Peerless Dot Com


Viikko 7

Ei niin huonosti ajoitetusti tarjoan nyt ystävänpäiväksi tällaista päivän teemaan eli  parinvalintaan liittyvää puhetta. Puhe on tosin kirjoitettu aiemmin ja eri vuoden aikaan.


Date: Dec 5th, 2013
Motion: THW encourage science rather than choice on match-making Internet sites
Role: Min. (gov.)

Dear Assemblage, Chair, House, Ladies and Gentlemen,

In this speech, my aim is to go from a) why choice is not free will to b) an example of a bad choice to c) lessons of the past to d) what kind of science might work, even if it did not. In other words, this division deals directly with the wording of the motion today. Let us kick off.

The Delusion of Free Will
We like to think that we choose romantically right, but in reality I think the familiar takes precedence over the the foreign. A boy may leaf through the pages of a glossy fashion-model magazine only to find out that the women he fancies the most actually look like versions of her own mother when she was younger and in childbearing age. Biology, genes and familiarity are the master of the ”free” will, which in turn subordinates itself as a ”slave”.

I have coined the following rule: the rule of As Gentle or Gentler Than Myself which, explained in short, means that trait-wise we’d like to find a partner whose body odor, temperament and height (in this case rather short than tall) matches ours or is milder, more pleasant or more lenient. But, when it comes to descendants of ours, we might benefit from exactly the opposite qualities, traits or characteristics in our partner.

An Example of a Bad Choice
Prince Edward, King Edward VIII of Great Britain, gave up on the throne as he fell in love with an American woman, Wallis Simpson, in the 1930’s. Their affair or relationship resulted in love, but the former king became redundant for the rest of his life, when he could have had it both ways and ruled over England as its designated monarch. Had he not given a toss about love, he could have made something out of (t)his life. He died in 1972.

Lessons by the Past
So, the opposite of a freely chosen, romantic marriage is an agreed and negotiated marriage that is so well documented in most of Jane Austen’s books such as Pride and Prejudice. Marriage therein was a deal, with dowries and sweeteners coming along with it, and marriages then lasted often longer than today for reasons of necessity but also for excellent choices by those who took part in the process. We’d like to think of this kind of external choice as the natural counterpoint to this debate and an example of things working out outside of and beyond choice by a free will.

Science as a Help
What kind of science would we champion to accomplish good pairs?
Statistics means tables of info or data, but statistics also happens to be a science in its own right, known in Finnish as ’tilastotiede’. I would use it to attain pair(ing)s.

It could be figured out based on historical evidence and questionnaires as to what unites successfully married and happy couples across the board. When the key factors were found out, newcomers to match-making sites should be asked for the relevant information in addition to the voluntary depictions of themselves that they had submitted to the site. Ultimately, the machine or webmaster behind the site could/should join the dots and begin suggesting potential matches to individual users, with caveats about partial potential mismatches. Statistics would be the science guiding us forward on the mountain of love.

I’d like to conclude by saying that it’s feasible to get the curve to rise with help from science in pairing people off. The odds are stacked for them. Love can break your heart, but science can help you make a new start.

Thank you.

Puheen kesto: 4 min 35 sek
: Tämä aloite löytyy aiemmastakin, vastikäisestä puheesta, mutta ao. sisältö oli erilainen ja rooli viimeisen puhujan. Sävy on kuitenkin samantyyppinen, koska puheet on kirjoitettu saman puolen (eli hallituksen) nimissä. Tässä on vähemmän pituutta ja selkeämpi rakenne. Tämä sopii paremmin maallikolle ja toimii roolissaan ehkä paremmin kuin linkattu puhe toimii whipin puheena. Mutta makuasioista ei ”sovi” kiistellä.


Hyvät Radio Suomen Lähetysikkunan Exoduslaiset!


Viikko 5


Jos kuuluit aikoinaan Radio Suomi -lähetysikkunan kantaviin voimiin, tule uudestaan ircci-sfääriin tekemään unelmistasi totta!

