After witnessing the devastation of the earthquake and ensuing tsunami in Japan, I can't help but wonder what would happen if the United States faced a similar crisis on its Pacific coast. While this country has withstood its share of natural disasters, the mere fact that earthquakes can happen at any moment of any given day without any warning is a scary concept. What's worse is that we're not immune to the kind of tragedy that is unfolding on the other side of the Pacific Ocean.
For starters, California sits atop the San Andreas fault line and there are several sister fault lines in the San Francisco Bay area alone. That, in itself, makes me cognizant of just how plausible it would be for the United States to face similar devastation. The San Andreas fault has been the epicenter of a handful of serious earthquakes in the past, the largest of them being a 7.9-magnitude tremor in 1857. However, the population of California has grown extensively since then and a 9.0-magnitude quake, as was experienced in Japan, could seriously cripple the Golden State. With three of its major cities, Los Angeles, San Francisco and San Diego, along the coast, a 31-foot wall of water would devastate the region. Those three cities have a combined population of close to 6 million.
In addition, the United States has four of the nation's 104 licensed nuclear reactors located in southern California. The Diablo Canyon nuclear plant, with two reactors, was built right on the shoreline in San Luis Obispo County, which makes it extremely vulnerable to tsunamis. The San Onofre power plant in southern San Diego County, which also sits on the Pacific coastline, is said to have been built to withstand a 7.0-magnitude earthquake. That's all well and good, but what if a larger quake shook the region?
And then there's the issue of infrastructure stability. In 1989, when San Francisco was hit by a 6.9-magnitude quake, bridges and highways collapsed. A portion of the San Francisco-Oakland Bay replacement bridge is still under construction over 20 years later. And that tremor lasted roughly 15 seconds; the quake in Japan shook the nation for over two minutes. Tom Heaton, an engineering seismologist at Cal Tech, admitted that, compared to Japan, California is nowhere near as prepared for such a violent quake. If that's the case, if I lived in California, I would be seriously considering a move.
If you ask me, it seems that earthquakes have been getting more severe in strength. Consider the devastation that was caused by the 9.1-magnitude earthquake and tsunami near Indonesia in 2004 – over 200,000 people killed. Then, of course, there was the 8.8-magnitude tremblor that rocked Chile just over a year ago – over 500 people killed. While the earthquake in Haiti only registered as a 7 on the Richter scale, it caused severe damage due to the fact that the epicenter was near a very populated location – between 50,000 and 200,000 people killed.
That many major quakes in a seven-year span is quite rare and has been deemed a statistical anomaly by some. With the death toll in Japan still rising and Prime Minister Naoto Kan describing the ordeal as the nation's worst crisis since World War II, I can't even begin to fathom what would happen if we were faced with similar devastation. Let's hope we don't have to.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Preserve the Reserves
While I will admit that it’s a little bit too eerily ironic that, less than a week after my column berating NASCAR for wasting fuel, there’s speculation that President Barack Obama may tap the United States’ oil reserves, I am absolutely, positively, 110 percent opposed to that move. Whether or not it is being seriously considered, I don’t think it is the time to tap into the 727 million barrels of fuel that the U. S. government has stockpiled. Why? First of all, the Strategic Petroleum Reserves are there for emergencies. Though some Democrats are urging Obama to tap into and sell some of the petroleum in reserve, a letter written to the president states that doing so would “combat crippling price spikes in the short term.”
What about the long-term? Do we just use up those resources and merely hope that things get better? That doesn’t sound like a very solid solution, nor does it sound like a solution at all. Though the economy is still not in great shape and distress in the Middle East has sent oil prices soaring, I would find it immensely difficult to justify tapping into our supply. We’re not really in a state of emergency; the world is, as we know, a very unstable place to begin with. Besides, those fuel reserves, when accessed, would only be enough to supply the nation with gas for several months. Yes, that’s right, months. So why would we want to waste those reserves at the slightest flux in oil prices? Sure, paying $4 a gallon for gas, as is predicted, will be difficult for many, especially considering the economy is on the rebound from a recession. But, just because high gas prices may hinder the recovering economy, tapping our oil reserves likely would not make much difference at the pump.
