Soon after I mailed the last two unpublished letters to the editor (last two days' entries), I wrote the opinion piece in relation to the Western Illinois history professor's opinion article. I received the article back with a "post-it" note attached signed by the editorial page editor. It said that if I reduced the editorial to 250 words or less it might be published as a letter to the editor (no guarantees, of course). I wrote back the following letter.

It can't happen. The original letter began as a letter to the editor but I couldn't adequately respond to the misinformation presented by professor Hopkins in that limited number of words. His opinion piece certainly wasn't limited to 250 words. If he is an example of an expert, The Peoria Journal Star has more problems than I can address in an opinion piece of whatever reasonable length.

"The Journal Star invites thoughtful, locally written op-ed commentary. Material submitted for publication should carry the insight of personal experience or expertise. In that way, they are distinct from Forum letters.

Op-ed pieces must present the writer's point of view on an event or issue, supported by facts, reasoning and/or anecdotes. Most are about 700 words." Peoria Journal Star Online, June 24, 2004

Are not rebuttal opinions to obviously poorly reasoned op-ed pieces acceptable? Am I not expert enough because I am not a professor? Truthfully, if professor Hopkins is an example of the professors at Western Illinois University, I would never send my child to that school.

Actually, it has been my observation after moving back to Illinois just over a year ago, that the Peoria Journal Star editorial board and columnists are not representative of the majority opinion of this area. Actually, I have had three letters rejected since the imposed two month restriction ended. I had decided that if none of the three were printed that I would begin "blogging" the Peoria Journal Star after the July 4th holiday period.

Monopolies are often a danger when it comes to journalism. "Freedom of the Press" can often lead to "Tyranny of the Press" as covering the news develops into slanting the news to your view points. Thank you for your decision not to publish this op-ed paper.

I received a two page letter in return from the editorial page editor to which I wrote the following reply.

In response to your letter responding to my letter which was in response to your note regarding my op-ed piece, isn't it amazing how these things snowball? It's your monopoly; it's your rules. It's your monopoly; it's your choice regarding what is published and what is not.

With great privileges, come great responsibilities. I believe that with free and open debate the truth will usually emerge. However, the debate must be free and open.

By definition, your rules control the degree of debate allowed. Your rules control who is considered an expert, which experts are allowed to participate in the exchange of ideas, how often others are allowed to participate, which participatory letters are allowed and which are not. It doesn't matter if you receive three or five hundred commentaries a week. You control the dissemination of opinion and information.

True or false? Publishing the commentary of George Hopkins as an expert without a contrary opinion expressed may give the impression that his opinion is also the position of the Peoria Journal Star editorial board. It's your policy and it's your control; but the policy does not adequately allow the free flow of ideas. Granted I do not have the benefit of a computer search, but I do not recall any contradictory opinion being printed in relation to this opinion piece.

However, even if there was, your own rule restricting the length of such a response prevents a fair presentation of a contrary opinion. It is similar to a debate which is the only one allowed. The rules of the debate permit the first respondent to speak for fourteen minutes. The second participant may or may not be allowed to speak. If he is, he is allowed no more than five minutes. But then, it's your monopoly; it's your rules.

Regarding your other responses. I did not complain about your failure to publish my letters. I made a statement of fact. I sent in three letters (I was including the op-ed commentary as the third letter) and none were published. I'm quite aware that you have no obligation to print my or any other letter. It's your monopoly; it's your choice.

By your own statment you published two of my letters in a very short period of time. It's not my fault that you broke your own rules. But, it does demonstrate that you will break the rules when you choose. The point of the three letter comment is that you control the debate and that control (in my opinion and that of others) slants what is printed based upon what you want disseminated.

Your reason given for not publishing my letter in relation to the issue of homosexuality was that you (the editorial board or whoever) decided it was time to end the discussion and move on. It's your monopoly; your control of the debate.

In regard to my inaccuracy on the medical marijuana letter, are you serious? First, because of you own length restrictions, I used a phrase that would be understandable to the reading public. I did not have the privilege of going into a governmental explanation of how the court functions. (I am quite capable of doing so.) Nor am I in the habit of reading Supreme Court decisions. I doubt the Court usually uses the word unconstitutional.

However, these are quotes from your own editorial on the issue. "The court majority said the commerce clause of the Constitution gives Congress the right to regulate homegrown marijuana and DENIES STATES A ROLE." "The seizure followed a 3-hour standoff with local authorities defending her right to grow cannabis UNDER THE CALIFORNIA LAW PERMITTING...." "No great harm would be done the nation if CONGRESS WERE TO RESPOND BY CARVING OUT AN EXCEPTION...AS ELEVEN STATES THOUGHT THEY HAD."

Columnist Kathleen Parker on June 9th wrote, "I'm talking, of course, about Monday's Supreme Court ruling AGAINST STATE-SANCTIONED MEDICAL MARIJUANA USE...." It seems that if I incorrectly used the phrase, I got it from your newspaper.

Finally, I don't believe any misunderstanding of the term alters the point of the letter. Nor do I recall that issue being addressed by any other letter published (I need to be able to make a computer search). The point was and is that the Journal Star reversed their position on "rule of law" when their ox was gored. Not an uncommon response by individuals and editorial boards but one that needed (in my opinion) to be pointed out. But then, it's your monopoly; your control.

Thank you again. Isn't this fun?

This last comment by me was not included in the letter. The editorial page editor wrote that "We receive 30-50 essays a week and publish three, so competition is stiff." My response would have been that if the dribble written by the history professor is an example of a selected essay there is no competition. If I was still teaching and a student of mine had turned in that specific essay as a class assignment, I would have returned it to him with an F. I would have further instructed him to rewrite it using only historical accurate information and without the "name calling" tactics since they are not conducive to an intellectual debate.

Now I have a daily forum.