Oppenhagen Column: To be, or not to be . . . local only
Published: September 13, 2009
I may be signing my own pink slip with this column, but here it goes anyway.
I have had the pleasure of writing this column for about eight years now. I was hired by the paper in part because there was no female columnists at the time but also because I was a decent middle
opinion to a very far right columnist and a very far left columnist who were also writing. We were permitted to write about any topic we chose, our only guideline being to stay within a certain number of
words so our columns could fit on the page. All three of us were interested in politics and our columns frequently explained our viewpoint on different issues of the day — local, national, international. We
wrote of local issues frequently but were never silenced from commenting on national issues.
Eight years later, a lot of things have changed at the News & Messenger. The names on the editorial page have changed for the most part — staff and columnists alike. And the attitude toward columnists
has changed. Months ago, we were all instructed to limit our columns to local news and events. One of the long-time columnists ended up stopping his column because of that restriction. I try to at least
connect my column to things that affect us locally, although I was chastised for a column on health care reform.
And the columnists have been chastised again. This time, our editor has been much more specific in the requirement to tie our columns to local events. And again, I wonder if there is enough material for
me to write weekly. And again, I wonder why.
I know that newspapers in general aren’t doing well, and I do not believe that this paper is any exception. I’ve noticed the daily papers getting thinner and thinner. I’ve also noticed that I only need one hand
to grab the Sunday paper instead of two. Could our restrictions be due to falling circulation numbers? After all the years of reader complaints, could it be that the paper is finally going local?
Could it be that the editorial staff and the publisher are concerned about reader response to columns that are slanted left or right? Isn’t that what opinion columns are all about? When I first started at the
newspaper, there was a definitely liberal column that was balanced by a definitely conservative one. Both sides were heard and, despite many reader complaints and letters against one or the other of the
columnists, they were left to write their opinions and to fend with the hate mail. And boy, did they generate the letters to the editor! But it was all in the spirit of lively discussion of issues that concern us
all.
In politics, there are two types of people: those with definite opinions who do not want to hear what the other side has to say, and those with definite opinions who will listen and consider the other side.
I’m from the second side. I have some strong opinions about certain issues that will never change.
But I feel strongly that the “other side” has value as well, and so I listen and engage. I can remember lively debates with a person of the opposite party and viewpoint at the county fair or at political events.
What was great was that after we debated each other, we left on speaking, friendly terms. That was important, after all. Many times the goal is similar, the path is what is different. And our discussions
were not just about the county budget or the schools, but also about health care and immigration with some social issues thrown in to make the debate more lively.
On one hand, I feel I can easily stay local. I could write about schools and education issues until the literal cows come home. I could write about spending priorities in the county or even development.
And every year there is at least one election to discuss. On the other hand, I also feel passionately that the national and in some cases international issues are important and local. Health care reform is
terribly important. Can I relate the discussion of reform to a specific individual in the county? Not without making private information public. But what happens will affect all of us — from the availability of
the emergency room to the information we discuss with our physicians and family to how we visit our doctors. The same with education policy, immigration policy and national elections.
Yes, I know that there are folks who write much better than I who get paid big bucks to write about those issues. But there is something to be said for also reading the opinion of a local person with a
local background on those same issues, someone outside of the beltway mentality. And I think the newspaper’s restrictions cut off that viewpoint.
I would be interested to read what you think. Send me an e-mail or post a comment on the on-line Web site. And I would appreciate it if you keep your fingers crossed that I don’t end up with a pink slip
on Monday.
Denise Oppenhagen is a longtime resident of Prince William County and can be reached at . She will not be getting a pink slip.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
“ What they fail to understand is that these “rich” people don’t put that money under their pillows – it is used to invest in technological improvements, starting new business ventures, and as loans to startups.“
Oh really? So just where are all the profits invested from the Wall Street Tycoons who nearly brought the entire world’s economy crashing down?
Somehow, I don’t think buying more luxury yachts and private jetstream aircraft count as “investing.“
As far as investing in businesses with startup money - you’ve obviously never attempted to get new business startup capital.
Ron,
Columns are submitted in advance. I did re-write a section in the wee hours of Sunday morning after I read of Van Jone’s resignation; but the nature of print is that sometimes what we write will be out-of-date before it is published.
I’m not sure why you think the issue of why someone was hired would be moot simply because the person is fired.
Aware:
I used to say that my criteria for being a columnist was that I live in town, and can write with complete sentences.
Then someone noted that some of my sentences weren’t complete.
MaineMom,
“In what way exactly do you think our government is heading towards tyranny? It seems like you think that is because we have “far fewer people than ever” controlling the system. But I thought that was the rallying cry for the Republican party, “less government”. I am just curious if you can explain this.”
Sure.
