Star News Top Stories

January 7, 2010

Kindness helped aging dog to hang on
Nuna, our 16-year-old Greenland Husky from Alaska, almost made it to her second Christmas in Medford toward the end of 2009. She finally had to be put down on Christmas Eve, when she could no longer get up on her rear legs. She also could not keep her head balanced when lying down.
We valued each day that Nuna was able to be with us here. I think the kindness of Medford folks helped her carry on. She and our younger Alaskan dog, Avu, relished the petting by folks young and old. Also doggie treats at many local places.
While walking the dogs, I ran into many folks who had stories to tell of a departed dog or cat they loved. Some just never got another pet, while others said they got one as soon as possible.
We’d talk about the elderly Nuna and I knew that someday she’d have to leave us. But I’d tell her every night that we’d love it if she could hang on for a while, as long as she wasn’t in pain. And that we would always love her. I think she understood.
A former neighbor of ours in Barrow had lost Niq, a beautiful retriever, before we left. When he heard about Nuna passing away, he wrote us: “maybe, just maybe she and Niq are together again running across the tundra...”
Maybe. — Earl Finkler, Medford

Writer worries about a world without diversity
I need to respond to some points in Candice Riley's letter about the decline of morality in our country. Although, I do agree that the state of our educational system is failing our children and the fighting in Iraq seems to be in vain, I have to laugh at the fact that Mrs. Riley truly believes that gay people only "lived in San Francisco" when she was growing up.
Homosexuals live in every county of the United States, according to the last census poll, and indeed in every country on the planet. They are born to loving straight or gay parents and they may have straight siblings or gay siblings. People are born straight or gay (or bisexual or transgendered). They don't choose an "alternative lifestyle" as you call it. They live their lives the way they were programmed by their DNA (genes). Gay people are doctors, factory workers, musicians, lawyers, store clerks, students, nurses, television personalities, shopkeepers, priests and an un-ending array of other professions. They may be your neighbors, cousins, aunts, uncles, co-workers, or even your mother, father, brother or sister or any of the acquaintances that you meet each and every day of your life. I am not laughing at your naivete, I just needed to point out the fact that gay people are everywhere, whether you know it or not. In fact gay people make up approximately 5 to 10 percent of the entire population of the world. Figuring conservatively, that is 300 million people on the planet. You, Mrs. Riley want to deny the rights of 300 million people — the same rights that you take for granted.
Would you want to live in a world without the glorious symphonies of Peter Tchaikovsky or Aaron Copeland; the beautiful sculptures and painting of Michelangelo or Leonardo da Vinci; the wonderful comedy of Ellen Degeneres, Nathan Lane or Margaret Cho; the intriguing philosophy of Socrates; the moving poetry of Walt Whitman or Lord Byron; the spectacular acting of Rock Hudson, James Dean, Montgomery Clift or Roddy McDowell; the amazing piano playing of Liberace; the athletic abilities of Billie Jean King, Billy Bean, Martina Navratilova, Dave Kopay or Greg Louganis; the rich and fascinating history of Alexander the Great or the Roman Emperor Hadrian; or the political leadership of Congressman Barney Frank and Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin. What gaping holes would be left in the world if these gay people had never existed.
So Mrs. Riley, please don't hate and discriminate against people for something that they cannot change about themselves. Gay people are now, always have been and always will be everywhere that humanity exists. What a boring and uninteresting world this would be if we were all exactly alike. Don't live your life with fear and hatred of a group of people, but rather embrace the diversity of the world and revel in its beauty.
— Todd Peissig, Medford

