Monthly Archives: kesäkuu 2017

Mayday, Mayday

Normaali

Viikko 25


 

Date: Apr 30th, 2013
Motion: THW cancel First of May due to a surfeit of trash and disruptive behaviour that irritate too many
Role: MP (opp.)


Jussi Lähde wrote in the Other national tabloid that according to him, there should be no First of May (open link for story). The day has degenerated into such a bacchanal that it no longer carries the cachet of Student Romance and working man’s Political Protest. Namely, all that there is left is drinking and debauchery, in their cheap and pedestrian version.

Those words of Mr. Lähde could be those of a mild agoraphobe with a slight panic disorder; a person, who cannot tolerate wide open spaces crammed with unruly, rowdy people. Sometimes this feeling may hit any person, either abroad or at home in Finland.

The chaotic aspects of the surrounding behaviour may make it worse, but alienation from one’s nation must be the root cause and reason for any outburst against public holidays and festivities and celebrations. Why would someone otherwise feel bad about a red-letter, feel-good day?

If one has three things,
a) Friends, b) a Mission or Something to Do and c) Alcohol, First of May is no problem. First one meets those friends. Then one drinks that booze (and never stops doing so, carrying some and buying more at every opportunity). Then one finds something to do, or someOne to do. (Wink wink.)

Conversely, if all of these things are missing and there is merely idle sightseeing and loitering and drifting to do, an estrangement will ensue for sure. This has been proven subjectively to and by some unhappy May Day castaways and outcasts. So, consequently, do not fall prey to that feeling but fix your First of May well in advance.

First of May means many things to many people. Therefore, it could and should not be cancelled or removed from the almanac. A change of aspect or point of view makes all the difference. In fact, First of May could be turned into a bona-fide carnival, in exaggeration of its ”irritating” traits. What if it was like Carnival in Rio, with all the trappings of a charade and parade that inform that Event? We could have a very different take on the day. We could regard it as a masquerade, parade and charade and blow some more life into it, certainly.

This could be the future of First of May — a bright future for an event that has strong roots in tradition. In order to achieve that, I admit that the intake of alcohol should be reined in and restricted to some extent. There should be more sobriety in order for us to be able to coreograph all the moves better. But then again, wouldn’t it be sweet be get laid on May Day instead of just getting drunk? Or stoned? Or magically metamorphosed (into a butterfly?)


Arvio: Nenäkäs mutta analyyttinen puhe vaikuttaa pinnalliselta. Analyyttinen ote on syvemmällä. Puheessa otetaan vastapuolta hyvin huomioon aluksi mutta yritetään sitten kiepauttaa heidät ympäri ja mattoon.  Lopun karnevalisointiesitys saattaa mennä liian pitkälle vastakkaiseen suuntaan, mutta tärkeintä on ajaa juhlapäivän asiaa.

Leftist Levy Won’t Break

Normaali

Viikko 24


 

Date: Apr 4th, 2013
Motion
: THW have dividends doled out of private and holding companies taxfree for the duration of one year 
Role: Rep. (opp.)


The Cause and Effect of Taxation

The government wants to give tax breaks to those who want quick cash as capital income from their holding companies and family-operated LLCs.

We have to remember that in this situation…. our duties are…. (pun intended)…. varied and multiple. We have to take care of our young, handicapped, retarded and old, while oiling at the same time the machine that takes care of these people and their needs.

Giving cheap money on the cheap to money-grabbers won’t help the system or the machine. No amount of tax-exempt money will benefit the needy, because they don’t — generally speaking — supply goods or services to the very rich. What a tax reform would amount to would be a pay-day for the piggy-bank-hoarding giga-rich and other well-off people.

Why is this so? It is like this, because at the present money is being shovelled onto and past the sidelines beyond taxation and consumption. This money, if it isn’t taxed at the source or en route of transfer, won’t be taxed in consumption either, because it is not consumed but stashed. None of this money will benefit anyone, save for the marginal banking fees some tiny-nation island banks collect, in return for stashing this money away.

Mechanization and globalization take care of two things:
a) Unemployment will rise and b) Those who are well off will do nothing to solve that problem. It is up to those who have fiscal or financial money to solve dilemmas that bear on employment. Fiscal money is money with a Conscience. Cheap dividends, to the contrary, mainly benefit the private purses or briefcases of individuals; and in some cases, institutions, when they act as stakeholders. That is money without a conscience.