Löydät viransijaisen poksin osoitteesta

  • ja keskimmäinen vaihtoehto alta (= sama paikka)
  • jos olit enemmän YleX:n kuluttajia, paikkasi on Discord on myös olemassa appina selainpalvelun ohella. Appi toimii tableteilla ja älypuhelimissa.

Tämä koskee Yle Puheen, Yle Radio Suomen ja Ylen Ykkösen kuuntelijoita ja ns. aktiivi-nikkejä

  • lähetysikkunassa eli
  • shoutboksissa eli
  • huutolaatikossa eli
  • poksissa eli
  • akkunassa eli
  • räppänässä.

Voit toimia epävirallisessa lähetysikkunassa kuin toimisit alkuperäisessä Yle(n) Puhe, Radio Suomi tai Ykkönen -lähetysikkunassa. Kiinnostuksen kohteesi, lempihymiösi ja maneerisi ovat kaikki käytössäsi unohtamatta sitä, että sinun on hyödyllistä edelleen viitata #puheenaiheisiin risuaidalla ja @henkilöihin taksamerkillä. Jos olet unohtanut, niin Radio Suomen suosittuja ohjelmia olivat mm.

  • Ajantasa 1 ja Ajantasa 2 (joka arkipäivä 10 – 11 ja 14 – 15)
  • Levylautakunta (la 13 – 14)
  • Maailmanpolitiikan arkipäivää (la 14 – 14:30)
  • Poppikoulu (la 14:30 -15)
  • Pyöreä pöytä (ke 17:30 – 18:00)

Mene sinne ja toimi näin:

1) Rekisteröi sähköpostiosoitteesi aloitusruutuun

2) Avaa sähköpostiisi tuleva viesti

3) Paina linkkiä

4) Rekisteröi itsellesi sama nimimerkki kuin millä sinut tunnettiin useimmin tai viimeksi

5) Valitse salasanakin

6) Astu keskusteluun ja tutustu henkilöihin, toimintoihin ja tunnelmaan

7) Ulosloggausta ei tarvita, mutta onnistuu painamalla ratasta ja ”Leave”.

8) Uusi sisäänloggaus Rejoin-painikkeesta.

Lähetysikkunan kokeilu on maksutonta, eikä aiheuta sinulle mitään harmia. Pysyt anonyyminä ja tietoturvasi on kunnossa. Saat toki sanoa itsestäsi enemmän kuin silloin aikoinaan.

Candy Now or on Sunday?


Viikko 4/’18


Date: Jan 24th, 2018
Motion: THW have most people/everyone vote as advance-poll voters
Role: Whip (opp.)

More and more people vote early in the run-up to general or presidential elections. Of a lesser importance are Europarliament and municipal elections. Referenda are also by nature alike elections, although they are not an election technically. This kind of event befalls us at frequent intervals, so what to make of early voting?

As of now, it has been revealed that 36 % of citizens in Finland have voted at advance-polling stations. In the United Stated Presidential Elections of 2012, the figure was at around 32 %, having risen steeply. We can expect early in-person votes to be cast in these double digits. North American commentators have voiced concerns over several things, e.g. early voting depressing the overall percentage of voter participation (i.e. below 70 %), early voting adding to the overall cost of elections and early voting pre-empting the effect of last-minute scandals or scoops, certain ”previous-week” surprises.

Our side has presented various viewpoints against advance-poll voting that you should be aware of. Here I’m offering you a summary thereof, so that you may make up your own mind.

First of all, early voting was never meant to be any kind of default way of voting. The idea was to enable voting for people who were travelling, ill, under the blade, in labour, seeing a mistress or a lover, in court or otherwise inhibited from voting as usual. Also expatriates were thought of, as they often vote at embassies on different days than the extant native population. In the present-day situation, overeager early voters could be likened to men or women who instead of going to the Men’s or Women’s (toilet) want to go to the toilet of the Disabled — ♿ — as it has become a ”neutral haven”. In the past, voting early was not as easy as it is today. People had to register in advance to cast an absentee ballot, and they may have had to offer a reason, or a pretext, for doing so. Nowadays it’s a free-for-all. This was brought up by our Secretary.

