Most of the people who write letters to The Oakland Press are reasonable, courteous and understanding.

They’ve got strong opinions and don’t mind expressing them but they do so in an open-minded way that I believe is the essence of our Democracy. They understand the Opinion Page policies and why they are formulated to be “fair” to all.

Some of these great readers and letter writers I’ll talk about in a future blog.
Today, I just want to comment briefly on some of those people who, frankly, leave me scratching my head and wondering “why?”

They are the ones who write a letter to the editor but don’t seem to understand the term “fairness” and are upset because we don’t have space and had to hold their letter or we ran it but had to trim the correspondence. They are also upset if they read a guest opinion, letter or editorial that they don’t agree with.

One irate reader recently said he was canceling his subscription because we endorsed a candidate he disliked. The fact we endorsed several candidates who he probably would vote for didn’t matter. We gave an endorsement to a candidate he doesn’t like, so, he was canceling his subscription.

Obviously, I can’t argue with how the gentleman feels or stop him from canceling the paper but I don’t have to admire or respect him — and I don’t.

He claims to support the U.S. Constitution and be in favor of Free Speech. To me, that means allowing everyone to express their opinions and respecting their views, even if you don’t agree with them.

However, this particularly gentlemen seems to be saying he supports the Constitution and Free Speech as long as he agrees with what you’re saying.

Fortunately, these types of individuals are in the minority, based on my experience with them.

I respect their right to their opinions but I believe they are closed-minded hypocrites.

The Oakland Press endorsements are done for the Nov. 2 election.

As I’ve mentioned in past blogs, we couldn’t endorse in every race but we did pick in the most high profile races, which included Congressional races, the battles for governor, secretary of state and attorney general, and the Oakland County Board of Commissioners.

Of course, even though we’ve endorsed in fewer political campaigns, we still managed to aggravate, upset and in some cases, anger some readers. That is never our intention but it seems to go with the territory.

Jokingly, we say that we manage to infuriate at least half the candidates in the races that we made an endorsement.

Seriously, why do we make endorsements? It certainly would be a lot easier on the staff if we didn’t. The Circulation Department would probably appreciate it since we do sometimes lose subscriber who don’t like who we pick.

But the answer is pretty basic — it’s expected of a local newspaper. It’s one of the tenants of a good newspaper dating back at least a couple hundred years. Sure, it’s a tradition that we could stop and it certainly is one that we’ve had to alter because of the economy and changes in the newspaper market. But despite all of the modern-day concepts and technology, people who read a newspaper expect the endorsements. Some people even appreciate them, saying that in certain races they were given insight that they previously didn’t have. They may not agree with who we endorse but at least they see a different perspective on the candidates or the issues.

There are some who say our endorsements actually help them make a decision, which is refreshing considering the criticism we always receive.

We really don’t mind the scoldings but when the comments turn vitriolic, it is disappointing and upsetting.

It’s times like those when I try to remind the infuriated reader that the endorsement is an opinion — one they don’t have to agree with. And that’s why the endorsements are on the Opinion Page.

As I indicated Wednesday, taking phones from readers is part of my job and it is a very important part.

Readers need to know that there are real, live people behind the publications, stories and opinions in The Oakland Press.

Unfortunately, I don’t have time to sit and chat for hours but I do make it a point to talk to people and return their phone calls. People know that their readership and opinions are valued. And as we’ve stressed, you don’t have to agree with The Oakland Press editorial or other letter writers, that’s why the page is called the Opinion Page.

There are two individuals who stay in touch frequently, usually through the telephone and they are great examples of the types of people who we are trying to serve.
I won’t mention their names because I don’t want to embarrass them but they may figure out who I’m talking about.

One is a retired GM employee and the other a retired teacher. They may be similar in other ways but their political views are pretty much opposite. The former GM worker is a conservative while the teacher could be considered a liberal, although I’m using these terms loosely.

There are times when the individuals agree with an editorial and other times when they don’t. It’s OK, either way. They call to tell me how they feel and they concede that it’s just an opinion and everyone is entitled to his or her opinion.

What these two individuals are is very open-minded and reasonable. They may be passionate about their views but they understand that not everyone will agree with them.

To me, they realize the true essence of freedom of speech and tolerance.
There are some individuals, fortunately not many, who seem to think that they’re the epitome of patriotism but if you don’t agree with their views, then you’re wrong and should shut up. That is not my interpretation of free speech.