Triple Glazing
What taxation in this country is alike is triple glazing. Namely, money is taxed a) when it being created, b) when it is being transferred and c) when it is being spent. Thanks to this triple-pane window principle, we have our Nordic socially oriented Welfare system that we would like to keep and maintain. What the Government tries to do is make the glazing thinner for those, who own property, shares, stock and the like (capital income) — but the problem is that a window is and should be — transparent. We don’t need dim, dirty, obscure windows. We need standard translucent windows as taxpayers and recipients and beneficiaries of the thankful effects of fiscal money. Even rich people benefit from tax money; they just don’t want to encourage others’ acknowledging that, as they want to make it understood that they are self-made and that they made their own Fortunes (in two senses of the word; ¹ fate and ² lucre), while in fact it was their family who made that fortune decades or centuries ago, with the help of a slew of other families.

Tax cuts to the mega-rich? No thanks. Medium taxation for everyone, or high taxation for everyone. That’s how fair, transparent money systems of merit and credit are built.


Arvio: Puhe tuntuu aluksi vähän lyhyeltä verrattuna joihinkin aikaisempiin puheisiini, mutta sen edetessä lauserytmi on niin ytimekästä, että täytelauseiden värkkääminen eteen tai taakse tuntuisi keinotekoiselta ja väkinäiseltä. Olkoon puhe siis tällainen, joka tiivistää vasemmistolaisen talouspolitiikan perushengen. Ainakin mielipide tulee selväksi.

N(at)O!

Normaali

Viikko 22



Motion
THB that Finland should reconsider NATO and join the alliance as part of its defence doctrine 
Role: MP (opp.)


It has long been talked about, or rather, bandied about, that Finland could or should become a member state in the NATO. The idea thereof is that it is a loosely knit fabric of member states that works on the principle of the Three Musketeers: all for one and one for all. Nations want to join the NATO, since it is seen as a safeguard against national insecurity, largely due to the (past) largesse of its biggest contributor and wielder of clout, the USA. This, however, may come to an end, as the internal problems, credit crunch and money drought are engulfing the USA as well.

But, in order to analyse Finland in this context, let me state that @ present Finland has its hands tied up pretty badly, and most of it is of our own doing. Put simply, as a statement: Finland cannot join the NATO, for there is an unwritten prohibition for any single party, politician or government to take us there. It is simply unthinkable. I break this down into the three constituent parts:

No party can take us into the NATO. If that happened, the other parties would begin immediately using that as a hitting weapon in the interpartisan rivalry. A Nato-fervent party would be seen as a peace-destabiliser and an underminer of the country’s position vis-à-vis Russia.

No politician can take us into the NATO. The question is seen as way too big for any individual politician to shoulder or take on. This includes the incumbent president of the Republic of Finland, as well. We have indeed had a string of NATO-indifferent or downright NATO-hostile presidents, but now that we have a rightwinger, a potential ”hawk” in place, the situation is not any different. He’ll have to toe the line just like everyone else. He has the top job in the country, but he also has ”too small” a stature to decide on ”our future” in such an ”important matter”.

No administration or government that sits for the mandated four years is allowed to consider or file an application for a NATO membership. How come?

  1. First of all, there would be no way that a consensus could be reached by a rainbow coalition that most governments these days are.
  2. Secondly, if one or two parties could dominate an administration, their internal ranks would in all likelihood be divided over the issue.
  3. Thirdly, the president and the media would immediately start scrutinising the govt. in question trying to break the pattern. I’d like to emphasise that the media is really the Fourth Estate. It ALWAYS intervenes in questions of national security and insecurity, even though this matter would not fall under its jurisdiction in the first place.

If we bring into the discussion another Scandinavian society, the reality is peculiar. Finland is far too interested in the Kingdom of Sweden’s intentions in this quest. It always wants to know whether Sweden is applying, even though these two countries’ military histories are totally different and incomparable. It seems that Finland is going to apply if Sweden does. But Sweden does not want to apply, if Finland won’t, as it sees its neighbour as the more vulnerable one, more in need of protection and shielding. So, in the end, neither does. This is a textbook example of military interdependence, not of military independence.

Finland is like a driftwood raft in the matter instead of a drifting log. With iron string and barbed wire, its politicians, parties, administrations and the media are tied to each other in a unified ”fear and loathing” of the NATO, and this can’t be undone.

In a broader context, Finland drifts on in the sea or river of international politics, as if it did not have a volition of its own. This is the modern interpretation of the ”ajopuuteoria” or the Driftwood Hypothesis.


Arvio: Puheessa tehdään selväksi vallitseva poliittinen tilanne. Status quota pönkitetään, mutta analyyttisellä tavalla. Tämä sopii poliittiselle oppositiolle ja sen (rivikansan)edustajalle. Whip saa valmiin paketin, jos edellisetkin puhujat ovat hoitaneet hommansa.