When President George H. W. Bush sold over 10 million barrels from the reserves in 1990 after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, prices dropped at first, then rose as fighting in the Persian Gulf continued. Only after war was waged did oil prices drop. I don’t consider that a very good alternative when the U. S. government could simply let the tension in Libya run its course. Originally created in 1973 due to an Arab oil embargo, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has also been tapped in other instances – most recently in response to hurricanes Ike, Gustav and Katrina. Those were emergencies. What we’re experiencing now is far from what could be classified as an emergency. Though the crisis in Libya has wreaked a lot of havoc in the way of fuel supply, it is likely just a temporary setback – nothing significant enough to warrant using up or selling reserve oil … at least not yet.
If history’s taught us anything, it’s that anything can happen. What’s to say there won’t be more turmoil yet to come in the Middle East for which we’ll need the reserves? And with the U. S. dollar consistently losing its value in comparison to other currencies, I think tapping the oil reserves now would be a severe detriment to this country. Clearly, there will be bigger fish to fry down the road, so the last thing we need is to eat up the oil we have for the mere benefit of saving a penny here or a nickel there.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
What about the long-term? Do we just use up those resources and merely hope that things get better? That doesn’t sound like a very solid solution, nor does it sound like a solution at all. Though the economy is still not in great shape and distress in the Middle East has sent oil prices soaring, I would find it immensely difficult to justify tapping into our supply. We’re not really in a state of emergency; the world is, as we know, a very unstable place to begin with. Besides, those fuel reserves, when accessed, would only be enough to supply the nation with gas for several months. Yes, that’s right, months. So why would we want to waste those reserves at the slightest flux in oil prices? Sure, paying $4 a gallon for gas, as is predicted, will be difficult for many, especially considering the economy is on the rebound from a recession. But, just because high gas prices may hinder the recovering economy, tapping our oil reserves likely would not make much difference at the pump.
When President George H. W. Bush sold over 10 million barrels from the reserves in 1990 after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait, prices dropped at first, then rose as fighting in the Persian Gulf continued. Only after war was waged did oil prices drop. I don’t consider that a very good alternative when the U. S. government could simply let the tension in Libya run its course. Originally created in 1973 due to an Arab oil embargo, the Strategic Petroleum Reserve has also been tapped in other instances – most recently in response to hurricanes Ike, Gustav and Katrina. Those were emergencies. What we’re experiencing now is far from what could be classified as an emergency. Though the crisis in Libya has wreaked a lot of havoc in the way of fuel supply, it is likely just a temporary setback – nothing significant enough to warrant using up or selling reserve oil … at least not yet.
If history’s taught us anything, it’s that anything can happen. What’s to say there won’t be more turmoil yet to come in the Middle East for which we’ll need the reserves? And with the U. S. dollar consistently losing its value in comparison to other currencies, I think tapping the oil reserves now would be a severe detriment to this country. Clearly, there will be bigger fish to fry down the road, so the last thing we need is to eat up the oil we have for the mere benefit of saving a penny here or a nickel there.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, March 1, 2011
Not A Fan of NASCAR
While many of you are wondering why a column about the National Association of Stock Car Auto Racing (NASCAR) isn't on one of the sports pages, I'm going to come right out and say it … I don't consider it a sport. Now that I have several of you riled up and forming your arguments as to why NASCAR is a sport, I will sum up my reasoning in two words: physicality and purpose. But, to satisfy all those who don't agree with me, I will meet you halfway. From this point on, I will refer to this racing phenomenon as a "sport" … and, yes, the quotes are intended to convey sarcasm, which, by the way, I am fluent in.
As you all know, the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series began its 63rd season the Sunday after Valentine's Day with its renowned Daytona 500. When you think about the greatest sporting events that take place on a yearly basis – the Super Bowl, the World Series, March Madness, the Stanley Cup, the NBA Finals – all of them have something in common: pure athleticism. Though I have heard many a race car driver say that they have to be in good shape to drive their cars to victory lane, personally, I don't think the "sport" requires the same physicality as, say, guarding Clay Matthews from sacking the quarterback or keeping Kobe Bryant from making a layup. Simply put, NASCAR doesn't ideally fit the definition of a sport, which, according to Mr. Webster is "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment."