There are only a few occasions where an individual can have access to society at large before his or her eyes. Entering the army is one. Voting is another, and it’s non-gender-specific. Forming a queue to the polling station is fun in itself and it is enlightening to see some familiar faces among many more strange ones. The fragmentation of society manifests itself in our not voting on Election Day but choosing instead to vote on some nondescript day. It would do us good to see ourselves as bit players in the social fabric and that experience can be had on Election Day. This was brought up by our Chair.

The most damning evidence or reason for not voting early is what I came up with together with our MP: the fact that we do not really know what happens to those early votes once they’ve been enclosed in an envelope. Their ritual scribblin’, sealing, stamping and storing is well known, but what happens thereafter? For all we know, they could be sent to the dump before the elections, and no-one would know about it. Nobody would look for lost votes in a landfill or an incinerator, and the animals frequenting those dumps couldn’t tell us about that either. Voting on Election Day is an entirely different matter. During the day, representatives of all or most parties convene at the site as voting officials. They watch the voters and each other throughout the day. When the voting ends at 8 pm, no card leaves the room. The ballots are counted on the big table in the room and piled up into stacks, depending on the popularity of the candidates. Finally, around 10 or 11, the message is sent to Helsinki about how many votes each candidate, party or independent has acquired. The possibility for election fraud is close to nil. And your vote will be one of those that were included in the final reckoning. Compare that with the prospect of having your vote lost at a dump.

Personally I think it’s easy to fall under the allure of early voting, as it does not require restraint on one’s own behalf but a kind of instant gratification, like the question, ”Do you want candy now or on Sunday?” But we know the risk in that kind of behaviour, and it applies to this case as well. For these reasons, I’m asking you to steer clear of advance-poll stations. Do vote on Sunday, please.

Thank you.

Arvio: Puheessa on ajankohtainen aihe; ovathan presidentinvaalit hyvinkin lähellä eli noin puolen viikon päässä. Aihe on myös sellainen, jonka puolesta, harvinaista kyllä, myös kansa on äänestänyt ”jaloillaan” toimimalla aloitteen viitoittamalla tavalla. Näin oppositio saa niskaansa paitsi propositio-puolen myös kansan, mikä usein jää debateissa teoreettiseksi vaihtoehdoksi. Kerran näinkin päin. Whipin pointeista viimeisin on paras, joskin vähän vainoharhainen.

I’m Free to Be Whatever I Choose


Viikko 3

: Jan 14th, 2018
Motion: THB that a democracy a la Montesquieu trumps a different regime at everything
Role: Whip (opp.)

We have gone to the bottom or core of things. The proposing side has dug up the usual suspects; examples of the best practises of the Western World, name-dropping (Francis Fukuyama and his essay), and the fact that the migration between dictatorships and democracies usually happens from the former to the latter (as in Russians moving to London) and not vice versa (as in Gerard Depardieu moving to Russia).

What I’m going to do next is tie the cords of my own side together into a knot (in a good way) and to offer a conclusive and comprehensive alternative to the gov. motion.

Our last speaker revealed to us the way our legislatures let us down. The first major upset is the fact that the opposition is not listened to during a four-year period of governing. Majority-seat govts are formed with the express purpose of every voting situation ending in a victory for the govt. Question hours are farcical, as MPs do not even talk to each other but address the Chair of the parliament every time they report a concern or a question. The second upset is that all preparatory action by the legislature boils down to the hour of voting. It is a numbers game. No matter what discussions have preceded the voting, decisions are made in binary numbers. It does not matter how smart or dumb a rep. is as long (s)he is capable of pressing a button. This has led to a situation where rather moronic people already roam the halls and corridors of our legislating body. Protest votes have brought them there, and parties do not care as long as the grand tally of voting in the country favours them.

Our govts fail, as our second speaker, Secretary, told us, in not really being in control of what they are doing. A vast number of civil servants work at any ministry, bringing and creating the agenda that the corresponding Minister merely undersigns or stamps with a rubber stamp. This problem is perpetuated by the fact that often ministries are headed by people who have not personally specialised or received training in what they govern over. In consequence, executive power slips further down the line to the middle management of each ministry, who wields the real power. And therefore, we don’t know who’s in power or whom to blame when the s**t hits the fan.