Every year we lose more of our freedoms. There are a number of reasons and a number of ways (cato.org documents many of them … as does Reason Magazine and Liberty Magazine) … but the fact is that our legal system continues to grow like a leviathan. We live under a set of laws that are impossible for the “common man” to comprehend. Everyday people are snared by the unintended consequences of these laws. This congress has passed numerous pieces of legislation that they have not read – some that were hundreds of pages long that were introduced just days or hours before a vote. The average middle class citizen now pays approximately 40% of his or her salary in taxes. Yet the spending of our government is so out of control that we added another couple trillion on to the $9 trillion debt just since Obama took office. Our society is living at the expense of future generations. One day the bill is going to come due. When that happens you will suddenly experience what the word tyranny means. No nation in history has successfully borrowed its way to prosperity – history gives us many examples of the economic consequences of out of control spending and debt. Unfortunately humans have very poor long terms memories – for as advanced as we are technologically we are poor at learning from history and even worse when it comes to understanding economics. Those who are now in power have no grasp of economics – they are of the opinion that we can continue to finance everything by digging into the income of the rich. What they fail to understand is that these “rich” people don’t put that money under their pillows – it is used to invest in technological improvements, starting new business ventures, and as loans to startups. When this is cut, then jobs and growth will be cut, inflation will rise, and we will see the same downward spiral that American’s experienced during the Great Depression.
Jim Simpson
Opinion Columnist
I have to say I am trying to understand Mr. Simpson before I make a judgement on his opinion, but I have a couple of questions. In what way exactly do you think our government is heading towards tyranny? It seems like you think that is because we have “far fewer people than ever” controlling the system. But I thought that was the rallying cry for the Republican party, “less government”. I am just curious if you can explain this.
“My answer was not “yes”, it was conditional.“
The question was “whether Mr. Simpson really believes that it is justifiable to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government on basis that he doesn’t like the outcomes of lawfully held elections.“
An answer of “conditional” is still yes. You believe there is justifications for using violence to overthrow a freely elected democratic government because you disagree with the polices developed by that government (you call it “tyranny”). As usual Rain3fly (AKA: Al Mostonest) is far more eloquent than I in tearing up Mr. Simpson, so I’ll not jump in there.
I will make a different point. Mr. Simpson writes: “If you were capable of commenting without all the personal attacks and willing to discuss issues like mature adults I would be more than happy to engage you in a dialogue.“
Then he uses the next 195 words in a personal attack against me, ending with the rant of:
“I have better things to do with my life then waste my time trying to discuss things with the likes of you.“
I’m not sure what those better things might be, but whatever. I will state that my own political philosophy has evoloved over the years from hard-core Libertarian to Liberal. That evolution occurred because of the “public” events I’ve witnessed, the people I’ve known from all walks of life and all over the world, and my own personal experiences and the factors that helped me go from a 17 year old kid with literally nothing but a (public) High School diploma, to a person who has seen a large part of the world, gained a solid education, learned a wide range of skills, and built a financially comfortable life for myself and my family.
Today I call myself a Liberal because I recognize that no man/woman truly lives alone. I recognize that everything we do in life affects other people around us, for better or worse. The Liberal philosophy embraces this concept of creating a social support structure that works for the betterment of all people.
Although I worked hard to build my life, I didn’t do it alone. I had opportunities available to me in the form of publicly funded (Government based) programs ranging from education to health care. I want the people coming after me to have at least the same level of opportunity that I did, and as of now only the Democratic Party comes even close to supporting policies that expand opportunities for all people, not restrict them.
I’m open to hearing other approaches for government and public policy, but my bottom line is that government should be used as a means of providing a safety net of support to all citizens, and must put people’s lives over business profits. I am willing to discuss any approach or philosophy that seeks to achieve that goal.
Mr. Simpson, I truly feel sorry for you. It must be terrible to be so angry, frightened, and isolated from everyone around you.
“I didn’t advocate the overthrow of our government, AT THIS TIME (capitals mine)... Germany and Italy had democratically elected governments when Hitler and Mussolini came into power.“ - James Simpson, 13 Sept 2009
Uh, well, I suppose James Simpson thinks that this is a nifty selling point for his violent revolt against the American Government, the fact that Germany and Italy had freely-elected governments before these two murderous egomaniacs took power. Does it occur to James Simpson that the result of these revolutions was horrendous? Is this what Simpson wants for America? Judging from his recent “crystal ball” column, I suppose the answer is “yes.“ He accused a military vet of being a traitor for opposing the war in Iraq, so I suppose that would now include George Will, who has just come out against the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Simpson brags about once belonging to the John Birch Society, and organization once denounced by Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley because its leader, Robert Welch, accused Eisenhower of treason and being a “conscious agent of the Communist conspiracy!“ Eisenhower? Was he too hard on the Nazis at D-Day? I mean, really?
If Ron Charest has trouble making sense of Simpson’s flip-flopping between political extremes, well, so do I. But may a quick read of Eric Hoffer’s “The True Believer” will enlighten us to Simpson’s type. For true believers, politics is not about substance but rather-esteem, self-hatred, and self-doubt. True believers will join any movement that will have them and give them something they are lacking. In Simpson’s case, this is a scary thought (the idea that some organization would have him). With “friends” like James Simpson, America does not need enemies. It amazes me that the local paper will allow such hate-inspired garbage to appear as a column.