While I'm sure it gets hot in those vehicles and the competitors sweat up a storm, I don't think going from the brake to the clutch to the gas is sport enough for me. I mean, if driving a car and weaving in and out of traffic for three hours is deemed "physical exertion," then anyone who has traveled the Interstate to Minneapolis or Chicago is an athlete. Though I will admit to enjoying the "sport" when I was a youngster, the luster began to fade when I grew up and started to realize that, in the grand scheme of things, those race car drivers were earning millions of dollars a year to waste one of our most precious resources. The amount of fuel that is wasted during one of these practices and races is outrageous, something like 8,000 gallons, which amounts to about 288,000 gallons a year. Sure, I understand that the "sport" is legendary, but back when Richard Petty was winning championships, our country had the means to support the weekly competitions. In those times, there was no concern about limited fuel resources.
Things have changed, however, and we now find ourselves on the fast-track (no pun intended) to using up this vital resource. Every weekend, 43 NASCAR drivers suit up, get into their cars and commence driving in circles for hours on end. And when you add in the 43 drivers who partake in the Nationwide Series races, which began accompanying the Sprint Cup Series in 1981, that's nearly 90 vehicles a week that use gas during practices and actual races. While the ultimate winner of these events typically gets out of his vehicle, climbs on the roof and celebrates the victory, I honestly feel that, with each drop of fuel consumed during the races, every American ends up a loser. If it weren't for the exorbitant amount of fuel that has been used up during these events for the past 63 years, we likely wouldn't be paying upwards of $3 a gallon for gas at the pumps.
Though I won't be so bold as to say that eliminating the "sport" would change anything, I just don't understand the attraction to watching a bunch of vehicles going around in circles for hours on end every Saturday and Sunday for nine months out of the year. Don't get me wrong, I like watching the road course races every now and then – mostly because they actually involve right turns – but I certainly think 36 races a year is far too many.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
As you all know, the NASCAR Sprint Cup Series began its 63rd season the Sunday after Valentine's Day with its renowned Daytona 500. When you think about the greatest sporting events that take place on a yearly basis – the Super Bowl, the World Series, March Madness, the Stanley Cup, the NBA Finals – all of them have something in common: pure athleticism. Though I have heard many a race car driver say that they have to be in good shape to drive their cars to victory lane, personally, I don't think the "sport" requires the same physicality as, say, guarding Clay Matthews from sacking the quarterback or keeping Kobe Bryant from making a layup. Simply put, NASCAR doesn't ideally fit the definition of a sport, which, according to Mr. Webster is "an activity involving physical exertion and skill in which an individual or team competes against another or others for entertainment."
While I'm sure it gets hot in those vehicles and the competitors sweat up a storm, I don't think going from the brake to the clutch to the gas is sport enough for me. I mean, if driving a car and weaving in and out of traffic for three hours is deemed "physical exertion," then anyone who has traveled the Interstate to Minneapolis or Chicago is an athlete. Though I will admit to enjoying the "sport" when I was a youngster, the luster began to fade when I grew up and started to realize that, in the grand scheme of things, those race car drivers were earning millions of dollars a year to waste one of our most precious resources. The amount of fuel that is wasted during one of these practices and races is outrageous, something like 8,000 gallons, which amounts to about 288,000 gallons a year. Sure, I understand that the "sport" is legendary, but back when Richard Petty was winning championships, our country had the means to support the weekly competitions. In those times, there was no concern about limited fuel resources.
