So after the raw milk bill passed both houses of the Wisconsin legislature, one would have thought it’d be smooth sailing. All it needs is Gov. Jim Doyle’s signature and farmers across the state will be able to legally sell milk on their farms. Not so fast. While we should have seen this one coming, it disheartens me that cheesemakers, dairies and other “concerned” entities are making a last-ditch effort to push Gov. Doyle to veto the bill. First of all, the only concern these interest groups have is their own interest. God forbid farmers sell their own milk and the dairies don’t get as much milk per shipment. Clearly, the cheesemakers know what’s at stake if this is allowed this to happen. If farmers can sell their own milk, what’s keeping them from selling their own cheese as well?
But the reasonings posed by these entities is what’s most bothersome. They’re claiming that raw milk should not be legalized because of the possibility that it can contain bacteria, such as E. coli and salmonella, which is hazardous, and could potentially even be lethal, to people’s health. Why, you ask, does this rub me the wrong way? Well, from my perspective, there are two ways to look at this. Either we’re being called ignorant for not knowing what the risks are or, via erroneous concern for our health, we’re being used as pawns to prevent farmers from having the right to sell their own product outright. The mere fact that the sale of raw milk can be harmful to our health is being extremely overplayed. Before pasteurization became common practice, the sale of raw milk was totally acceptable. And if the government were to ban everything that posed a threat to our health, we’d have next to nothing.
That said, what right does the government have to tell us what we can and can’t put in our bodies in the first place? They’re OK with us consuming exorbitant amounts of alcohol, which can cause cirrhosis of the liver, and we can smoke like chimneys, so long as there are warning labels on the packaging explaining those risks. If I recall, the raw milk bill did state that farmers would have to label their product as hazardous, as well as comply with regulations set forth. So what’s the problem? Those opposed to the bill are just making a spectacle of this issue. After all, raw eggs and raw chicken can carry salmonella, but the government doesn’t feel it’s necessary to properly cook them for us before we eat them. And if we like our steaks cooked any way but well done, there’s a health concern there, too. But that’s not going to stop people from ordering their meat undercooked. For as little concern is expressed for those things, there sure is a lot of emphasis being put on health issues when it comes to the legalization of the sale of raw milk, which would only be temporary through 2011. Witnessing this reaction to something that’s not even guaranteed further raises my curiosity about hidden agendas spurring all of this opposition.
While I’m sure support for the bill is equal to or, perhaps, greater than the opposition, I understand Gov. Doyle’s dilemma. As an elected official, it is his duty to take all matters into consideration before signing it into law. But I sure don’t envy him in this battle. Whether he signs the bill or not, the temporary sale of raw milk would become legal this Thursday. However, if he decides to exercise his veto power, it’s back to the drawing board for farmers across the state. But they’ve done their part to help Wisconsin become the dairy giant that it is ... shouldn’t they at least be granted the opportunity to experiment with raw milk sales if they so choose?
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Tuesday, May 11, 2010
A Long Overdue Thank You
No matter what profession you are in and how many countless hours you put in going above and beyond what your job description entails, I think everyone would be in agreement with me saying that law enforcement is the most thankless job known to man. Think about it. When you get a ticket, you don’t say “thank you” to the officer – who’s merely doing his job by ensuring your safety – as he hands over a citation. Instead, you get pissed off. And rightfully so. I mean, you’re the one who gets stuck with demerit points on your license, not to mention that the fine isn’t going to pay itself. And believe me, the stigma attached to law enforcement isn’t any different from the perspective of a police officer’s daughter.
I’m not going to lie, I’ve been pulled over several times and cursed the wind ... no more so than when my own father, a patrol sergeant for the Chippewa County Sheriff’s Department, nailed me for speeding shortly after I started driving. Let me tell you, I got the most verbal of warnings anyone could possibly imagine. But as crime rates continue to rise, I can’t help but get a lump in my throat every time I watch the news and hear about a police officer who had been killed in the line of duty, left only to imagine what those families are going through. Thankfully, I haven’t had to deal with that kind of grief. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have nightmares about getting that dreaded phone call ... someone on the other end telling me that I would never see my dad again. Because I know that any day, that nightmare could easily become a reality.
