👉 Where does Mirko Ojakivi get the right to claim that Estonia has been hit by social disappointment in the re-election of Donald Trump. 👉 If information coming from Russia can be automatically called bullshit, then the same comes from America. 👉 It is high time to start training political scientists who can describe the world in its reality. Lauri Vahtre nailed the disgrace of ERR's coverage of the American presidential elections (PM 8.11.) and rightly so. But this brainwashed record was surpassed by the November 9 program "Servants of the People" on ERR, which was a school lesson in the high school of left-liberalism, writes columnist Tarmo Pikner. It would be at least on a level, justifying such a worldview and comparing it with other worldviews - not even there. From this I understand that the herds of sisikes stay in Estonia to winter, but where does Mirko Ojakivi get the right to claim that Estonia has been hit by social disappointment and that a large part of the Estonian people woke up with a very serious disappointment the morning after the US elections. We lived as if in an illusion and waited for Kamala Harris to win. There is nothing else to expect from Krister Paris, but others could still balance one world view with a different perception of the world, and not extend their wishes to the people. Of course, it is easy to declare the entire flow of information, including the fake images coming from America, as true without analysis. But they don't bother to take it critically, or they don't believe that American public information has a biased force and they don't bother to look for alternative channels. If the information coming from Russia can be automatically called bullshit, the same comes from America, showing Donald Trump as King Kong. It is silly to claim after the elections that the US elections were even. And where do our commentators, as well as a large part of politicians, get that the so-called official position in the Estonian state is valid, that we are oriented towards liberal democracy. Has anyone seen the word "liberal" in our constitution, I haven't. If you read the foundations of the constitution, preservation of the Estonian nation and culture, independence, state language, state colors are rather conservative categories. It is true that the constitution does not regulate worldviews. And in that sense, it is not expressed as liberalism, but as balance. I understand the problem of classical liberal democratic parties, because their playing field has been occupied by extreme liberalism and progressivism (in our example, reform vs. socialists). But to see and present the world only through a left-liberal prism on a public channel is, to put it mildly, irresponsible. And why not invite some conservative commentators to the show? Oh well, we don't have those. After all, both our and Western universities produce left-liberalism and woke culture. At this point, a kind suggestion to university rectors - it is high time to start training political scientists who see and can describe the world in its reality, and are not biased here or there. Unfortunately, you won't find such a training opportunity in the Euro-Atlantic area, but maybe you can find such an opportunity in Asia, for example Singapore. And one more suggestion - Peeter Espak's writing about Trumpism (ERR 8.11.) should be included in the curricula of all universities, but why not also in high schools. M. Ojakivi would also benefit from reading it. And just as M. Luther nailed his 95 theses to the door of the Wittenberg church, Espak's theses should be nailed to the door of Stenbock, besides, there are far fewer of them to memorize.