Our opening speaker, Chair, brought to our attention the corruption of our defense lawyers, judges and prosecutors. It is no secret that fortune crimes and violent crimes often receive a very lenient treatment — not to speak of crimes committed by office-holding people, in courts — against the morality of the people. Why? Why? Because verdicts are fashioned according to how likely it is that a convict will return to avenge his verdict on the sentencing ones. With criminals of the violent kind, economical kind and incumbent kind, the likelihood is ELEVATED, if not certain, so they tend to get short sentences. With people without networks and no history of violence, the likelihood is non-existent, so they get comparably the longest possible sentences and hardest verdicts and damages to be paid. In other words, what matters in courts isn’t bangers and mash, crime and punishment, but: WHO has done something, HOW (s)he is in relations with the members of the court, and lastly WHAT (s)he has done.

Summed up, parts of our system are just about as dysfunctional and damaged as their Eastern European, African or Asian counterparts, all over the world. Yet, there is a nagging feeling that we still like to live in the Western hemisphere, and we have always been a favourite tourist attraction both to people from foreign lands and among ourselves. So, the real reason why the West is successfully inhabited by ”semi-happy” people is not Market Economy or a Montesquieuan division of systemic duties, as both of them have oppressive features. The Real Reason why we are partially happy is that we have fundamental rights that cannot be taken away:

  • Freedom of Speech
  • Freedom of Religion
  • Freedom of Mobility, Movement and Migration

It is really these three things that flourish in the shadow cast by the Market Economy and the Tripartite Division of Power that make us happy. If they existed on behalf of any other kind of regime, the subjects under those diverse different regimes would be just as happy as kites, too. This could also explain away the thinking in Russia, China and other economical powerhouses that they do not want to follow the Western lead or emulate our societies there.

Arvio: Puhe käy läpi tuntemamme järjestelmän heikkouksia sisältä käsin niitä tuntien ja luodaten. Osa on mutua mutta siinäkin on totta ainakin siteeksi. Puheen väitteitä on vaikea todentaa. Lopun vapauksien luetteleminen tuntuu joka tapauksessa todelliselta ja myönteisellä tavalla. Puhe toimii aloitteen luomassa altavastaajan roolissa ehkä niin hyvin kuin on mahdollista.

12 Years a Sauli


Viikko 1/2018

: Jan 2nd, 2018
Motion: THB that presidents in republics do a better job than regents in monarchies or kingdoms 
Role: MP (opp.)

The Finnish presidential elections are at hand. It seems that the incumbent one, Sauli Niinistö, will redeem himself and take the ”Oval Office” (of Finland) by storm for a second time in a row. The president may have two terms @ six years apiece. This will mean that he will preside over both his office and staff at the president’s quarters including the residence on the shoreline in Helsinki at a place called Mäntyniemi and all of the numerous perquisites for over a decade.

However, I’m not pleased with the strategic plan of the sitting president. He is playing it safe. This is in keeping with all the earlier presidents. Most of them have played it safe, ever since the wartime presidents, who couldn’t afford that luxury. Maybe it’s in the national character. Maybe we cannot play it other than safe. Should our president not do his utmost to re-ensure his 2nd term, we could have an interesting 2nd round (which is needed if one of the candidates does not carry 50 % or more of the vote). It could be True Finns against the Green Party. It could be the Centre Party against the Green Party. It could be two independents against each other. But now it seems that there will be no 2nd round at all.

Leveling the Field
What the incumbent president should do is to announce that he is in favour of NATO. So far, the only candidate to do so has been of the Swedish People’s Party, a former 60’s Communist. His share of the vote is going to be somewhere between 1 and 5 per cent. So much for his presidency. Now, if the incumbent #1 announced as well that he has a similar outlook, that would energize and electrify the whole field of candidates, for most of the people are against NATO and the remaining candidates are all against membership in the organization as well. He could do it, as his party is roundly FOR the membership and there is widespread support FOR it among their lot. Moving in this direction would level the playing field and endow all of the candidates with pros as well as cons. For the time being, all the pros are in the cart of the incumbent president.

