems down right ominous. I, like the Republicans in Congress, would love to deny increasing the debt limit until some huge spending cuts are made. However, the fate of this country hangs in the balance. If the debt limit is not raised by Aug 2, the United States will begin defaulting on its colossal debt. Of course, in order to get everything approved before payments come due, the actual deadline for the increase is, in essence, only a couple weeks away.
So what happens if Congress decides against raising the country's debt limit? Well, for starters, the government will default on a $30 billion interest payment on the debt already owed. As anyone who has ever failed to pay the minimum payment for their credit card can attest, that means higher interest rates. If the United States is already paying $30 billion in interest payments, I'd hate to see what a higher rate would do. But, no matter what, I don't think the economy would ever be able to recover if the government defaulted on those loans.
Depending upon how he chooses to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment, President Barack Obama could go against the wishes of Congress and raise the debt limit anyway. Our forefathers very eloquently worded the Constitution to work for them in 1776, but, since that era, loopholes have been discovered. So, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and included the phrase, 'The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned,' I highly doubt it was meant to give the president the authority to do as he so pleases when it comes to the debt limit. There has also been talk of Republicans agreeing to a mini deal if it were necessary to prevent a governmental shutdown. While it would be a short-term solution, it would allow the government to make the upcoming payments and give legislators time to come up with a long-term solution.
As I write this, more information has come out saying that negotiations are not far from being resolved. Of course, no deal can be complete without some cuts being made; unfortunately, the cuts in question are likely to come from student aid, farm subsidies and federal employee retirement plan. Though it would be nice to see legislators take cuts in their salary, it would likely be a cold day in hell before that would ever happen. For all I know, this could be a moot point and Congress may already be in the process of agreeing to some sort of deal by the time you read this. But, I guess if it was up to me, I'd take the mini deal, which would buy time for politicians in Washington to determine the best course of action on how to deal with the country's debt issues.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
So what happens if Congress decides against raising the country's debt limit? Well, for starters, the government will default on a $30 billion interest payment on the debt already owed. As anyone who has ever failed to pay the minimum payment for their credit card can attest, that means higher interest rates. If the United States is already paying $30 billion in interest payments, I'd hate to see what a higher rate would do. But, no matter what, I don't think the economy would ever be able to recover if the government defaulted on those loans.
Depending upon how he chooses to interpret the Fourteenth Amendment, President Barack Obama could go against the wishes of Congress and raise the debt limit anyway. Our forefathers very eloquently worded the Constitution to work for them in 1776, but, since that era, loopholes have been discovered. So, when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted in 1868 and included the phrase, 'The validity of the public debt of the United States … shall not be questioned,' I highly doubt it was meant to give the president the authority to do as he so pleases when it comes to the debt limit. There has also been talk of Republicans agreeing to a mini deal if it were necessary to prevent a governmental shutdown. While it would be a short-term solution, it would allow the government to make the upcoming payments and give legislators time to come up with a long-term solution.
As I write this, more information has come out saying that negotiations are not far from being resolved. Of course, no deal can be complete without some cuts being made; unfortunately, the cuts in question are likely to come from student aid, farm subsidies and federal employee retirement plan. Though it would be nice to see legislators take cuts in their salary, it would likely be a cold day in hell before that would ever happen. For all I know, this could be a moot point and Congress may already be in the process of agreeing to some sort of deal by the time you read this. But, I guess if it was up to me, I'd take the mini deal, which would buy time for politicians in Washington to determine the best course of action on how to deal with the country's debt issues.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)