Category Archives: I puhuja (arkistosta)

Adulthood in All Areas


Viikko 49


Date: Dec 8th, 2017
Motion: THB that adulthood should be redefined as something else than 16, 18 or 21 years of age
Role: PM (gov.)

All of us are awarded so-called Adulthood Points when we grow up. They are fully objective points, even though we might want to have them in a subjective form. They cannot be haggled over or bartered or sold. One will either have them or not have them.

In the following, I will present you with those points. I have divided them up in categories, even though they could just be rattled off a bullet list of six things. For the sake of clarity, I’m counting them up in this way. I have designed a name for them that begins repeatedly with an A, both in English and in Finnish, as most of the original categories that I came up with started with an A anyway. In English, I have solved this naming problem in using the article a or an with categories that I could not otherwise come up with a name for.

Collegial Possessions
These can be summed up as two things: source of knowledge/skills and source of income.

  • Ammatillinen/ammattikorkeakoulun/akateeminen tutkinto (= A Degree, with A-levels completed)
  • Ansiot(yö) (= A Source of Income)

Material Possessions
are the things an adult owns through loans or fully. A car could be regarded as a folly/unnecessity, but when one thinks about it, it needs to be had, if one is residing in the countryside or a small town. Not having a car would be considered a weakness and a threat, especially in a situation where most of the other adult points were momentously lost through a divorce.

  • Asunto (= Apartment/Abode)
  • Auto (= Automobile)

Social Possessions
refer to the self-realised human relationships around an adult being.

  • Av(i)opuoliso (= Amorous Partner)
  • Alempi polvi (= A Progeny)

These points come together over time, and often fulfillment in one category leads to the opening up of another. For instance, when one has a degree, it is easier to obtain a job (but that is not a necessity). When one has toiled at a job for long enough, it’s quite easy to rent or buy a car. When one has had a relationship for long enough, it’s easier to propose to a person. When one has proposed to a person, it’s not difficult to move under one and the same roof. When a couple has been living under the same roof for long enough, the question of acquiring offspring comes to mind easily. To sum this up, accumulation is the way adulthood is attained. It does not happen overnight but over a period of time. One step leads to the next. Finally, all the six steps of adulthood will have been taken.

Now, these categories do not tell the whole story about the issue. One can have full adulthood points and still not be considered a responsible adult who is in control over his or her life. One can be considered a Failure (an F), when one has, for instance ”merely” the following things: a degree from a Janitorial-Sanitational College. A job that pays $999.90 a month. A failed, one-night stand romance. A child in custody of the mother, supported by alimony, when one can afford it. A delapidated apartment that was inherited from one’s parents in the countryside. An automobile that cost $2,000, is rusty, cluttered on the inside, does not have winter tires, is never washed properly and may not go through the next inspection qualifying for traffic. Ticking all of these boxes would qualify one as an adult, and a ”loser”, at the same time.

On the other hand, one can be considered a noteworthy person, even if one did not have a single one of these adulthood points in place. Let us consider an example. Julian Assange is 46 years old. Many people recognize his name. What do we know of him? He may have a university diploma (B. Sc or M. Sc), but it’s more probable that he dropped out of all the three colleges he went to before obtaining it, just like Mark Zuckerberg did. He probably gets his money from donations or capital returns income, as he can’t be employed by a conventional IT firm. He lives at the Embassy of the Republic of Ecuador, which cannot be considered a bought or rented home but something else altogether. As he’s under ”house arrest”, he couldn’t move around in a car, even if he wanted to. The last time he tried to have carnal relations with women, it ended up in rape charges. Despite these circumstances, he does have 4 children, which he sired during his earlier adult life but which he cannot tend to like a dutiful father. Julian Assange does have but one or two Adulthood Points; yet, he may be regarded as an adult (A) who commands our attention and who has made something out of himself, whether or not we consider him or his deeds a Success story.

Even if adulthood points are awarded without corruption, adults that are being awarded them may exhibit tints of corruptedness nonetheless.

