.
What am I talking about? Opinions, of course.
In the last several weeks I have been privileged to write the opinion in this newspaper.
It has been my belief that opinions should provoke readers to think. So, for the past 37 years, I have shared those opinions with the readers of 11 newspapers, including my hometown newspaper the Cloquet Journal, and the mountain town paper in Ramona, Calif.
Almost everyone reacts the same way: they either agree or disagree. Those persons who choose to disagree with my opinion vehemently express themselves in a letter to me, which I publish for others to read. That’s discourse. Discourse, according to Mr. Webster, means to “talk over.” If there’s an important issue, it is important for this newspaper to provoke thought so that, as readers, everyone has an opportunity to talk things over. It may never lead to a concensus, but it will give everyone choosing to share their point of view the opportunity to “talk it over.” That is extremely important.
For example, the state legislative bodies in St. Paul are weighing the “right to work” measure that is working its way through the house and senate. If the measure passes, it will be on the November ballot as a constitutional amendment for the people of Minnesota to decide whether they want to join 23 other states that have passed the right to work measure that allows workers to choose whether they wish to join a union when hired by a company that is a union shop. Sounds straight forward enough, but there are those who do not want individuals to have the right to choose whether they should join a union and pay dues. I happen to think that it’s everyone’s right to choose whether he or she wants to join anything, especially if it’s philosophically opposed to one’s belief system.
Now, that flies in the face of most union organizers. I know, because I was brought up in a Teamsters union home. My father was a truck driver and belonged to the union. He made a choice to work for a company that was a union shop and joined the union. There was no choice for him. How then, can my father’s son be opposed to being forced to join the union? I guess it’s the idea of being forced to join, versus choosing to join a union that sits crossways with me.
Others don’t see it that way, and I am certain that some of our readers will write in and let me know that they believe in unionism and that being forced to join a union keeps the shop owner on his or her toes.
That is discourse. I welcome that kind of dialogue. It makes the first amendment to our Constitution come to life. How many times has the first amendment been called to our attention: “Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press....” In a nutshell, that’s what I’m talking about — each of you, as readers, has the right to disagree with me, or anyone else who writes something you do not find agreeable in the Dispatch. The publisher, owner, and I will defend your right to express your thoughts as long as you do not slander or libel those persons with whom you may find differences.
Sounds simple. However, in this ever growing divide within our country, many are less inclined to enter into civil discourse. Hence, the sharp-tongued attacks that are not issue-oriented but rather attacks on a person who might present a position that is contrary to one’s own position. Name calling, terms such as stupid or “what a moron,” creep into the conversation. That type of personalized attack is counterproductive.
What is productive is for discourse, such as was offered up in the Tuesday issue by Jackie Burkey, a member of the Dispatch Editorial Advisory Board. She disagree with my position on contraceptives and the Catholic church and voter ID. She stated her disagreement concisely without making her attack personal. That is civil discourse.
As the editor of the Dispatch I welcome your thoughts and ideas. I will publish comments whether they agree or disagree with the position I present in this column. I look forward to this exchange of ideas and will defend everyone’s right to state his or her opinion.
—Keith Hansen
Comments (16)
Add commentI hope ....
Mr. Hansen, Welcome. Encouraging discourse is a great thing... our rights in the first amendment are an amazing thing to have. Thoughtful, intelligence discourse is at the heart of our very beginnings as a nation.
My challenge to you, however, is to remember that with rights come responsibilities... and when people use the Dispatch to practice name calling and spew insults as part of their 'right of speech', I wish that you would have the fortitude to shut them down. There is no fruit to such words. There is no 'thoughtful discourse' in that kind of vocabulary.
Please see if there's something you can do about making sure that our right to thoughtful discourse is just that.
Discourse
You are right everyone is entitled to their opinions. The dicourse isn't arising from those. Its the so called reasoning behind some that is.
You can have your opinions about right to work but to choose choice as your reasoning is nothing but obvious bull. To go with that I'd have to throw logic out the window. You have a choice not to apply. Once you do you are accepting the requirements that go with the job.
I could chose to be a Dr. but the requirement is to have a medical degree. If I choose to not go to med school I've given up the right to be a Dr. If I don't like flying, being a pilot or a flight attendant is out too. So one chooses not to apply.
The worst thing we can do is to base laws on lies. Be honest make your case with a logical rational reasons and honestly, and maybe then there wouldn't be so much discourse.
And please
make sure that just because some of us don't agree with Mr. zachnos that everything we don't agree with him about gets purged from this website. Some posters are very articulate and deceptive in their insults and get by with them because they are liberals.
Columnist versus Newspaper editorial
There is a distinct difference, with the former generally allowed wide latitude and the latter subject to a higher degree of criticism by readers within the community the paper serves as an indication of the views of the paper, it's publisher, and it's staff.
Should anyone doubt that Hansen speaks for the entire dispatch, look at the title of his missives..."OUR Opinion".
I don't think Mr. Hanson had a good grasp of the difference when the new newspaper he started in his hometown--the Cloquet Journal--began to fare poorly and was bought out by the people who ran the longtime Cloquet newspaper--the Pine Knot--today called the Pine Journal I believe.