While I understand that not all people are armed criminals and most would never think of pulling a gun on an officer of the law, it only takes one. In an instant the lives of an entire family are changed forever. But the sad fact is that gun violence isn’t the only threat police officers face. That was made all the more evident on Jan. 4, 2008, when I learned that Jason Zunker, a Chippewa County Sheriff’s deputy, had been struck by a car while directing traffic. He died from his injuries the following day. It just so happened that I was home from Wyoming visiting at the time, and one very haunting “what if” question clouded my thoughts that evening: What if I hadn’t come home and my dad hadn’t taken vacation time? Chances are he could have been on duty that evening. Not to say that he would have responded to that very accident scene, but, without a doubt, it hit way too close to home. But that’s just a of the reality I’m forced to live with every day ... at least until my dad retires.
As much as people like to make them out to be the bad guys, I admire police officers for what they do. Every day they go on duty, there is a chance that they might not come home. They selflessly put their lives in danger for the sake of keeping the rest of society safe. The same is true for all emergency personnel who serve and protect, all the while risking their lives. So, seeing as how this is National Police Week (which fittingly coincided with the Fourth Annual Arcadia Area Hometown Heroes event on Tuesday), I would just like to express my gratitude and say thank you to law enforcement officers – and all emergency personnel – for everything that you do. Next time I get pulled over – and I know that day will come, likely sooner than I hope – I’ll be sure to thank the police officer. Ah, who am I kidding? The best I can do is promise I won’t swear ... it’s as good as a thank you.
Jennie Oemig,
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
I’m not going to lie, I’ve been pulled over several times and cursed the wind ... no more so than when my own father, a patrol sergeant for the Chippewa County Sheriff’s Department, nailed me for speeding shortly after I started driving. Let me tell you, I got the most verbal of warnings anyone could possibly imagine. But as crime rates continue to rise, I can’t help but get a lump in my throat every time I watch the news and hear about a police officer who had been killed in the line of duty, left only to imagine what those families are going through. Thankfully, I haven’t had to deal with that kind of grief. But that doesn’t mean I don’t have nightmares about getting that dreaded phone call ... someone on the other end telling me that I would never see my dad again. Because I know that any day, that nightmare could easily become a reality.
While I understand that not all people are armed criminals and most would never think of pulling a gun on an officer of the law, it only takes one. In an instant the lives of an entire family are changed forever. But the sad fact is that gun violence isn’t the only threat police officers face. That was made all the more evident on Jan. 4, 2008, when I learned that Jason Zunker, a Chippewa County Sheriff’s deputy, had been struck by a car while directing traffic. He died from his injuries the following day. It just so happened that I was home from Wyoming visiting at the time, and one very haunting “what if” question clouded my thoughts that evening: What if I hadn’t come home and my dad hadn’t taken vacation time? Chances are he could have been on duty that evening. Not to say that he would have responded to that very accident scene, but, without a doubt, it hit way too close to home. But that’s just a of the reality I’m forced to live with every day ... at least until my dad retires.
As much as people like to make them out to be the bad guys, I admire police officers for what they do. Every day they go on duty, there is a chance that they might not come home. They selflessly put their lives in danger for the sake of keeping the rest of society safe. The same is true for all emergency personnel who serve and protect, all the while risking their lives. So, seeing as how this is National Police Week (which fittingly coincided with the Fourth Annual Arcadia Area Hometown Heroes event on Tuesday), I would just like to express my gratitude and say thank you to law enforcement officers – and all emergency personnel – for everything that you do. Next time I get pulled over – and I know that day will come, likely sooner than I hope – I’ll be sure to thank the police officer. Ah, who am I kidding? The best I can do is promise I won’t swear ... it’s as good as a thank you.
Jennie Oemig,
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Six Months Later ...
In late October of last year, I began my journey as the new editor of the Arcadia News-Leader, not knowing if I would be able to fill the shoes of one Miss Jessica Shawley. Well, if my calendar is correct, it appears that I've lasted a whole six months already, so, evidently, I must be doing something right. After a couple months of learning the ropes and getting settled into the community, I can definitely say Arcadia is starting to feel like home. That said, you may be stuck with me for a while. So, if you’re fond of my writing and what I’ve done with the paper, that’s good news. However, if you’re not so much a fan, I’ve been known to grow on people, so give it six more months and see where you’re at.
But one thing that must be understood is that every newspaper editor has his or her own news judgment. Something that one person may find to be of utmost importance may be an afterthought to someone else. Ergo, what former editors might have deemed newsworthy might not appear that way to me. It’s a very objective process. With that, I want to explain some of the changes – which I’m sure you’ve all noticed – that I have made to the newspaper since taking the reins. First of all, the most noticeable alteration has likely been the nameplate on the front page. When I first came here, it was a simple red design, which the artistic side of me found to be kind of boring. Right then and there, I determined that the front page needed some color, some pizzazz. Thus, the constantly changing graphics and colorful nameplate you see now. Besides, we’re paying for full color on the front, so we might as well get our money’s worth.