Arvio: Mietin pitkään, olisiko tämä puhe enemmänkin pääministerin (I) vaiko opposition puheenjohtajan puhe (II). Siinä olisi voinut olla aineksia molempiin. Päädyin lopulta nostamaan sen aivan ensimmäisen puhujan rooliin hallituksen puolelle. Sävy on hyvin yleinen mutta sisällykseltään ehkä yllättävä. Pohjalla on spesifinen näkemys, joka on kehittynyt vuosien varrella ja ajan mittaan. Sen pohjalla on mm. fb-messenger-kirjeenvaihto tämän vuosikymmenen alussa, jossa kysyin tytöltä, jonka kanssa olin 1. luokalla, onko hänellä vielä yhtään aikuisuuspistettä. Hän vastasi, että ei ole, mutta juttu ei jäänyt siihen. Muutamassa kuukaudessa ja vuodessa hän hankki kaikki häneltä puuttuvat aikuisuuspisteet. Ilmeisesti kaikki niihin liittyvät prosessit olivat juuri silloin käynnissä ja kypsymässä. Muut puhujat saavat taiteilla sanoillaan haluamallaan tavalla tämän jälkeen. Debatti saattaa jäädä luonteeltaan hyvin avoimeksi ja laveaksi.


Fugees on the Charts


Viikko 21

: May 23rd, 2017
Motion: THW hold a referendum on policies, practises and quotas regarding asylum-seeking
Role: PM (gov.)

The question of refugees is a pressing predicament of our times. They keep pouring in, and we don’t know what to do with them. If it was a THR/THW/THB that Question subjected to a debate society, the pro and con sides, the champions and brakers and the accusers and defenders would all be out there and ready with ammo to shoot at the other party with. At least now that the internet is filled with ”hate speech” and a lot of Western democracies have ”protest” or ”populist” parties that try to stem the tide of asylum seeking in a given country.

I think that it’s clear that the question is not as simple or simplistic as the man on the street would let you understand. There are several aspects of the issue that have to be taken into account.

Only a minority of people fall into the neat categories of ”pro-refugees” or ”contra-refugees”. These two opposites could be described as those who will blindly say ”yes” or ”no” to someone who is seeking asylum. I think these camps only account for about ten per cent, or 10 %, of the population, respectively. Only 10 % of people say a ”blind” YES to refugees, and only 10 % of people say a ”blind” NO to refugees.

The rest, the majority of people, base their opinion on statistics. They want to know lots and lots of things about refugees; basically, the same kind of data that we get and know about native citizens of a given country. Ordinary people want to know how (well) refugees a) integrate into society, b) find employment, c) marry across racial and religious boundaries, d) drink, e) smoke, f) have a presence in penitentiaries, g) go for higher education (universities, polytechnics, etc.), h) know birth control, i) travel abroad, j) vote at elections, k) know what to eat to avoid obesity, l) remain as citizens after the initial benefits have been spent and m) pay their taxes. 

And so on and and so on. Ordinary people are not blind naysayers to asylum seeking, nor are they blind yeasayers to it either. If the group that is coming in behaves in a lot of ways like the native population does, the natives are more prone to have positive and permissive views of immigration. If the group that tries to sneak in behaves in a lot of ways unlike the native population and breaks its norms flagrantly and over and over again, the natives are prone to have negative and dismissive views of immigration.

I think that this simple framing of the field has the benevolent impact of establishing the fact that people cannot be divided into ”racists” versus ”good people” or ”tolerantsia” anymore and any longer. The margins get divided into the fringe ”lunatics” of blind naysayers and yeasayers, WHEREAS the middle majority may be characterised as the ”statisticians” or the ”immigration-critical” or the ”fool-sufferers”.

A lot of people in the West consider it their moral duty or obligation to be ”pro-immigration”; the reason being the fact that the West (Europe, North America, Australia) has enjoyed the highest rate of development and economical prosperity of all nations in all of the hemispheres on all of the continents. However, this is a general ethos of blind yeasaying. Empathy, guilt and solidarity are the watchwords which are used time and again to justify a mass influx of strange people into countries where they have fit in, whether they want or not, willy-nilly.

The reason why populist regimes pop up in unexpected places has to do with this kind of blind yeasaying. People know what the media think and tell us, but independently they have A MIND OF THEIR OWN and their minds on the statistics. If they suspect and see it confirmed that foreigners commit more crimes than natives, their view of seeking asylum is likely to be antithetical, no matter how hard the blind yeasayers are trying to prove the opposite to be ”true”!

I think that it’s vital that authorities on immigration begin taking into account the true status of seeking asylum and immigrants. They cannot rely on people’s support for it anymore. They need to prove that asylum seekers a) settle, b) establish themselves and c) begin to build their new country of choice — rather than a) maintain ties with their old country, b) support its burgeoning terrorist networks and c) refuse to even learn the language that the host country speaks. It is a question of whether the newcomers are a workhorse that feeds the breast whose tit it sucks on, or are a Trojan horse that only exists in order to attack and subvert the order that exists at the receiving end.

