Eye on Oshkosh offers alternate site; older stories archived there

Relatively silent for some time, the Oshkosh Labor Chicks want people to know they’re blogging more frequently these days and one of their most recent entries talks about the endorsement process of the Winnebago County Labor Council in the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education race and the flap made about it by one of the candidates in that race.

Earlier this month, Michelle Monte posted on her blog her commentary as it related to the endorsements by the Labor Council and in which she “questioned” the process they used to make their endorsements. She then went on to say “Over the last few years, I have heard all kinds of rationales about endorsements. I am curious as to how much weight they really play in voters (sic) minds.”

One of the Oshkosh Labor Chicks, in her above-referenced post, responded to this “question” by saying “It constantly amazes me when someone running for political office says that endorsements don't mean anything. Yet, the discussions and hand wringing over the endorsements and the press release associated with them makes me think that is not true. If WCLC endorsements are baseless and meaningless, then why are you whining about not getting endorsed? Hmmmm??????”

Though Monte “cleverly” avoided giving her own personal position, she gives the impression – in a sour grapes sort of way – that she thinks endorsements don’t play that much of a role in elections. So I’ll follow up the Labor Chicks’ question with one of my own: If Mrs. Monte doesn’t think endorsements affect elections that much, why does she bother listing her supporters on her blog site? For that matter, why does any candidate publish their supporters’ names on their campaign materials? While it is certainly a way of thanking people, it’s obviously done for others to see and, I’m sure to a great degree, to influence votes. If it doesn’t actually mean anything in the grand scheme of elections, why not just send a simple thank-you note to your supporters? It’s more personal (you know, they say the art of sending letters and cards is dying in this techno age) and certainly less boastful. Nor does it have any of those annoying ulterior motives.

In yet another insightful editorial, local blogger and activist Kay Springstroh has this week set her sights on candidate for the Oshkosh Area School District Board of Education, Ben Schneider II. In this piece entitled "School Board Candidates Answer PFLAG Questions," Springstroh specifically takes on Schneider for what she calls his "open homophobia and his obvious lack of language skills."

As you read her piece, keep in mind the question she refers to was not about whether the candidates approve of homosexuality. I don't know how one could miss it, but clearly, Schneider didn't understand that fact when he "answered" the question and, instead, seems to have made it about himself. Or was it simply not worth it to him to take the time to read the question and respond to it more carefully? And the grammar he exhibited, or lack thereof, speaks for itself, as Springstroh so aptly pointed out.

Unfortunately, the same kind of sloppiness or ill-training in basic English skills is something we see far too often in people today, Ben Schneider II notwithstanding. It's especially apparent, and unforgiving, in highly-paid business people who surely ought to know better and who can certainly afford to take the necessary classes to do better.

The Oshkosh Northwestern is reporting tonight that the statewide smoking ban appears to be dead, at least for now. But proponents of such a ban promise to continue their efforts to get a statewide ban passed – and they should.

With more and more states passing such legislation, including our own neighbors, a statewide smoking ban is legislation whose time has come. Sadly, some still don’t get it. One of those who either doesn’t o doesn’t want to is the state Tavern League’s chief executive officer, Pete Madland.

"I think legislators understand this is not just about employee health," the article quotes him as saying. "This is about people’s jobs, people’s businesses, people’s livelihood, and it’s not to be taken too lightly."

In the first place, this is about health – that should be first and foremost. Second, if he’s so concerned about jobs, people’s businesses and livelihoods, you’d think he’d be in favor of a ban that regulates all businesses, not just some. After all, if the ban is in place in all Wisconsin businesses it puts every business on a level playing field, rather than pitting one against the other.

Perhaps what he meant to say was “This is about our members’ businesses and their employees’ jobs and livelihoods.” At least that’s how it seems to me anyway.