Things have changed, however, and we now find ourselves on the fast-track (no pun intended) to using up this vital resource. Every weekend, 43 NASCAR drivers suit up, get into their cars and commence driving in circles for hours on end. And when you add in the 43 drivers who partake in the Nationwide Series races, which began accompanying the Sprint Cup Series in 1981, that's nearly 90 vehicles a week that use gas during practices and actual races. While the ultimate winner of these events typically gets out of his vehicle, climbs on the roof and celebrates the victory, I honestly feel that, with each drop of fuel consumed during the races, every American ends up a loser. If it weren't for the exorbitant amount of fuel that has been used up during these events for the past 63 years, we likely wouldn't be paying upwards of $3 a gallon for gas at the pumps.
Though I won't be so bold as to say that eliminating the "sport" would change anything, I just don't understand the attraction to watching a bunch of vehicles going around in circles for hours on end every Saturday and Sunday for nine months out of the year. Don't get me wrong, I like watching the road course races every now and then – mostly because they actually involve right turns – but I certainly think 36 races a year is far too many.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, February 22, 2011
Hindsight Is 20-20
Watching Wisconsin become the next Egypt is something I'm sure no one ever anticipated, yet, turmoil has been building due to legislation that would eliminate workers rights to bargain collectively for wages, benefits and all that good stuff. Rewind about 50 years before Wisconsin decided to allow public employees to unionize. Around that time, private sector employees were given the green light to bargain collectively. Nowadays, you don't see nearly as much of that happening. The reason: budgetary constraints. You see, private sector employees relied on private entities to pay their wages. Once all those resources were tapped, many businesses either took their companies elsewhere or folded altogether.
With public employees, it's an entirely different scenario since it's the taxpayers who essentially pay their wages. While we could just pack up and move out of state if we're unhappy with the taxes being raised, the burden just grows for everyone else. But the state is broke, so it's very clear that something has to change. Five decades ago, the economy in Wisconsin was entirely different, fully capable of sustaining public unions. Since then, however, more and more public employees have been hired and the ability of these people to bargain collectively has garnered them some of the highest quality benefits packages around. Through the years, the cost to the government has increased significantly.
Therein lies the problem. Public employee unions in Wisconsin don't negotiate salaries based upon the budget of the state government, thus growing the state's debt, which inevitably becomes a bigger burden on the taxpayers. Because of the difficulty of sustaining the salaries of public workers, there's no doubt in my mind that collective bargaining is part of the reason the state has gone so far into the red. Regardless, I totally understand the public employees' perspective in this whole debacle. They don't want to give up their ability to bargain collectively because, once they concede even just a little bit, chances are the government will expect more concessions in the future.
What I don't quite comprehend is that, because collective bargaining has been in place for 50 years, public workers believe they are entitled to it and it has become their right to join unions and fight for their benefits, wages, pensions and all that. Not necessarily. The way I see it, the only things that we're entitled to as Americans are our basic rights that were granted to us by the United States Constitution. Everything else is pretty much fair game. Truthfully, the practice of collective bargaining would not even exist were it not for the governing body of the State of Wisconsin. So, in essence, the government giveth and the government can taketh away.
I know it sounds malicious to put it in those terms, but I honestly do feel bad for union workers. Essentially, they're getting screwed over due to poor decisions that were made by the government five decades ago; it really is unfortunate and unfair. Perhaps, had the Wisconsin government heeded the warning of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who declared that "government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service," none of this would be happening right now.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
With public employees, it's an entirely different scenario since it's the taxpayers who essentially pay their wages. While we could just pack up and move out of state if we're unhappy with the taxes being raised, the burden just grows for everyone else. But the state is broke, so it's very clear that something has to change. Five decades ago, the economy in Wisconsin was entirely different, fully capable of sustaining public unions. Since then, however, more and more public employees have been hired and the ability of these people to bargain collectively has garnered them some of the highest quality benefits packages around. Through the years, the cost to the government has increased significantly.
Therein lies the problem. Public employee unions in Wisconsin don't negotiate salaries based upon the budget of the state government, thus growing the state's debt, which inevitably becomes a bigger burden on the taxpayers. Because of the difficulty of sustaining the salaries of public workers, there's no doubt in my mind that collective bargaining is part of the reason the state has gone so far into the red. Regardless, I totally understand the public employees' perspective in this whole debacle. They don't want to give up their ability to bargain collectively because, once they concede even just a little bit, chances are the government will expect more concessions in the future.