Next, the Opinion page. After months of the same-old, same-old with columns from Rep. Chris Danou and Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, Chuck and I decided it was time to allow other opinions to be voiced. Granted Vinehout and Danou do a great deal for the area, politicians aren’t the only ones who have something to say. Don’t get me wrong, if either of them send a column that would be of considerable interest to our readership, we will print it. But, for the time-being, we’re mixing things up a little bit. And speaking of mixing things up, I have had many inquiries as to why the court proceedings are no longer printed in the News-Leader. While I’m inclined to blame it on budgetary constraints, thus resulting in our ever-decreasing page numbers, there’s more to it than that. First and foremost, it’s public record. Anyone can go to the courthouse and request that same information or sit in the courtroom for a day to hear the outcomes of the cases. With so much other worthwhile information out there that the public may not have such easy access to, I can’t imagine wasting valuable space so that Joe DUI’s neighbor knows how much he paid in restitution. I guess it’s just another one of those objective editorial decisions.
You may also have noticed the absence of articles from our correspondent David Brommerich, as well as Ruth Schlesser’s weekly gardening column. Again, with a tight budget, we’ve had to cut back in those areas as well. Believe me, if we had the monetary capabilities to put out a 16-page paper every week, we’d do it. So if you dislike any of the changes I’ve made and explained above, please feel free to let me know. There are always compromises that can be made. But, in the meantime, we’ll continue doing the best we can with what we’ve got.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
But one thing that must be understood is that every newspaper editor has his or her own news judgment. Something that one person may find to be of utmost importance may be an afterthought to someone else. Ergo, what former editors might have deemed newsworthy might not appear that way to me. It’s a very objective process. With that, I want to explain some of the changes – which I’m sure you’ve all noticed – that I have made to the newspaper since taking the reins. First of all, the most noticeable alteration has likely been the nameplate on the front page. When I first came here, it was a simple red design, which the artistic side of me found to be kind of boring. Right then and there, I determined that the front page needed some color, some pizzazz. Thus, the constantly changing graphics and colorful nameplate you see now. Besides, we’re paying for full color on the front, so we might as well get our money’s worth.
Next, the Opinion page. After months of the same-old, same-old with columns from Rep. Chris Danou and Sen. Kathleen Vinehout, Chuck and I decided it was time to allow other opinions to be voiced. Granted Vinehout and Danou do a great deal for the area, politicians aren’t the only ones who have something to say. Don’t get me wrong, if either of them send a column that would be of considerable interest to our readership, we will print it. But, for the time-being, we’re mixing things up a little bit. And speaking of mixing things up, I have had many inquiries as to why the court proceedings are no longer printed in the News-Leader. While I’m inclined to blame it on budgetary constraints, thus resulting in our ever-decreasing page numbers, there’s more to it than that. First and foremost, it’s public record. Anyone can go to the courthouse and request that same information or sit in the courtroom for a day to hear the outcomes of the cases. With so much other worthwhile information out there that the public may not have such easy access to, I can’t imagine wasting valuable space so that Joe DUI’s neighbor knows how much he paid in restitution. I guess it’s just another one of those objective editorial decisions.
You may also have noticed the absence of articles from our correspondent David Brommerich, as well as Ruth Schlesser’s weekly gardening column. Again, with a tight budget, we’ve had to cut back in those areas as well. Believe me, if we had the monetary capabilities to put out a 16-page paper every week, we’d do it. So if you dislike any of the changes I’ve made and explained above, please feel free to let me know. There are always compromises that can be made. But, in the meantime, we’ll continue doing the best we can with what we’ve got.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
A Few Bad Apples
While I realize immigration is a sore subject for many people in the area, and my intention is certainly not to pick at old scabs, I think it’s important to point out the hypocrisy of this ever-present issue. If I recall the whole story about Christopher Columbus correctly, he was not the first American; he was merely the first immigrant to discover this land in 1492. The Native Americans, who happened to be here first, simply got invaded and were eventually secluded to reservations. While one would think this to be an obvious point, I can't stress enough that this wasn't our land to begin with and, therefore, I find it to be extremely hypocritical that we're trying to deny others their chance at freedom.