So far, work-based ”trickle-down” immigration has been a far greater net contributor to national economies than asylum-based ”floodgates-up” immigration. Nation-states and authorities and civil servants should make sure that the gap between these two should be as narrow as possible, in order to retain the status quo as close to the status quo that existed in the receiving ends before the mass influx of immigrants.

Arvio: Vaikka pakolaisuudesta on selvästi jakautuneet mielipiteet, liberaalit väittelyseurat eivät halua väitellä asiasta polarisoidusti, jotta eivät kenties leimaantuisi. Tässä on reippaasti kantaa ottava puhe turvapaikkapakolaisuutta vastaan, sillä voidaan ajatella mahdollisen kansanäänestyksen jakavan kansan juuri niihin, jotka rajoittaisivat tulijoiden määrää asetuksin ja niihin, jotka sallisivat tulemisen kansainvälisten sopimusten viitoittamalla tiellä. Pääministerin kuuluu olla kärjekäs ja painokas, vaikkakaan ei räikeän puolueellinen, ja muut voivat jatkaa haluamallaan tavalla.

Matter Triumphs Over Spirit


Viikko 14


Date: Apr 5th, 2017
Motion: THB that greed stands in the way of self-realization
Role: PM (gov.)

One may ask oneself why the world is in constant economic turmoil.

I think I’ve got the answer for that. The simple reason is that everyone is taking more and giving less. This happens across the board, and that’s why the world is in constant state of economic flux.

Let us take a closer look.

There are those who are able to achieve a Big Thing. When someone is able to do something unique, this world rewards the individual in question lavishly. Basically, (s)he can rake home however big a sum (s)he pleases. This is not even a question of age. The youngest self-made millionaires are barely out of their teens. This group of people includes but isn’t restricted to F1 drivers, star football players, start-up entrepreneurs who get the public’s attention (and money, in some cases), patent holders, TV hosts, big industry leaders, big service-industry leaders, chairmen of the board, CEOs, CFOs, CCOs, CTOs, actors, directors, producers, and so on, and so on. All of them contribute something valuable to the economy, but the contribution is often lopsided to the amount of money they make while they’re doing so. The worrisome aspect is not the money per se, as if it was somehow corruptive, but the fact that the incentive to improve and go on working for a living may have vanished after the initial success, as it has brought in so much money that working beyond that point would be futile as seen from a layman’s point of view.

Then there are those who are able to do Something. These people have a far lower profile in society, and they cannot usually be categorised as celebrities or even any kind of ”concealebrities”, as they usually make a lot less dough than the aforementioned and don’t get recognised by the media. A lot of times the earning power of these people is tied up to holding some kind of a coveted, prestigious degree. They may not be able to even do their work properly, but as they get a position holding that degree, the workplace coalesces around them, and then they can delegate the actual work to their underlings and bask in the warmth of having generated something ”together”. This group of people includes but isn’t restricted to administrators, principals, lawyers, doctors, middle management, clergymen (priests, ministers, bishops, archbishops), consultants, day traders, high-paid journalists, diplomats and so on, and so on. I’m not saying that they all are useless, but having hundreds of thousands of analysts and experts on a payroll with a salary is a very expensive business.

Finally, there are some (and it’s a growing number) who can do Nothing. These people have a varying background. Some come from well-off families but most come from working-class or underclass parents. These people blame just about everything in their lives (that is wrong) on society. That they’re fat is society’s fault. That they don’t know how to run a business is society’s fault. That they don’t have offspring is society’s fault. For all that, towards and until the end of their lives they will be dependent on social-security subsidies and transfers, such as a pension or unemployment benefit. Other taxpayers fund their way of life. The amount of money they get is paltry compared with what others get, but the point is that it extends very far in time and it has not been earned in any way. Because they live like that to the end of their lives, the sum total won’t be nearly as big as the sum total of what a well-off person has spent during one’s life, but it is still going to be something astonishing as a tally.

What unites people (unless they’re really really good, and really cool) is that they tend to take more than give. This is universal. This is ingrained. The sense of entitlement runs very deep through the marrow of Western Society. And it has also its counterparts in Russian, Indian, Arabic and Asian societies. If we have something to give, we tend to take fourfold. And why the heck do we do this?