What I don't quite comprehend is that, because collective bargaining has been in place for 50 years, public workers believe they are entitled to it and it has become their right to join unions and fight for their benefits, wages, pensions and all that. Not necessarily. The way I see it, the only things that we're entitled to as Americans are our basic rights that were granted to us by the United States Constitution. Everything else is pretty much fair game. Truthfully, the practice of collective bargaining would not even exist were it not for the governing body of the State of Wisconsin. So, in essence, the government giveth and the government can taketh away.
I know it sounds malicious to put it in those terms, but I honestly do feel bad for union workers. Essentially, they're getting screwed over due to poor decisions that were made by the government five decades ago; it really is unfortunate and unfair. Perhaps, had the Wisconsin government heeded the warning of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who declared that "government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into public service," none of this would be happening right now.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Super Waste of Money
When it comes to the Super Bowl, money is typically no object. You have people shelling out thousands of dollars for tickets, parking, memorabilia and just about anything else you can think of when making the trip to the biggest football game of the season. Then, of course, you have the fans at home who throw Super Bowl parties, throwing down uncharacteristically large amounts of money on food, alcohol and, for some, new wide-screen televisions. However, on game day, the most extravagant spending of all is revealed during the in-game breaks – commercials. While companies spend millions upon millions of dollars to get their product advertised during what has become the most anticipated commercial day in history, there are some ads that leave the masses disappointed.
Among the most talked about Super Bowl commercials this year were the Volkswagen "Force" ad with the kid dressed up as Darth Vader and the Bridgestone "Carma" commercial with the life-saving beaver. Personally, my favorite commercials this year were those that featured Doritos namely the "Pug Attack" ad when the guy is taunting the dog with a chip and eventually ends up on the business end of a glass door. Regardless, the people in this country have come to know and love Super Bowl Sunday for, not only the game, but also the entertainment value of the commercials and big-name performances. While I admittedly think this year was lacking in the performance department with the Black Eyed Peas, that wasn't even one of my biggest concerns.
Remember after Christina Aguilera butchered the National Anthem (sadly, she could have saved herself some embarrassment by just lip-syncing), there was a flyover of the stadium by four F-18 Hornets? While there are many people out there wondering why the fly over even took place since the roof of Cowboys Stadium was closed, the United States Armed Forces have been doing those flyovers for years, even at domed stadiums. It doesn't make a lot of sense in that regard, but, for me, the cost for our military to perform these ceremonial flights is what makes me question their necessity. That whole five-second flyover of the Dallas Cowboys' new stomping grounds reportedly cost the government $450,000. While no one in the stadium was actually able to see the jets, part of the intent of the flyover was to entertain the at-home audiences. Now, I don't know about everyone else, but I could have gone on with my life just as well had I not seen the jets soar across the sky before kickoff. And now that I know how much it cost, the entertainment value is lost on me.
After being called out on the cost, the military rebutted, saying that the Super Bowl flyovers are figured into the Navy's annual budget and deemed training exercises. Don't get me wrong, I understand the purpose of training exercises, but I have a hard time accepting the fact that the government spent nearly a half a million dollars on fuel, personnel and who knows what else to fly the jets to Arlington, Texas, from Virginia Beach, Va., to perform said training. I mean, just imagine the hundreds of different ways that money could have been used to better the nation and the economy. On second thought, don't. It might make you sick to your stomach.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Among the most talked about Super Bowl commercials this year were the Volkswagen "Force" ad with the kid dressed up as Darth Vader and the Bridgestone "Carma" commercial with the life-saving beaver. Personally, my favorite commercials this year were those that featured Doritos namely the "Pug Attack" ad when the guy is taunting the dog with a chip and eventually ends up on the business end of a glass door. Regardless, the people in this country have come to know and love Super Bowl Sunday for, not only the game, but also the entertainment value of the commercials and big-name performances. While I admittedly think this year was lacking in the performance department with the Black Eyed Peas, that wasn't even one of my biggest concerns.