Perhaps I take more kindly to this entire topic because if it weren't for immigration, I wouldn't be here. My mother is a full-blooded Hungarian, who was brought to America by her parents when she was very young. After becoming a naturalized citizen, she was an American, just like the rest of us. But the truth is, I've seen this issue from both perspectives and I'm appalled at the way immigrants are treated by some. Having dated an illegal immigrant, I was exposed to the other side of the story, a viewpoint that many people don't take into consideration or just choose to blatantly ignore. On a tourist visa for much of the time he spent in the country, he wasn't ready to leave when it expired. With all the friends he had made, he grew attached to life here in the States. Being as such, he scrambled to find a way to stay, eventually acquiring papers from a legal relative to attain employment and, in effect, remain on this side of the border.
However, because he wanted so badly to stay, he was forced to make a lot of sacrifices, namely his identity ... much the same way our forefathers did in order to provide a better life for their families. Though staying meant that he would have to pay rent, bills and contribute to the economy, just like everyone else, he did it anyway. Contrary to popular belief, the sole intent of immigrants being in the United States is not to STEAL American jobs. It's to survive. Thus, I believe this country is in dire need of immigration reform. Building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border and beefing up border security is not reform. Neither is the targeted arrest and deportation of thousands of immigrants who have made lives for themselves here in the United States. In essence, our approach to this issue is dead wrong. Instead of merely kicking them out of the country time and time again, why not assist these immigrants in finding the proper channels through which to become legal Americans?
I realize that Hispanics have gained a bad reputation, what with all of the drug wars as of late, but we shouldn't let a few bad apples tarnish our views of them as an integral part of our society. That's one of the reasons why I'm ecstatic about the renovations that will be made at Schank Walk-In Park. Turning the property into a maintained soccer field will not only be a wonderful way to help beautify the community, but it will also serve as a way to lead by example. We shouldn't be making Hispanic immigrants feel like they're unwanted in this community; we should be welcoming them into our melting pot of cultures with open arms. After all, the color of your skin, the language you speak and your place of birth shouldn't determine whether or not you're an American.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Perhaps I take more kindly to this entire topic because if it weren't for immigration, I wouldn't be here. My mother is a full-blooded Hungarian, who was brought to America by her parents when she was very young. After becoming a naturalized citizen, she was an American, just like the rest of us. But the truth is, I've seen this issue from both perspectives and I'm appalled at the way immigrants are treated by some. Having dated an illegal immigrant, I was exposed to the other side of the story, a viewpoint that many people don't take into consideration or just choose to blatantly ignore. On a tourist visa for much of the time he spent in the country, he wasn't ready to leave when it expired. With all the friends he had made, he grew attached to life here in the States. Being as such, he scrambled to find a way to stay, eventually acquiring papers from a legal relative to attain employment and, in effect, remain on this side of the border.
However, because he wanted so badly to stay, he was forced to make a lot of sacrifices, namely his identity ... much the same way our forefathers did in order to provide a better life for their families. Though staying meant that he would have to pay rent, bills and contribute to the economy, just like everyone else, he did it anyway. Contrary to popular belief, the sole intent of immigrants being in the United States is not to STEAL American jobs. It's to survive. Thus, I believe this country is in dire need of immigration reform. Building a wall at the U.S.-Mexico border and beefing up border security is not reform. Neither is the targeted arrest and deportation of thousands of immigrants who have made lives for themselves here in the United States. In essence, our approach to this issue is dead wrong. Instead of merely kicking them out of the country time and time again, why not assist these immigrants in finding the proper channels through which to become legal Americans?
I realize that Hispanics have gained a bad reputation, what with all of the drug wars as of late, but we shouldn't let a few bad apples tarnish our views of them as an integral part of our society. That's one of the reasons why I'm ecstatic about the renovations that will be made at Schank Walk-In Park. Turning the property into a maintained soccer field will not only be a wonderful way to help beautify the community, but it will also serve as a way to lead by example. We shouldn't be making Hispanic immigrants feel like they're unwanted in this community; we should be welcoming them into our melting pot of cultures with open arms. After all, the color of your skin, the language you speak and your place of birth shouldn't determine whether or not you're an American.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, March 30, 2010
Welcome To 1984
Described as “a world of perpetual war, pervasive government surveillance, public mind control and the voiding of citizens’ rights,” I dare say the future illustrated in George Orwell’s “1984” has arrived.
While I am in total agreement that every U.S. citizen should have access to health care, the passage of government-controlled Obamacare is not what I had in mind. Speaking as someone who doesn’t have a health care plan, but probably should, I found that, when faced with an economic crunch, putting effort into securing health care just isn’t all that important. Turns out, even if you have a chronic illness, it tends to take a back seat when you’re struggling to make ends meet.