Going after the Fat of the Land is sensible and understandable to some extent. People have needs. People’s families have needs. I understand and accept that people want to

  1. have a fast car (as it’s not merely aesthetic to look at but also convenient)
  2. throw a sumptuous wedding
  3. live in a villa on a hill (as it’s not merely convenient but also healthy)
  4. be able to fund all of their children’s education at a most expensive foreign university
  5. pay for their own funerals with the biggest tombstone and the most comfortable coffin

Many people, in any event, could pay for all of this after having earned about 10 million. Still, many more go out of their way to earn sums way above and beyond that kind of a sum.

Why, oh why?
There’s my question.

Arvio: Pääministeri lataa päälinjaukset pöytään tällä puheella. Jos ajatellaan, että hän puhuisi taloudellisesta näkökulmasta, tiimikaveri ja seuraava puhuja poliittisesta ja edustaja kenties psykologisesta, tämän puolen henkinen anti olisi aika lailla taputeltu. Puhe loppuu hienosti kysymykseen, joka hiillostaa molempia puolia eteenpäin.



Viikko 13


Date: Mar 28th, 2017
: THW regard parties as listed, public shares on a stock exchange
Role: PM (govt.)

The municipal or communal elections are at hand. In early April, we will have new councils. With that in mind, it might be useful to muse a little upon parties and their ikigai. Where do they come from, where are they and where are they headed for?

In the US, there are two parties that count. In the UK, there are 2^2 parties. The ones you’re not thinking of are the latecomers. In Finland, there are 2^3 parties. If all that are registered as parties had seats everywhere, Finns would have 2^4 parties, so we’re good at cell division. A party seems to elicit a counterforce. Hence the root number 2.

The following chart shows the present support for political parties in Finland. These parties are, in English, in order of popularity: The Social Democratic Party, The Center Party, The Coalition Party, The Green Party, The (True) Finns Party, The Left Alliance, The Swedish People’s Party and The Christian Democratic Party.

The uppermost threesome represents livelihoods. It’s a neat trichotomy. Social democrats get their money from wage-based industrial work or salary-based labour often carried out on behalf of the community or the State, Centrists from ownership and labour in primary production (agriculture, aquaculture, mining) and Coalitionists from owning their own, sometimes inherited business. In any country, these three could be thought of as the basis of the economic structure. That explains away their popularity. It’s about the source of the money, dude.

The next one, the Green Party, has often been cited as the only new party, in all of the countries it operates in, but in fact it’s not that novel nonetheless. It’s more like a symbiotic party for those who idealise either living in a big city or in the countryside, for apparent reasons. In politics, it combines Leftist and Liberal tendencies. But it offers little to those who are currently living in a small or midsize town.

Then come the ”angrier” alternatives to the traditional Left and Right: the Left Alliance and True Finns. They formulate opinions and stances that would not be allowed in the more moderate flagship parties of the Right and the Left. Basically, they are for the unemployed members of the Right/Left, whereas Coalition and SDP are for the (hard-)working members of the respective leanings. Both are symmetrically about as far from the middle line in their own directions. Who are the Angry Birds?! Revenge against the Pigs!

Last and perhaps Least come Christian Democrats and the Swedish-speaking. Both parties could be described as having a loyal, slightly stubborn following. In a sense, they are parties for those who are a) adherent and b) believers, as a Christian element has often played a part in their from-election-to-election-continuing, modest popularity.

I think it pays off to look at parties in this kind of an objective way. One can see how parties form clusters, in a way that they cannot always see themselves. Politics, as it is experienced in the casual way, is often about faces, impressions, numbers, slogans, themes and an urging to vote, but that hides away what political parties are and what kind of a vacuum they originally tried to address. Each time there is a hole in society, a political party usually emerges to try and fill it up.

It also pays off to think about one’s own political niche. Do I represent resoundingly any of the followings of any of these parties? If I do, I may vote for the mother parties. But if I don’t, chances are good that politically I will go on wandering in the desert, becoming part of the so-called ”swing vote” or restraining from voting altogether, becoming a member of the so-called ”Slumber Party”.

It also pays off to see if parties give any kind of a ”dividend”, when you ”buy” one of their ”shares” in casting a vote for them at the elections. If they promise the moon but deliver nothing, the question arises if they are any good and worthy of a place in the first place wherever decisions are made. I think there is grounds to say that political parties act and look like shares on a stock exchange.