Remember after Christina Aguilera butchered the National Anthem (sadly, she could have saved herself some embarrassment by just lip-syncing), there was a flyover of the stadium by four F-18 Hornets? While there are many people out there wondering why the fly over even took place since the roof of Cowboys Stadium was closed, the United States Armed Forces have been doing those flyovers for years, even at domed stadiums. It doesn't make a lot of sense in that regard, but, for me, the cost for our military to perform these ceremonial flights is what makes me question their necessity. That whole five-second flyover of the Dallas Cowboys' new stomping grounds reportedly cost the government $450,000. While no one in the stadium was actually able to see the jets, part of the intent of the flyover was to entertain the at-home audiences. Now, I don't know about everyone else, but I could have gone on with my life just as well had I not seen the jets soar across the sky before kickoff. And now that I know how much it cost, the entertainment value is lost on me.
After being called out on the cost, the military rebutted, saying that the Super Bowl flyovers are figured into the Navy's annual budget and deemed training exercises. Don't get me wrong, I understand the purpose of training exercises, but I have a hard time accepting the fact that the government spent nearly a half a million dollars on fuel, personnel and who knows what else to fly the jets to Arlington, Texas, from Virginia Beach, Va., to perform said training. I mean, just imagine the hundreds of different ways that money could have been used to better the nation and the economy. On second thought, don't. It might make you sick to your stomach.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Don't Alienate the Voting Public
Every year around Election Day, we hear so many commercials and paid advertisements insisting that our vote is important and that everyone should get to the polls and cast their ballot if they want to see change. So, why then, is the State of Wisconsin moving forward with legislation that will require all voters to present photo identification at the polls? While presenting a photo ID is necessary while carrying out various tasks, such as filling prescriptions, writing checks or boarding a flight, I don't understand why it should become a necessity when it comes to voting. If I were to venture a guess, I'd say the Wisconsin government will only further alienate the voting public by implementing this law.
Off the top of my head, I can think of three groups of people who will be negatively impacted by this legislation: the elderly, the poor and college students. Many elderly people who don't drive any longer have no need for a driver's license(my grandmother never had a driver's license and never drove a day in her life). With most of these individuals already living on a fixed income, it seems arrogant of the government to tell them they need to purchase a photo ID in order to vote, something they've done for decades without such requirements. Then, you have low-income families that are barely making it as it is. Most of them don't have vehicles because they cannot afford them and use public transportation to get from A to B. Their vote is just as important as anyone else's, yet, most will likely give up that right because they won't have proper identification to cast their votes. If I had a choice between purchasing a Wisconsin photo ID and putting food on my table, you'd better believe my family would come first.
Last, but certainly not least, you have the college student faction – kids who will someday become the leaders of this nation. These are the people we should be encouraging to vote, not discouraging them by making more regulations. In Wisconsin, students are considered residents of the state if they live on a UW campus for the majority of the year, which most do. I attended UW-River Falls and there were oodles of students attending the institution due to its excellent education program and its close proximity to their homes in Minnesota. However, with this new Wisconsin Voter Photo Identification Act, those students will not be able to cast their vote unless they acquire a Wisconsin ID. That's just ridiculous, if you ask me. Not only are these students paying more tuition due to reciprocity to get an education at a college of their choosing, but our government is going to require them to purchase an ID card if they wish to vote in Wisconsin? Something just doesn't add up. Perhaps, college IDs should be considered an acceptable form of identification at the polls.
If not, I think the state should issue these students – and the rest of the citizens who don't have proper identification – Wisconsin identification cards, free of charge, so they may vote. After all, it is our God-given right and people shouldn't have to pay the government in order to exercise that right. Granted, there has been talk of the state government providing the IDs at no cost, but, when you take into account the condition the economy is in, I'm not sure that would be entirely feasible. Another thing that frustrates me is the way in which this new bill will eliminate same-day voter registration. Are you kidding me? There are so many people out there who register on the day they cast ballots that it would be a travesty to do away with that convenience. Instead, everyone will have to remember to get all of their information to the state weeks in advance. With the busy schedules people have, it seems ludicrous to expect people to have to remember that, too.