Not Leveling the Field
The incumbent one made the glib and smug move of not enlisting in the race under the auspices of his old party, the Coalition Party, but as the figurehead of a civil movement, whose aim was to gather 20,000 voters behind him and thus have him in the race as an ”independent” candidate. A bit like Nelson Mandela not running for the ANC but as an independent candidate. In a country of five and a half million citizens, it’s a piece of cake to gather 20,000 people behind the sitting president, so this move has done nothing to level the playing field between the candidates, and it doesn’t try out the president’s true-blue popularity the way he announced it would.

Litigation Is Not Leadership
It seems that there is an ominous principle that lawyers who have served as govt. Ministers in Finland stand a good chance of becoming Presidents. A kindred route in the U.S. might be that lawyers who have served as state Governors stand a good chance of becoming Presidents. And Niinistö is a lawyer by training. I’d like to stress that litigation does not prepare FOR and is NOT leadership. Rather, lawyership could be linked up to brinkmanship. Lawyers don’t lead the way. They collect their fees and hourly rates, when someone has run astray.

It seems that no one is in charge of the stately ship that’s called Finland. There is no captain on the bridge of the ship M/S Finlandia. Niinistö is not the captain. He does not have an agenda of his own and he is not actively pursuing a path for the country beyond the interests of the bureaucrats. He doesn’t even pardon convicts at prisons that willingly, which is the President’s side duty, as (s)he is allowed to be the only remaining ”good cop” if and when the justice system fails. He is merely the 1st Mate of the ship who is so enamored of having the privilege of dining in the Captain’s Cabin in the captain’s absence that he wants to extend his stay there by any means possible. The means he has come up with are: a dog (Boston terrier), a youngish wife (at 40) and an upcoming election baby. Moreover, he’s backed up by a popular movement and a tongue in the middle of the mouth that always tells an average Finn what (s)he wants to hear.

As I have said, this is in the national character. Finns are not good at taking strong initiative. They do not want to take the reins in their own hands. This can be seen both in the president and those who want to retain him in power. They rather respond to the Future than make it. They rather respond to the people around them than Make them.

Arvio: Olen 2. tiimin 1. puhuja. Arvatenkin minua edeltävä tiimi on käsitellyt aihetta kahdella tavalla kolmesta: a) se on yhdenvertaistanut molemmat hallitusmuodot ja pitää niitä molempia seremoniallisina, b) yksi on tuonut esiin esimerkkejä hyvistä monarkeista tai c) toinen on tuonut esiin esimerkkejä huonoista presidenteistä. Oma tapani tuoda esiin paljon kaivattu uusi näkökulma on puhua oman maamme presidentistä tässä hetkessä. Onnistun tilanteen analyysissä mielestäni oikein, mutta puheessa on vähän kateuden ja katkeruuden turhaa sivumakua.

Dogs in Reserve


Viikko 52


Date: Dec 26th, 2017
Motion: THB that prisons treat men right but harder and longer sentences were in order
Role: Chair (opp.)

Recently a mother to an incarcerated son told us about her plight. She claimed that her son would not have belonged in a prison as he had something off the spectrum of autism, and thus had benefited from treatment by the medical professionals instead. It’s a sad story but hardly unusual. Tens of thousands of men have gone to penitentiaries over the course of man-made history even if their underlying ”issue” was something other than a crime (think about gay men, for starters). Here I’m going to dissect what reasons land men in prisons, starting from the obvious one, crime. And don’t bring women up in this context, as we all know that it’s mostly men who do the sitting.

Criminality lands one in prison, but only if one is caught red-handed or at all. Violent crime that targets other people’s untouchability and integrity is the easiest way to get sentenced. However, sometimes sentences are very short compared with the severity of the crime. Another genre is crimes committed against fortune and property. This landed e.g. Bernie Madoff in jail, for about as long as Charles Manson. But now Manson has been ”released”.

