In my previous post, I addressed an extreme of scare tactic – one that is so ridiculous, even those who lean to the same general political direction would consider as an overreaction (although I still have not found any condemnation from the Republican side).
In fact, I wanted to write about the scare tactics used by Republicans a while ago, mostly thanks to this video (also embedded below, via BoingBoing), which is a reaction by a Dutch citizen from Amsterdam to ridiculous accusations by Fox News, a news channel that is well known to be leaning to the right. I have not seen the original Fox News report, but the reaction makes it very clear – Fox News do not bother checking the facts before they start spreading misinformed rumours.
The scary thing is that unlike Rush Limbaugh, who is a well recognized agitator, Fox News hides behind a façade of a respectable and unbiased news network, so it seems to be more believable. People rely on the network to do its fact-checking and therefore put their faith in everything they say to be the truth. Therefore, there is no need for the GOP to orchestrate any of the current protest against the Healthcare Bill. Fox News “inspires” the masses to go out and protest against the upcoming “doom”, it is not important at all whether there is any truth to it or not.
UPDATE: I just watched the The O’Reilly Factor’s segment to which the video above refers. In this section, Bill O’Reilly and his colleagues slam not only the liberal Dutch government, but also free speech in the USA, and hinted against the freedom of religion. This has pissed me off so much! I can’t believe this is considered by some to be serious journalism!
Recently, the most talked about subject in the American media is the healthcare reform suggested by President Obama. Even more than the swine flu, (and surprisingly, even more than Lollapalooza). According to official publications, the suggested reforms will involve the option of a government sponsored, cheaper, health insurance. Emphasising the word option, since private health insurance will still be available like it is now. To put it in President Obama’s words:
And that means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor. Period. If you like your health care plan, you will be able to keep your health care plan. Period. No one will take it away. No matter what. My view is that health care reform should be guided by a simple principle: fix what’s broken and build on what works.
Obviously, the Republican party opposes these reforms. This could be expected. However, it seems that they don’t have anything of substance to say against it, so they use scare tactics: make the American people fear the reforms, claiming this is a “Nationalization of the healthcare system“, and showing flowcharts that are intentionally overloaded to create a sense of claustrophobia. Unfortunately, there are enough stupid Americans that believe what they are told and easily buy into the GOP’s rhetoric, going as far as turning to violence in order to prevent what they are told is an upcoming disaster.
So far, nothing is new, and since I usually don’t write about politics, you may wonder what pushed me to write this post. Well, yesterday, as I was pushing my way on the treadmill with NBC Nightly News blurring from the TV in front of me, I realized that this is going way too far! According to NBC’s report, Rush Limbaugh, a far-right extremist with a popular radio show has been comparing the suggested healthcare reform to a Nazi policy. In a video, he is showing the Obama reform’s logo transformed into a swastika. I was shocked! This is beyond scare tactics, this an incitement of hate! Obviously, Jewish and Democratic groups have condemned the comparison. But I expect the Republican party to realize how wrong this is. Despite searching, I am yet to find a Republican reaction to the slur!
Recently E. has been writing his observations about our lives in the US, in preparation to the anniversary of our relocation. Being new to this country, I believe both of us can share a partially external perspective and provide helpful feedback, if someone was willing to listen. Alas, we learned that Midwesterners are not open to criticism of any kind, and some were offended by things that should not have offended at all. The whole debacle only accentuated my worries about expressing my feelings publicly. My fears still exist, but following last week’s events, I feel that I cannot keep everything bottled up. I also have opinions about my surroundings and my life here that I would like to share.
Stephen Fry published a lecture recently about the place of the USA in the world. One of his observations is that America is full of opposites. I find this to be very accurate, and somewhat disturbing. One of the most frightening examples relates directly to the recent events that pushed me to write this post.
A major stepping stone of American democracy is the The First Amendment to the United States’ constitution that protects freedom of speech. Although it is directed to government bodies and not private ones, the general atmosphere is assumed to be applied throughout. Yet, if something is said or written in a way that does not appeal to someone in a position of power, the consequences may be unpleasant. This is true even if the words that were written are not at all offensive, or contain a clear indication or even a disclaimer that these are the opinions of the writer. Don’t get me wrong, I do not think that a writer has the right to slur, offend or threaten in any way. I do believe, however, that things should be put in proportion and the reader should think before blaming the writer of a slur or abusing any power they may have against the writer.
This is even more important in academia. In a society that depends on experimentation and study, feedback is an important response to exploration. Therefore, academics should be able to embrace criticism in order to learn from it, rather than attempt to quiet it down. Furthermore, criticism is a major tool for decision making. These days it is common to read many opinions on-line before making a purchase of almost anything. This includes decisions regarding products, services and programs of study. If honest opinions about the university, the college and the program were available before we decided to relocate, maybe our decision would have been different and maybe we would have had a better chance of finding a program that is the perfect fit for both of us. It definitely would have helped us to see different sides of the coin, something I believe anyone should be able to do, which is the reason the implied request to harmonize E’s post the mentioned feelings about my academic course pissed me off so much.
Maybe the lack of ability to accept criticism is the result of the deep American conservatism, which is a subject that deserves its own post. It must be affecting the quality and results of American-based research, but I have not investigated the matter enough to state anything specific. I should probably look it up soon.
Comments, feedback and criticism of this post will be welcome!