Supervisor responds to questions raised by Lange in Vox Pop
A letter from Jeffrey Lange in the most recent issue of this paper demands a refutation because the flagrant disinformation dispensed does a disservice to your readers.
I don't know what he thought he may have read, or where he received his information, but the facts have gotten so grotesquely misrepresented that they do not even remotely reflect the intent of our plans for service to our veterans. I wish to take issue with two specific erroneous accusations he leveled.
Mr. Lange alleged that I suggested the incoming Veterans Service Officer devote only 60 percent of his time to serving veterans. Neither I, nor anyone else to my knowledge, has offered such a suggestion. I believe the number cited is a distortion of a statistic I found several years ago when I conducted a study to determine how the staffing level in our Veterans Service Office compared to other counties. Using the veteran population and staffing level in each of the other counties in the state I found that our veteran population using state averages would authorize us six tenths of one position. Since we have two full-time positions we are confident we have more than adequate staff.
By citing only my chairmanship of the Human Services Board, Mr. Lange appears to suggest that I am prejudiced in favor of Human Services over services for our veterans. Strange that he didn't point out that I also chair the County Veterans Service Committee and myself am a disabled veteran with more than twenty years of active military service which gives me cause to be vitally interested in veterans services and benefits.
To fully understand what our plans and intents are I want to provide some facts that led to our decision.
Suicide and attempted suicide are issues of major concern in Taylor County. The suicide rate for Taylor County civilian residents is above both the state and national average. The rate for veterans is considerably higher than the civilian rate. The Department of Veterans Affairs has identified the lack of mental health counseling (suicide prevention) as an issue demanding immediate and augmented attention. With the continued rotation of our National Guard and Reserve units into a war zone we can only anticipate that the problem of suicide among our veterans will exacerbate.
Taylor County at present has only one mental health counselor who has a caseload of at-risk patients well above which is acceptable in the profession. Some of the patients counseled at Human Services are veterans.
Severe budgetary constraints in the county demand that we make the most economical use of all available resources which may require reducing hours and levels of service where possible.
In view of the above and recognizing the fact that the present Veterans Service Officer is retiring early next year demands that we begin the process of identifying his replacement.
We believe it imperative that we continue to provide all existing veterans services, but also recognize that we should make an effort to provide enhanced mental health counseling in anticipation of the added demand and need for such service.
Ideally, our pipe dream is to locate an individual who would be a veteran qualified to fill the Veterans Service Officer position, while also holding the necessary degrees to qualify as a mental health counselor. We recognize that our chances of locating such an individual are between very slim and none. We are therefore attempting to identify other means of providing the desired services. In the event we can locate a qualified counselor we would hope to contract with the Veterans Administration to provide at their expense a certain number of hours of mental health counseling for veterans each month. This could require the reduction of a like number of hours from the Veterans Service Officer. On the positive side, this would serve the dual purpose of reducing the workload of the Human Services Counselor and reduce our county budget.
Please be advised that, contrary to the claims and accusations of Mr. Lange, our plans are to continue the highest level of service we can to our veterans.
— James G, Seidl, Supervisor, District 2