And seeing as how the nation is still wallowing in the effects of a recession, President Obama should have realized that not everyone is going to be able to afford what the government is prescribing before he went ahead and forced this legislation. But force seems to be his M.O. Instead of simply offering health care to all Americans and allowing us to make the decision as to whether or not we want it, it will be forced upon us. In fact, the government will be paying the Internal Revenue Service to keep tabs on Americans to make sure we’re in compliance. I understand that this will create more jobs, but it seems all too eerily similar to the future Orwell predicted.
Now that I am back on my feet financially, I have absolutely no problem with paying for health care, but to think that Big Brother will be deciding what I get makes me nauseous. As does the fact that, for many small businesses that barely eked out the economic downturn, the government could be putting the final nail in the coffin. Regardless of how much the government hands out in credits, chances are those businesses teetering the line between black and red will be forced out of business if the owners have to offer health care plans to all of their employees.
In essence, there’s a time and place - as well as a decency - with which to install legislation like this. Springing this on the heels of one of the worst recessions in decades was a terrible idea. I realize that each presidential term of office is four years, but that doesn’t mean one person can solve all of our problems in that short amount of time. As far as I’m concerned, if the government really had our best interests in mind with this legislation, we would have choices. But this new reform gives us anything but. Sure, the government plays a vital role in all our lives, but this is a little too much involvement for my liking.
Speaking of being too involved, I noticed there was a bill attached to the health care reform that would overhaul the student loan program. That overhaul would eliminate banks as the middlemen for students taking out loans and put the government in charge. While this was promoted as a way to increase funding, something tells me that the reason banks were asked to play the middlemen in the first place was to make sure the government didn’t have complete control over that aspect of education. One step forward, three steps back, I guess. Since health care legislation was approved, I’ve heard a lot of people mumble the phrases “government takeover” and “socialism.” While I’m not certain that is the direction the country is headed, I am starting to feel a little less in control of my own life. How about you?
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
While I am in total agreement that every U.S. citizen should have access to health care, the passage of government-controlled Obamacare is not what I had in mind. Speaking as someone who doesn’t have a health care plan, but probably should, I found that, when faced with an economic crunch, putting effort into securing health care just isn’t all that important. Turns out, even if you have a chronic illness, it tends to take a back seat when you’re struggling to make ends meet.
And seeing as how the nation is still wallowing in the effects of a recession, President Obama should have realized that not everyone is going to be able to afford what the government is prescribing before he went ahead and forced this legislation. But force seems to be his M.O. Instead of simply offering health care to all Americans and allowing us to make the decision as to whether or not we want it, it will be forced upon us. In fact, the government will be paying the Internal Revenue Service to keep tabs on Americans to make sure we’re in compliance. I understand that this will create more jobs, but it seems all too eerily similar to the future Orwell predicted.
Now that I am back on my feet financially, I have absolutely no problem with paying for health care, but to think that Big Brother will be deciding what I get makes me nauseous. As does the fact that, for many small businesses that barely eked out the economic downturn, the government could be putting the final nail in the coffin. Regardless of how much the government hands out in credits, chances are those businesses teetering the line between black and red will be forced out of business if the owners have to offer health care plans to all of their employees.
In essence, there’s a time and place - as well as a decency - with which to install legislation like this. Springing this on the heels of one of the worst recessions in decades was a terrible idea. I realize that each presidential term of office is four years, but that doesn’t mean one person can solve all of our problems in that short amount of time. As far as I’m concerned, if the government really had our best interests in mind with this legislation, we would have choices. But this new reform gives us anything but. Sure, the government plays a vital role in all our lives, but this is a little too much involvement for my liking.
Speaking of being too involved, I noticed there was a bill attached to the health care reform that would overhaul the student loan program. That overhaul would eliminate banks as the middlemen for students taking out loans and put the government in charge. While this was promoted as a way to increase funding, something tells me that the reason banks were asked to play the middlemen in the first place was to make sure the government didn’t have complete control over that aspect of education. One step forward, three steps back, I guess. Since health care legislation was approved, I’ve heard a lot of people mumble the phrases “government takeover” and “socialism.” While I’m not certain that is the direction the country is headed, I am starting to feel a little less in control of my own life. How about you?