My opinion as a reader of his former paper there and his new columns here is the same--I think his views are slanted way to the right, and he is not tolerant of nor willing to seek out more moderate counter opinions.
Nothing wrong with that as a columnist--but as an editorial writer of a newspaper? I hope the Dispatch doesn't suffer the same fate as the Cloquet Journal!
Keith
Ditto!!!!!! Respect others and give your opinion without getting personal.
Respectful discourse
Civility in discussing diverse opinions is just what we need! Usually when I read a comment full of name-calling, there is little substance or information to back up another opinion. I'm all for you in this respect, Mr. Hansen. It would be great if we would all agree to state our opinions more respectfully. I wonder if part of the problem is that this blog and Vox Pox are both anonymous. Perhaps the anonymity allows people to say things they wouldn't want to be identified with? Just a thought.
Secondly, I must respectfully disagree with your opinion regarding right to work. Actually right to work is a misnomer. If anything, it infers right to work for less money, less benefits, less respect. Unions made workers' lives much better. They improved wages, and working conditions. They stopped child labor. They insured that workers would get lunch breaks and bathroom breaks.
Have you noticed that in the states that adopted this new law wages and salaries have gone down considerably? No wonder the Middle Class is becoming a thing of the past.
Mr. Hansen, keep encouraging the conversation, but please look at both sides of the issues instead of consistently giving us the Tea party line of reasoning.
Are there jobs in the right to work states?
What is the unemployment number of those right to work states? Are the states having trouble balancing their
budget? Do they have a surplus?
What is wrong with letting the citizens vote on the issue?
Why not look at both sides of the issue? What positive
has happened in the right to work states?
a few more questions
Sadie Married Lady: All good questions, and while we're at it here are a couple more:
1. Are workers in these states paid enough to cover their health insurance needs?
2. Why do many many workers in these states still qualify for Medicaid? Food stamps?
3. When are constitutional amendments appropriate and when are they being used to circumvent other government safeguards?
Think about this
How many union members do you know are on some kind of government assistance? Why do think that is?
How many walmart employees are?
I read something not long ago said at an average Walmart store, the employees get about a quarter million dollars in gov. assistance.
If true does that mean my taxes are subsidizing the largest retailer in the world and the six Walmart heirs are laughing all the way to the bank? All of a sudden I got this I don't want my tax money going to.....................feeling.... I just hate it when people freeload off the gov. when they can afford not to.
My father-in-law was a
My father-in-law was a teamster business agent so he and I could only talk about the weather without an argument. Unions are swell if you aren’t smart enough to justify your own wage and if you are content with promotions based solely on 'snority". ”Slow down, sonny, it don’t make no difference whether you put in 8 hours or 6 hours. Just keep payin’ them dues and wake me when it’s quitin’ time."
While I'll leave the union vs non-union
argument for others; I will say that if I need a product or service from a union, I will end up paying extremely higher for it!
I find it amusing...
When it comes to birth control, liberals sound like fingernails on a chalkboard demanding their right to self-determination and privacy.
When it comes to unions, we're all supposed to bend over and take it in the shorts like good little peeons.
HeHe
stevebusch, I like how you infer your father in law isn't very smart. Makes me wonder ...Oh and by the way, the unions I know don't make the decisions to promote, the companies do and then you become part of management and have to leave the union. Grandma always said that when you tell a lie then you have to tell another to cover it up and sooner or later it will catch up..
Pd do you use UPS or Fed ex???
Don't you want people to make more and move out of the 49.5% of non income tax payers and become tax payers. Believe it or not that was the way it was for years until the attack union mantra got going. Some just gotta have a boogie man.
Trip
Self determination starts with the application.....Thus the individual... If there is any bending over you do it with that choice... When government decides it, is saying one is not smart enough to make that choice on there own..Life does become alot easier when someone else makes the choices for you..
suicideispainless
Pd do you use UPS or Fed ex??? Yes, rarely, because the price is so high. This question about unions is really a mute one. Unions have been on the decline for years and with good reasons.
Court decisions and National Labor Relations Board rulings allowing workers to withhold the portion of their union dues used to back, or oppose, political candidates, undercut unions' influence. Management, feeling the heat of foreign and domestic competition, is today less willing to accede to union demands for higher wages and benefits than in earlier decades. Automation is a continuing challenge for union members since many factories have put in labor saving machinery. There is also the negative image that unions have based on so much corruption and the fact that so many illegals are filling jobs that used to be union, but as a group they do not want to join or be organized.
PD, you never answered...
Did you vote for Barry Goldwater in 1964?
Most of your posts indicate you were of voting age in 1964.
If not, did your become voting age come in the later 60s/early 70s?
If not, did your voting age come in the later 70s/80s?
I've argued with my spouse of close to 30 years of marriage.
We got married in the Carter vs. Reagan timeframe.
We watched the Iron Lady movie yesterday and a lot of the movie we endured.
We're still married, although polar opposites of the political spectrum.
Agree to disagree, and move on. That's ok.