To give you an example of the latter, there’s an individual who uses the pseudonym “John Galt." This is a fictional character in Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged (1957). Although he is absent from much of the text, he is the subject of the novel's often repeated question "Who is John Galt?" and of the quest to discover the answer.
I will admit that initially I thought this individual was a real reader but in checking the address I was given, there is no such person.

Obviously, the person who is behind the e-mails sent in the name of John Galt is a coward who is afraid to stand up for what he believes. Otherwise, he’d give his real name.

I won’t spend a lot more time on this person but he or she is an example of the varying types of calls I receive.

Most callers are like our GM and teacher retirees. They have strong opinions, don’t mind stating them and are not afraid to stand behind their views by giving their names. Also, they realize that in America, it’s OK to disagree.

Taking phone calls from readers is an everyday occurrence. Usually the caller wants information on how to get a letter or guest opinion in the newspaper. I tell him or her that letters must be no more than 250 words, unless it’s election season, in which case endorsement letters are restricted to 150 words. Guest opinions can be up to 600 words but the author must have some expertise on the subject he is writing about. Otherwise, everyone would want to do a guest opinion and there’s not enough space to allow that.

Then there are phone calls, at least a couple every day, from irate readers. They’re upset at an editorial, at someone else’s letter or often they just want vent about the world situation.

Sometimes I even get phone calls that compliment me or The Oakland Press. They like the editorial or the fact most of the letters supported their particular position.
I don’t mind taking the phone calls and I pride myself on returning all of my missed calls as quickly as possible. They are readers and so any chance I can get to explain why we do something, the better it is for myself and for the newspaper. Most people usually accept my explanations and are genuinely grateful for the insight.

But amid the diplomacy and my cordial demeanor, I do have one fairly strict rule — I want to know who I’m talking to so I insist that they them give me their names. I have a simple slogan that goes with this rule — “If you can’t give me your name, I won’t give you my time.”

Time is precious and there aren’t enough hours in the day to get everything done that you’d like to — and often there aren’t enough hours in the day to do everything you need to do.

So I want to know who I’m talking to — they know who I am. My theory, right or wrong, is that if they are afraid to stand behind what they are saying to me by not giving me their names, then they lose most, if not all creditability with me.
Usually those that don’t give me their names are calling to complain. As I’ve said, I have broad shoulders and I can take the criticism, but not from people who are too afraid to give me their names. If they can’t trust me, I don’t have time for them.
It may sound to be a bit harsh but it works for me and when you think about, it’s not really that unreasonable a rule.

When you give me your opinion, then give me your name to show you stand behind what you are saying.

In every contest, people like to have a winner. Even though individuals may not admit it, they probably agree, at least tacitly, with legendary Green Bay Packers Coach Vince Lombardi, who said a tie is like kissing your sister.

Of course, the implication, for those who may not understand, is that no matter how much you love your sibling, kissing is not the same (at least it shouldn’t be) when it’s between family members as opposed to a significant other or spouse.

That said, we’re going to disappoint — or maybe anger — a lot of people when we say the debate between 9th District Congressional Candidates Rep. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, and Rocky Raczkowski, R-Farmington, was a tie.

Excuse me while I duck. I know that there are supporters for each candidate who will swear, among other things, that their particular man won. And so they should feel that way — they’re supporters of the candidate.But if you take a more independent, middle of the road look at the debate, you’d have to conclude it was a tie.

Neither candidate was able to out wit, out talk or out last the other. They both were logical, fluent and confident during the discussions.

In most cases, as we pointed out in an editorial, they didn’t differ much, if at all.
For example, both favored the tax abatements and efforts to keep the GM Orion Plant open. Peters said the tax breaks were essential while Raczkowski said “we shouldn’t be begging our employers to come here.”

On health care, both said there were some good aspects to the lengthy new law. Peters defended it saying a critical component of health care is that it’s affordable and that insurance exchanges in 2014 will make it so. Raczkowski said the current bill was giving citizens higher taxes. However, he supported provisions that allow individuals to stay on their parents’ policies till they’re 26, and prevent insurance companies from denying coverage to children due to pre-existing conditions.

In reference to foreign policy, both agreed that strong efforts need to be made and steps taken to ensure that Iran does not become a nuclear power.
There was no impartial judge or referee scoring points during the debate, so calling it a draw will remain merely an opinion, just as the views of Peters and Raczkowski supporters, who believe their candidate won.

But the biggest victory for one of the candidates, as we all know, will come in November at the ballot box.