Al Mostonest
My answer was not “yes”, it was conditional. And it was not because I “didn’t like the outcome of lawfully held election”. You twist what I write for you own end. Is it any wonder that I don’t want to reply? This is no different than just outright lying. You seem incapable of quoting what I say without altering it to meet your own view – then attacking me for the words you placed into my mouth.
Anyone who says that when a democratically elected government becomes tyrannical it is not moral to overthrow is either heartless or clueless or both. We are fortunate in this country to have been given a system that allows for the non-violent overthrow of the government every couple of years, but over time those freedoms can be eliminated. We are now living under a system that is far more controlled by far fewer people than ever before. If it continues along the path to tyranny, then I believe that it is the duty of every human being to fight for their lives – and not to simply fold under the mindless compliance that you seem to favor. Remember that Iran has a democratically elected government, and I have no problem with the citizens of Iran working to overthrow their government even if they must use force. Iraq had a democratically elected government that killed hundreds of thousands of her citizens. Unfortunately these countries disarmed their citizens (as you wish to do to Americans) and created laws that are/were very oppressive. These people have little choice but to live under the oppression of their democratically elected leaders.
I did not refer to you as a traitor (even indirectly) … I have pointed out that I also disagreed with our involvement in Iraq. When elected officials or national news anchors make comments that provide aid and/or comfort to the enemy they are narrowly balancing on the edge of being traitorous. But again … you twist things to suit your needs. So what else is new?
RC: “What am I - collectivist, socialist, leftist, Liberal, Marxist, or just a traitor?” Difficult to say … I certainly believe that your views parallel that of Marx. However, the best general economic philosophy you appear to favor is best defined by collectivist. The subtle nuances of socialism, communism, liberalism, etc are immaterial. They are all statists/collectivists that favor government control over freedom and independence.
You and your cohorts only seem to enjoy and appreciate slinging mud. If you were capable of commenting without all the personal attacks and willing to discuss issues like mature adults I would be more than happy to engage you in a dialogue. You call what I write “tripe” … but that is because you are intolerant of other views. You like to think you are superior, but your hatred for me without ever having taken the time to know me or learn more about my views demonstrates your ignorance. You think your views are beyond reproach – how hypocritical. You don’t seek to understand my positions, you live to attack me and you close your mind when it comes to other opinions. You like to think you live in an ivory tower and that all your beliefs are flawless. While I readily admit that I have changed my views over the past 20 years, you steadfastly seem to believe that you are perfect and without err. My opinions still evolve – always have and always will. You are quite happy seething in your pool of hate and anger. Clearly there is no reason for me to discuss anything with you as you refuse to focus on the issues and would rather mindlessly continue with the personal attacks. I have better things to do with my life then waste my time trying to discuss things with the likes of you.
Jim Simpson
Opinion Columnist
There isn’t enough Local News that is worth reading and which interests the reader. Crime, police reports, senikor citizen dances, and boring stories about individuals don’t make it. Neither do community calendars.
It is easy to recognize the Pot Newsz is presently in a difficult position - like most newspapers. It’s getting smaller and smaller, and could use some viagra.
While columnists may be restricted, I do see some non-local news that sneaks in occasaionally. Perhaps some filler is needed.
The paper about 20 yrs ago went antagonistic - each side of an issue viciously attacked the other, be on columns or LTE. For example, we all know Cal thomas is going to attack Obama and the Democrats.
I don’t have a real solution. Present path is closure of paper.
So, Mr. Simpson emerges from his undisclosed location and finally answers the questions Rain3fly and I have been asking since July 4. Our question has been whether Mr. Simpson really believes that it is justifiable to advocate the overthrow of the U.S. Government on basis that he doesn’t like the outcomes of lawfully held elections.
Mr. Simpson, I guess I can sum up your answer as “Yes.“ Thank you for answering. Why that was so difficult?
I do want to point our that over the past year or so since you discovered these on-line commenting threads (where many of us had been posting for over one year at the time you discovered us), you’ve referred to me at various times as a “collectivist,“ “socialist,“ “leftist,“ “Liberal,” and now a “Marxist.“ Not to mention in your Thanksgiving Day column of 2007 you referred to me, as a person who was and always has opposed the Iraqi war, as a traitor.
Which is it? What am I - collectivist, socialist, leftist, Liberal, Marxist, or just a traitor? All those titles are somewhat exclusive of each other, although they are all titles for political positions to your left (excepting traitor, which could be from any political persuasion).
Not that being to your left politically is a big deal - considering that neither President Nixon nor President G.W. Bush ever advocated for violent overthrow of our government because they were unhappy with the election results. In my opinion, as a retired veteran who spent 22 years defending our constitution against “all enemies foreign and domestic,“ a person who advocates the violent overthrow of our constitutionally elected government is a domestic enemy.
Why is it that you’re allowed to publish your tripe in this newspaper? Inquiring minds want to know.
Advertisement