By Zach Clute-Reinig
I think what initially struck me about one of the more creatively articulated articles by the recently prolific Mr. Machado was the title of the article-which included the phrase "absurd hysteria." (Swine flu scare is just absurd hysteria Sept. 17).
I immediately thought it may have been a regular exercise in callisthenic hyperbole, a satire piece perhaps on the swine flu posters scattered around campus maybe. After I read the article, though, I was surprised and amazed.
There were a few things about the piece that incensed me, the first and foremost being the unfounded assertions the author makes about our President. I can only wonder whether or not the Obama slam at the end of the article was a tasteful afterthought, or the driving force behind the article itself.
Machado says, "common sense tells me that the common flu vaccine will suffice..." and proceeds to accuse President Obama of raising money for a wildly reckless stimulus bill through a public health fear campaign. Common sense tells me that an article spent mainly chasing rock climbing and iPod metaphors for support of an opinion may be a sign of some compromised sense of the necessary causation and/or support required of any serious opinion. I realize that this article was published in the opinions section, neatly freeing it from the constraints posed by logical deduction and fact-checking.
Regardless, I am disinclined to bite into an assertion (on either side of the issue) that reeks of sensationalism. This article loses much of its credibility when it leaps beyond issues of public health and makes a passing attempt at pinning President Obama with rallying a "hog-flu" hysteria (a neologism which holds a significant amount of pride within the article).
Making such a leap from a very legitimate question of the overlap of public health and paranoia into the regions of wanton accusation is a shaky way to bring an opinion to a close, especially in a written article. No matter how intriguing or sexy it may appear to be, tantalizing readers with sensationalism distracts from the central issues and slows the progress of a public discussion which desperately needs to happen.
Finally, in what may be the self-devouring realities of this article, Machado simultaneously condemns the politics of fear while entertaining the idea of Elmo as a pawn of a subversive administration aiming its ideologies at small children.
This is when I realized that I may have found the "absurd hysteria" I expected to find earlier. Whether or not we as individuals choose to espouse opinions designed to be polarizing and/or astronomically untrue may very well be an indication of whether or not we will contribute positively to a two-sided dialogue on pressing national issues.
It truly saddens me to see this sort of irate and caustic "journalism" (read: ranting) fill the pages of a newspaper which seeks to give students an opportunity to be heard as an adult and an individual. As an adult and individual, our potential for influence reaches far beyond our own insular circumstances.
Thus we are faced with a choice between anger and diplomacy; it is clear that the expression of furious opinions leads to division, misunderstanding, a dissolution of progress and is epitomized by the angry (and similarly ineffective) Rush Limbaugh.
In an age where information flows so freely, it is more important than ever that we give serious consideration to not only what we say, but how we say it as well. Opinions are divisive by nature, but in order to be part of a mature discussion of these issues most crucial to our progress as a nation, they must not be baseless, vile or place themselves on a continuum of ignorance.
Zach Clute-Reinig is a senior secondary education major