Reader offers a different viewpoint to Vox Pop writer
I would like to respectfully proffer a response to Candice Riley's opinion published in the December 17th issue of The Star News. Mrs. Riley, I want to thank you first and foremost. It seems abundantly clear that you are, a caring and conscientious individual, and I most certainly appreciate your Constitutional right to voice your individual opinions and concerns. Although I found myself agreeing wholeheartedly with several of your points, you and I diverge rather sharply regarding the issue of gay marriage.
Your eloquently conveyed words concerning our seemingly diminishing and highly compromised freedoms (primarily First and Second Amendments) make your stated opposition to homosexuals' right to marry all the more perplexing. And please allow me to clarify that I myself am heterosexual. As such, I am as equally incapable as you of understanding the physical attraction between two people of the same sex. But I am, however, quite capable and (more essentially) quite willing to both respect and acknowledge the inalienable right for two consenting adults to engage in a legally protected and recognized committed relationship.
Mrs. Riley, through your honesty and candor regarding your own past decisions ("Should I have made a few different choices a long time ago? Yes."), it's readily apparent that you have the requisite capacity for open-mindedness and (I would at least certainly hope) pathos to at least consider my argument. Let's hypothesize that one of your beloved children comes to you overjoyed that he or she has finally found somebody kind, caring, compassionate, intelligent, responsible and supportive. You would obviously be joyous as both a proud parent and on your child's behalf, and rightfully so. Your mind would not automatically view the relationship in sexual terms. And yet if it so happened that this loving and caring partner were of the same sex, you (and to be perfectly frank and fair to you, Mrs. Riley, most of us as well in the same situation), would immediately conceptualize the relationship from the single-minded and uni-dimensional perspective of its sexual components. Now certainly no one would blame you or anybody for feeling shock, disappointment and perhaps fear for the myriad of challenges and adversities a gay or lesbian relationship would entail. But shouldn't we at the very least consider that a loving, caring and committed relationship between two adults invariably serves as a positive and stabilizing element in our society? This should unwaveringly hold true in whatever manifestation it takes; be it gay, straight, interracial, lesbian, etc.
Mrs. Riley, although you and I may not necessarily comprehend the vagaries of a gay and lesbian partnership, I believe the only way to truly "get our country back" as you say, is to transcend antiquated, narrow-minded and impractically Puritanical notions of what a loving, committed relationship (and by extension marriage) really is. Please remember that throughout our great country's history, we have had (and continue to have) to challenge manifold fears and irrational prejudices pertaining to race, religion, ethnicity, and nationality. Until relatively recent times, marriage was predominantly a business arrangement, wherein any considerations of love and compatibility were often overlooked, if not altogether ignored. Mrs. Riley, we live in a time where we can all move past that. I understand that gay marriage was not the fulcrum of your essay; it was merely part of it. But I would beseech you to give that particular matter more consideration. Overall, I agreed with a great deal of your essay insofar as morality and freedom in general. And I would like to thank you once again for taking the time and having the courage to express your viewpoints and concerns publicly.
— Lawrence Schemelia Jr., Waterford Works, N.J.

Thanks those who helped, but roads need serious work
I want to thank the man who stopped to help my boyfriend and myself when we had an accident on Christmas day.
My boyfriend is handicapped and we appreciated the man who called for help. There was also another family that stopped and asked if they could help us in anyway. We just wanted to say thanks to these people who cared enough to help. We also want to thank officer Chad Liske for his concern, it meant a lot.
We live out on Castle Drive and we travel on Stetson Avenue and Gibson Avenue. These roads are glare ice and we would like to see these roads salted more. These roads are glare ice and it makes it difficult to drive on these roads.
This is Wisconsin and it should be expected to allow a budget for salt. These roads are not safe and we all deserve better roads, especially having them plowed sooner and salted.
— Maureen Vlassopulos, Dorchester

What’s wrong with health care
In the past few months I had several dealings with the health care system. The last one was with the Marshfield Clinic. Being a veteran, I had only the VA as my insurer and had the authority from the VA to make an appointment with Wausau or Marshfield for the further treatment of my sciatica. I decided to go to Marshfield for my steroidal shots, and was given several months in which to complete the treatment.
I set up my appointment and had a one-half hour consultation, and the MRI used in treating me was done by the VA in Madison. I came in a couple weeks later and had two steroidal shots. I was in and out in less than three hours. A few weeks later, I had a 15 minute follow-up.
I received excellent treatment. However, my bill was $6,659.40 and fortunately for me, the bill was sent to the Veteran Administration Center for payment. In the end, doesn't this sound outrageous to you, too. It does to me. Ultimately, the abuse of the taxpayer and the creation of more government bureaucracy, programs and standards does not bode well for the American people.
— LeRoy Markow, Medford