Though the Photo Identification Act is, more or less, a way to cut down on voter fraud, I have a feeling it will cut down on the number of voters at the polls, instead. Sure, people should do their civic duty and make sure they have all their ducks in a row prior to Election Day, but it's becoming way too much of a hassle, if you ask me. Maybe, instead of adding more rules and regulations, the state should try to make it easier for the voting public to carry out its role in our democracy.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Off the top of my head, I can think of three groups of people who will be negatively impacted by this legislation: the elderly, the poor and college students. Many elderly people who don't drive any longer have no need for a driver's license(my grandmother never had a driver's license and never drove a day in her life). With most of these individuals already living on a fixed income, it seems arrogant of the government to tell them they need to purchase a photo ID in order to vote, something they've done for decades without such requirements. Then, you have low-income families that are barely making it as it is. Most of them don't have vehicles because they cannot afford them and use public transportation to get from A to B. Their vote is just as important as anyone else's, yet, most will likely give up that right because they won't have proper identification to cast their votes. If I had a choice between purchasing a Wisconsin photo ID and putting food on my table, you'd better believe my family would come first.
Last, but certainly not least, you have the college student faction – kids who will someday become the leaders of this nation. These are the people we should be encouraging to vote, not discouraging them by making more regulations. In Wisconsin, students are considered residents of the state if they live on a UW campus for the majority of the year, which most do. I attended UW-River Falls and there were oodles of students attending the institution due to its excellent education program and its close proximity to their homes in Minnesota. However, with this new Wisconsin Voter Photo Identification Act, those students will not be able to cast their vote unless they acquire a Wisconsin ID. That's just ridiculous, if you ask me. Not only are these students paying more tuition due to reciprocity to get an education at a college of their choosing, but our government is going to require them to purchase an ID card if they wish to vote in Wisconsin? Something just doesn't add up. Perhaps, college IDs should be considered an acceptable form of identification at the polls.
If not, I think the state should issue these students – and the rest of the citizens who don't have proper identification – Wisconsin identification cards, free of charge, so they may vote. After all, it is our God-given right and people shouldn't have to pay the government in order to exercise that right. Granted, there has been talk of the state government providing the IDs at no cost, but, when you take into account the condition the economy is in, I'm not sure that would be entirely feasible. Another thing that frustrates me is the way in which this new bill will eliminate same-day voter registration. Are you kidding me? There are so many people out there who register on the day they cast ballots that it would be a travesty to do away with that convenience. Instead, everyone will have to remember to get all of their information to the state weeks in advance. With the busy schedules people have, it seems ludicrous to expect people to have to remember that, too.
Though the Photo Identification Act is, more or less, a way to cut down on voter fraud, I have a feeling it will cut down on the number of voters at the polls, instead. Sure, people should do their civic duty and make sure they have all their ducks in a row prior to Election Day, but it's becoming way too much of a hassle, if you ask me. Maybe, instead of adding more rules and regulations, the state should try to make it easier for the voting public to carry out its role in our democracy.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
What About The Children?
Learning about the struggles that the Independence School District is going through in terms of funding has made me realize how the decaying public education system is cheating the youth of this nation of their futures. In recognizing this, I have some serious concerns regarding the way in which our state government prioritizes funding for certain entities. When you think about it, kids going through the public school system across the state are, in essence, the future of Wisconsin. If they are not provided the proper education they rightfully deserve, chances are the state will suffer – likely in more ways than one.
First of all, the declining funding from the state level will, unfortunately, mean that school districts will need to be dissolved or consolidate with other districts. Teachers will lose jobs and will seek employment in other states. Due to larger student-teacher ratios, grades and test scores will suffer, meaning students will not get the education they need to prosper in the future and thus hampering their success in the college and in the work force. And when those individuals decide to start a family, I wouldn't be surprised if they would seek to have them schooled in a state in which their children can get a quality education. So, in reality, what the Independence School District is dealing with will, ultimately, be an obstacle that many other schools will encounter if the state continues to cut funding.