When people self-medicate with drugs, they are hardly committing a crime against other people. I.e. they do not transgress against the recommendation in the Bible that says, ’do to others as you wish to be done upon you by others’. Some call drugs a ’victimless crime’, or, a vice crime. But the indisputable fact remains that especially in the U.S., a large population of people sleep behind bars due to everything that has with drugs to do. Selling them, protecting ”turf”, using them, distributing them, muling them, soliciting them; all of these reasons lead to courts and from them to hard time. Also, people may commit nasty things when they’re on drugs. Their normal judgment evaporates. But the substance is merely a gun. It’s the user who pulls the trigger in using the drug.

Problems of the mind land people behind bars. Neurotic people usually avoid sentencing, as their wariness prevents them from committing violent crime, but psychotic and autistic people may not be equally lucky. Then there are those who are borderline-type personalities, sociopaths, manic depressives or endowed with a low IQ. The developmentally disabled in a prison are a not so uncommon ploy in ”comedic” crime entertainment.

Other reasons may put people ”there”, too. A spirit of adventurousness in deeds and dealings, challenging and difficult artistry or congenital atypical sexuality may (have) put men behind bars. All of these reasons are a lesser triangle of reasons to do so, and we might call them, together as a category, deviant reasons, or deviancy. They have nonetheless kept men sequestered from society for months, years or decades on end. For instance, while being incarcerated for being a ”queer”, Oscar Wilde write a book-length letter in his cell, titled De Profundis (1897).

I’ve here only covered reasons that put people behind bars in democracies that have a justice system of the republican sort. Another question entirely is the treatment of folks under different kinds of totalitarian regimes and dictatorships. There you would hit the clanker the easiest by raising your voice with your face against the oppressions. But that’s another issue entirely, and a different taxonomy would cover the foibles of the justice systems in such nations.

The sad truth is that at this point of my speech we need to refigure what prisons are. They are not necessarily places where people get put as a punishment for a crime. They are neither necessarily places where the character receives character development, as some characters will not be so malleable in the first place. I’d like to claim, instead, that if you stray too far from what is acceptable from a constituent, you get hard time. Think of it as if it was a system of co-ordinates, where normalcy is point Zero. Left is criminality and Right is insanity on the X axis, while Up is deviancy and Down is addiction on the Y axis. If you travel too far in any of these directions, it’s Hard Time for you, my friend. The Establishment and its runners do not care if you do not fit the criterion of Strictly Crime. The reason is partly that it pardons its own members, if they’re high enough up. The system needs to control its marginal internal trouble in a wholesale way, and penitentiaries are the answer. They are a One-Size-Fits-All type of an answer. Think about it, and smile, 🤔 on purchasing your next pair of black leather gloves.

Thank you.

Arvio: Tämä sopii puheenjohtaja-puheeksi, koska siinä käydään läpi asioita hyvin yleisellä tasolla, hieman ”implisiittisesti”. Siinä ikään kuin tehdään selväksi hallitukselle, ettei oppositio ajattele aloitteesta samalla tavalla. Jää sihteerin ja edustajan tehtäväksi vastustaa aloitteen kirjaimellista sisältöä. Sihteeri voi esimerkiksi vastustaa aloite-virkkeen 1. lausetta ja edustaja sen 2. lausetta siihen kuuluvine eksplisiittisine sisältöineen.

Bot, I’ve Been Expecting You


Viikko 50


Väittelyn aiheita voi yrittää poimia lehdistä tai televisiosta. Internetistä ei maineestaan huolimatta löydä kovin hyviä aiheita. Väittelykerhoissa on väittelyn käymiseen tarvittavia ihmisiä jäseninä. Väittelyn aloite on muotoiltava pieteetillä. Väittelyn hyökkäävälle puolelle pitää antaa yhtä paljon mahdollisuutta hyökätä kuin väittelyn puolustavalle puolustaa. Väittelyssä ei usein ole selkeää häviäjää eikä voittajaakaan. Kuitenkin väittelyn tuomarointi lähtee siitä, että näin on. Väittelyyn pätee sama kuin muihinkin aktiviteetteihin. Väittelemään yliopistossa oppii väittelemällä yliopistolla.