Wants fairness in wages
With so many people taking pay cuts, losing their benefits or losing their jobs completely, it's hard to believe our politicians can even think for one second they should get pay raises. If anything, their health care benefits should be taken away until there is some type of insurance policy in this country.
How can one sector be so overpaid while others in the population struggle to survive? If anyone deserves pay raises, how about giving them to bartenders, waitresses and waiters? The whooping $2.23 wage requirement the government sets for them seems more appropriate for 1960 than for 2010.
Does serving food seem like an easy job? Try it sometime. Bring silverware, glasses of water (four with no ice, one room temperature) and menus to a table of 12. The children don't like anything on the menu, the yuppies want various flavors of latte, cappuccino and gourmet lo-fat coffees. The elderly grandpa wants plain black coffee (bless his heart). Everyone wants the food made a little differently than how the menu lists it . . . extra mayo, no mayo, dry bread, extra butter. When the food is done, keep track of who ordered what. Keep those water glasses and coffee cups full. Bring take-out containers for the ones who need them — all the while smiling and waiting on other tables.
To make up the difference between the $2.23 an hour and the minimum wage, you rely on tips. All bets are off in this department. A party of people will come in and look like they'll have to pool all their change to share one cup of coffee. They will order a big meal, dessert, be kind and friendly and leave a generous tip.
A well-dressed party of people will order, be demanding, condescending and rude, and maybe leave a quarter. Or nothing. College kids will come in and order chili and water. You think, Aww, they're short on cash so you heap up the soup bowls and give them extra crackers. They are nice when you apologize for not having any hot sauce to add to the chili. One of them goes out to their economy car, brings in a bottle and tells you to keep it. They leave a huge tip.
Some customers are elderly and come in on a regular basis. They almost become like family and you worry about them if they don't show up at their "usual" time.
Many outside events affect the wages of a waitress, too. Bad weather keeps people home. I spoke to a waitress at a diner we go to in southern Wisconsin and was told because the highway going past their restaurant was being redone this summer, business was down and her tips dropped 80 percent.
Of course, if you lose your job or have your hours cut, you stay home and drink coffee and the restaurants lose business. Can't our politicians dine in a little more frequently? And what about loggers? Between the high price of diesel fuel, insurance, taxes, tires, repairs, road tax, self-employment and stumpage, do they even net $2.23 an hour?
How many small businesses have failed because overhead costs and few patrons made it impossible to keep going? Is this really the time for our leaders to ask for more when everyone else is getting by on less? It makes me wonder how things will be for my grandchildren in 20 years. Maybe they should all go into politics. It seems that's about the only place there is a limitless amount of money to be had anymore. — Nadine DuBois, Ogema

Reminds people of Ronald Reagan’s economics lesson
In a radio broadcast on November 16th, 1976 Ronald Reagan wrote and spoke an interesting piece on "Economics" using the example of the "Little Red Hen." I thought that maybe you people would be interested in reading that piece once again.
Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said, "If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"
"Not I," said the cow. "Not I," said the duck. "Not I," said the pig. "Not I," said the goose. "Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.
"Not I," said the duck. "Out of my classification," said the pig. "I'd lose my seniority," said the cow. "I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose. "Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake the bread?" asked the little red hen.
"That would be overtime for me," said the cow. "I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck. "I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig. "If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.
"Then I will, said the little red hen. And she baked five loaves of bread.
They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share, but the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."
"Excess profits," cried the cow. "Capitalist leech," screamed the duck. "I demand equal rights," yelled the goose. And the pig just grunted.
And then they painted "Unfair" picket signs and marched round and round the little red hen, shouting obscenities.
When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You must not be greedy."
"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.
"Exactly," said the government agent. "That is the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the productive workers must divide their product with the idle."
And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful." But you know, her neighbors all wondered why she never baked any more bread.
This story about the little red hen shows and tells everyone paying attention what socialism is all about.
The Obama administration seems to be heading us toward socialism. And as I understand it, the only difference between Socialism and Communism is the freedom of Religion. And as all of us should be aware of, there is only 14 percent of the population in the United States of America that are trying to eliminate God from politics. And I thought God was the one thing this nation was founded on. I was taught that our forefathers believed in God. I was taught that our forefathers put God first and everything else second.
So my question to all of you out there is why are we, the 86 percent, letting our government, our politicians and our law enforcement take everything away that our forefathers gave to us in the Constitution of the United States of America? Why?
— Denny Frey, Medford