Believe me, if I were a parent, I would be calling my legislators constantly to gripe about how wrong these cuts are and how harmful they will be our children. While I am on board with Gov. Scott Walker's plan to bring the business climate in Wisconsin back up to par, it seems that other areas of need are being shoved on the backburner. What's even scarier is that one Wisconsin legislator, Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, has proposed eliminating funding for 4-year-old kindergarten. That's insane. When every year of a child's youth counts – particularly when it comes to learning – it's hard to fathom that people actually think cutting such programs would be beneficial on any level.
What I think really needs to happen is our representatives in government should help contribute to saving our schools. Maybe, instead of taking health insurance, perhaps, they might consider taking a stipend. Or maybe just plain, old, goodhearted charity would be appreciated. I'll bet if each of the elected officials and justices for the state of Wisconsin donated a portion of their salary to the education fund, it would be genuinely appreciated. When Gov. Walker served as the Milwaukee County Executive, he voluntarily reduced his salary to save money, which makes me wonder if he would be willing to consider doing the same thing in his new role. It certainly would give constituents some newfound respect for politicians – and government in general. At last check, the salary for Wisconsin's governor ranked 19th in the nation. Add to that the fact that our Chief Justice makes over $150,000 a year (and the six associate justices each make about $144,000 per year), it's no wonder state expenses are exceeding its revenues.
But, I digress; something needs to change; we can't just keep pretending that referendums that increase taxes for the general public will continue to solve this problem. A great deal of families are already struggling as it is. And cutting funding to schools is about the worst thing any state government could do. Here's hoping there is some semblance of light at the end of this dreary tunnel and that politicians in Madison will begin to see the error in their ways – hopefully, sooner, rather than later.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
First of all, the declining funding from the state level will, unfortunately, mean that school districts will need to be dissolved or consolidate with other districts. Teachers will lose jobs and will seek employment in other states. Due to larger student-teacher ratios, grades and test scores will suffer, meaning students will not get the education they need to prosper in the future and thus hampering their success in the college and in the work force. And when those individuals decide to start a family, I wouldn't be surprised if they would seek to have them schooled in a state in which their children can get a quality education. So, in reality, what the Independence School District is dealing with will, ultimately, be an obstacle that many other schools will encounter if the state continues to cut funding.
Believe me, if I were a parent, I would be calling my legislators constantly to gripe about how wrong these cuts are and how harmful they will be our children. While I am on board with Gov. Scott Walker's plan to bring the business climate in Wisconsin back up to par, it seems that other areas of need are being shoved on the backburner. What's even scarier is that one Wisconsin legislator, Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, has proposed eliminating funding for 4-year-old kindergarten. That's insane. When every year of a child's youth counts – particularly when it comes to learning – it's hard to fathom that people actually think cutting such programs would be beneficial on any level.
What I think really needs to happen is our representatives in government should help contribute to saving our schools. Maybe, instead of taking health insurance, perhaps, they might consider taking a stipend. Or maybe just plain, old, goodhearted charity would be appreciated. I'll bet if each of the elected officials and justices for the state of Wisconsin donated a portion of their salary to the education fund, it would be genuinely appreciated. When Gov. Walker served as the Milwaukee County Executive, he voluntarily reduced his salary to save money, which makes me wonder if he would be willing to consider doing the same thing in his new role. It certainly would give constituents some newfound respect for politicians – and government in general. At last check, the salary for Wisconsin's governor ranked 19th in the nation. Add to that the fact that our Chief Justice makes over $150,000 a year (and the six associate justices each make about $144,000 per year), it's no wonder state expenses are exceeding its revenues.
But, I digress; something needs to change; we can't just keep pretending that referendums that increase taxes for the general public will continue to solve this problem. A great deal of families are already struggling as it is. And cutting funding to schools is about the worst thing any state government could do. Here's hoping there is some semblance of light at the end of this dreary tunnel and that politicians in Madison will begin to see the error in their ways – hopefully, sooner, rather than later.
Jennie Oemig
Staff Writer
Trempealeau County Times
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)