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, March 23, 2010
Make Accommodations More Accommodating
Since I’m still a little stunned – and, I’ll admit, slightly miffed – about the new health care reform bill, I decided that airing my concerns about that topic could wait at least a week – if I’m able to stop fuming by then. While I realize that I’ve picked on airlines once before regarding the overwhelming amount of security measures, following director Kevin Smith’s experience, I simply couldn’t resist venturing onto the topic of “oversized” seating requirements. Seeing as how I never really knew airlines maintained policies regarding passenger size, I did some research and found that at least three major air travel providers have such stipulations in place. According to their guidelines, these airlines require passengers who “don’t safely and comfortably fit” in a single seat to buy a second seat.
Upon reading through the “rules” on Continental’s Web site, I couldn’t help but wonder how this practice hasn’t been declared discriminatory. As it turns out, Continental has three stipulations (which are very similar to those of Southwest and American Airlines): all passengers “must be able to properly attach, buckle and wear the seat belt, with one extension if necessary, whenever the seat belt sign is illuminated or as instructed by a crew member; they “must be able to remain seated with the seat armrest(s) down for the entirety of the flight” and they cannot “significantly encroach upon the adjacent seating space.”
While these sound like reasonable demands, I started to put the whole scenario into perspective.
First of all, the average seat width on Boeing 737s and 757s, armrest to armrest is 17.2 inches. On 767s, it’s 17.9 inches. If you’re doing the math, that’s not quite a foot and a half of personal space. So even if you’re not overweight, you’re going to be a bit cramped ... and thankful if you’re not claustrophobic. With that in mind while perusing the March 13 edition of the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, I couldn’t help but take notice of an article in the At Home section. “Expanded sizes,” was the title with the subhead, “Furniture makers are responding to the needs of ever-larger Americans.” Continuing to read the article, I found some staggering statistics: “Of all American adults ages 20 to 74, about 46 percent were overweight or obese in 1960, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. By 2005, that number had risen to about 73 percent for Americans 20 and older.”
Considering such a significant portion of the population has weight issues, the fact that manufacturers are catering to the majority makes perfect sense. And if furniture makers are doing it, why can’t airlines? It just doesn’t make sense to punish and alienate the majority of the population by forcing them off the plane or requiring them to buy two seats. Wouldn’t it just be easier to concede the fact that catering to the majority is the most reasonable solution and offer larger seats (at a higher price, of course)? I’m not saying jet builders should start using larger seats in the entire plane – that would be ludicrous, not to mention not very profitable. When all is said and done, I’m sure including a row or two of roomier seats to accommodate those who need or want more space wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen in air travel history.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Upon reading through the “rules” on Continental’s Web site, I couldn’t help but wonder how this practice hasn’t been declared discriminatory. As it turns out, Continental has three stipulations (which are very similar to those of Southwest and American Airlines): all passengers “must be able to properly attach, buckle and wear the seat belt, with one extension if necessary, whenever the seat belt sign is illuminated or as instructed by a crew member; they “must be able to remain seated with the seat armrest(s) down for the entirety of the flight” and they cannot “significantly encroach upon the adjacent seating space.”
While these sound like reasonable demands, I started to put the whole scenario into perspective.
First of all, the average seat width on Boeing 737s and 757s, armrest to armrest is 17.2 inches. On 767s, it’s 17.9 inches. If you’re doing the math, that’s not quite a foot and a half of personal space. So even if you’re not overweight, you’re going to be a bit cramped ... and thankful if you’re not claustrophobic. With that in mind while perusing the March 13 edition of the Eau Claire Leader-Telegram, I couldn’t help but take notice of an article in the At Home section. “Expanded sizes,” was the title with the subhead, “Furniture makers are responding to the needs of ever-larger Americans.” Continuing to read the article, I found some staggering statistics: “Of all American adults ages 20 to 74, about 46 percent were overweight or obese in 1960, according to the National Center for Health Statistics. By 2005, that number had risen to about 73 percent for Americans 20 and older.”
Considering such a significant portion of the population has weight issues, the fact that manufacturers are catering to the majority makes perfect sense. And if furniture makers are doing it, why can’t airlines? It just doesn’t make sense to punish and alienate the majority of the population by forcing them off the plane or requiring them to buy two seats. Wouldn’t it just be easier to concede the fact that catering to the majority is the most reasonable solution and offer larger seats (at a higher price, of course)? I’m not saying jet builders should start using larger seats in the entire plane – that would be ludicrous, not to mention not very profitable. When all is said and done, I’m sure including a row or two of roomier seats to accommodate those who need or want more space wouldn’t be the worst thing to happen in air travel history.
Jennie Oemig
Editor
Arcadia News-Leader
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
Bartenders Need to Be More Responsible
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)