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
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
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
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
On Board with High-Speed Rail Route
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
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
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)