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
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
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
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
New Security Measures Not Going to Fly
I don’t care what anyone says about the need for increased safety in airports and in the sky ... there’s no reason why traveling to visit family should feel like a trip to jail. But that’s exactly what’s happening with airport security in the United States.
There’s a difference between feeling secure and feeling violated, and with even more security measures being enforced at airports, flying is starting to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of many Americans.
After 9-11, it made sense for airlines to be a little more careful with screening passengers and luggage - terrorists just killed thousands of people at the World Trade Center. Now, however, the government is being way too excessive with airline security measures. While I understand the use of metal detectors and X-ray machines to check carry-on luggage, I think having people succumb to things such as lie detector tests, is going a bit too far. Doesn’t the saying go, “innocent until proven guilty”? Seems that due to the increase in terrorism against our country, even law-abiding citizens are now guilty until proven innocent ... at least when it comes to air travel.
The way I see things, if a terrorist is in the country already, the only people to blame are the security guards at the airport. They’re the ones who should be punished; everyone else shouldn’t have to suffer because of their failure to do their jobs. Take the most recent terrorist attempt on an airplane. According to reports, the man responsible for the Christmas Day attempt did not check any baggage before he bought a one-way ticket from Amsterdam to Detroit ... with cash. Since he was obviously not a contestant on “The Amazing Race,” that should have set off all kinds of red flags. Clearly, airport security employees need to be trained a whole lot better.
And then we have the U. S. government - need I say more? Though so-called intelligence officials had learned of a situation developing in relation to the terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, they failed to “connect the dots.” That failure to make the connection allowed for his name to be omitted from the FBI’s no-fly list and for him to attempt to kill the passengers aboard the plane. While that’s just one thing about this issue that irks me, the other is the United States’ response to the terror attack. How is increasing security within our nation supposed to prevent prospective terrorists from entering the country from Amsterdam or Tokyo or Paris?
Instead of finding the most expensive solution that will likely benefit us the least, I have my own theory ... connections. Make it mandatory that every flight coming into the United States must fly out of a choice few cities in every region. That way, every plane headed to the states from South America, for example, would need to connect in Caracas or Rio de Janiero before continuing on. The same goes for flights from Europe. Connections through London or Madrid, where more U. S. security would be set up, would allow for extra scanning of passengers. That would be one way to save our country some money in lieu of adding unnecessary devices to every airport here. Hell, it would also create some much-needed U. S. jobs. Two birds, one stone.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
There’s a difference between feeling secure and feeling violated, and with even more security measures being enforced at airports, flying is starting to leave a bitter taste in the mouths of many Americans.
After 9-11, it made sense for airlines to be a little more careful with screening passengers and luggage - terrorists just killed thousands of people at the World Trade Center. Now, however, the government is being way too excessive with airline security measures. While I understand the use of metal detectors and X-ray machines to check carry-on luggage, I think having people succumb to things such as lie detector tests, is going a bit too far. Doesn’t the saying go, “innocent until proven guilty”? Seems that due to the increase in terrorism against our country, even law-abiding citizens are now guilty until proven innocent ... at least when it comes to air travel.
The way I see things, if a terrorist is in the country already, the only people to blame are the security guards at the airport. They’re the ones who should be punished; everyone else shouldn’t have to suffer because of their failure to do their jobs. Take the most recent terrorist attempt on an airplane. According to reports, the man responsible for the Christmas Day attempt did not check any baggage before he bought a one-way ticket from Amsterdam to Detroit ... with cash. Since he was obviously not a contestant on “The Amazing Race,” that should have set off all kinds of red flags. Clearly, airport security employees need to be trained a whole lot better.
And then we have the U. S. government - need I say more? Though so-called intelligence officials had learned of a situation developing in relation to the terrorist, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, they failed to “connect the dots.” That failure to make the connection allowed for his name to be omitted from the FBI’s no-fly list and for him to attempt to kill the passengers aboard the plane. While that’s just one thing about this issue that irks me, the other is the United States’ response to the terror attack. How is increasing security within our nation supposed to prevent prospective terrorists from entering the country from Amsterdam or Tokyo or Paris?
Instead of finding the most expensive solution that will likely benefit us the least, I have my own theory ... connections. Make it mandatory that every flight coming into the United States must fly out of a choice few cities in every region. That way, every plane headed to the states from South America, for example, would need to connect in Caracas or Rio de Janiero before continuing on. The same goes for flights from Europe. Connections through London or Madrid, where more U. S. security would be set up, would allow for extra scanning of passengers. That would be one way to save our country some money in lieu of adding unnecessary devices to every airport here. Hell, it would also create some much-needed U. S. jobs. Two birds, one stone.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, December 22, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
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
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
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)