Arvio: Puhe aloittaa pitkän ketjun aloitteen todistelemiseksi. Siinä mielessä voi olla hyvä, että mukana on kuva, vaikka niitä yleensä ei käytetäkään eikä näytetäkään. Ongelmaksi muodostuu se, että aloitteen alku (THW regard parties) toteutuu, mutta loppuosa jää huomioimatta ihan loppua lukuunottamatta. Nyt PM alustaa debatin rautalangasta ja puhuu puoliviihteellisesti politiikasta yleisesti. Tiimin muille jää kuitenkin varsinainen työ spesifin aloitteen puolesta puhumisessa.

Femme Fatalities


Viikko 37


Date: Sep 11th, 2016
Motion: THW focus on the bad out of the mixed (hand)bag that feminism is
Role: PM (govt.)

We’re now living in the first sextile of the 21st century. Feminism is still a watchword that occasionally makes headlines, its way into articles or a case for this or that. What I give is a broadside against that ism, since I believe that it is past its prime, lost in the woods without a compass. My speech will have subheadings that branch out into the French Resistance, Newsrooms at Newspapers and Grinning Politics. So, lean back, listen to what I have to say and enjoy the ride. This is completely free of charges, or, should I say, complimentary.

The French Resistance

Feminism is a little like the French Resistance that was active from the days that France got occupied by the Axis power Germany in the early 1940’s. Feminists act like resistance members did. They like the idea of resistance more than direct action. They pass on coded messages, directions, maps, pamphlets and other stuff to each other in the form of genre literature. They like to discuss before any act of rebellion. Their heroine is a figure who was alive and well during the days of the Nazi occupation and who published her most famous opus right after the war, i.e. ”The Second Sex” by Simone de Beauvoir. Feminists may work for the Man during the daylight hours, but when the evening comes, resistance members long for seeing one of their soulmates in the dark of the September night, lighting a cigarette and knocking some vin rouge back.

If we consider men nazis and women French Resistance members, there is one difference though. The real war ended in 1945, after which France got its sovereignty back. Feminist Resistance members, on the other hand, continue the war as if it had never ended (in 1945, or 1990, or 2015, for that matter), for the activity is so gratifying from an aesthetic point of view that they like the idea of an ongoing war and an occupier more than a solution and peacetime.

Newsrooms at Newspapers

I recently read a piece of news that declared, ”women of all ages favour men that are older than they are”. I asked myself, ”don’t the men have any say on that matter?” Then I realized that it’s a politically ”correct” choice. Editors in the decision rooms of newspapers in most Western countries want to formulate it in that way, since then they are able to imply that it’s women who make the choice and who are in command. In truth, it’s a ”two’s a company but three’s a crowd” situation, for also men are complicit in this deal in actively favouring younger women. If I show a given man pictures of a peer woman and a woman of a younger generation and ask him, ”which one of them is more attractive in your eyes”, chances are good that he’ll point his finger at the younger woman, and this can happen even at an age when the peer woman would be sexually fertile/mature and generally speaking pleasant. Editors don’t want to formulate headlines that read ”men favour younger women across the spectrum”, for if they did, in their minds they would ”snuff out” the remaining hope that there is for these early middle-aged women to couple up and marry.

Another question entirely was the fact that the age difference that women wanted to exist between themselves and the older men was in Finland only 3 years on average. As far as I’m concerned, three years is almost nothing, and it does not lead to differing coming-of-age experiences. If we take a man and a woman born in 1956/1959, 1966/1969, 1976/1979, 1986/1989 and 1996/1999 — regardless of the birth order — I consider them peers, as each of those pairs would essentially belong in the same generation, respectively. Newsrooms are for some reason indoctrinated with ”seraphising” all kinds of minorities or underdogs, even if it meant demonising those that are regarded as the majority or stronger parties. Newsrooms forget that the fact that you’re ”of majority” or ”strong” does not mean that you’re ”wrong” — at least I can’t see an equal sign between these two variables.

Grinning Politics

Considering that feminism is giving rise to more and more singles in general, as more and more men and women wander out there alone, you might think that it could adjust its aims and means to address this issue. But, no, the only thing that happens is that lonely people merely begin to rally behind partisan movements and claim that society favours families at their expense. They don’t see that it couldn’t be in the 180° opposite way. Then, the cart would begin to pull the donkey, and not the other way round. But my colleague, Minister, can go into that in greater detail.

The corrosive ism that I have been railing against gets things wrong, but it’s not yet consigned to the trashheap of history, a fate some other isms have faced in the recent past and past few decades. The damage that has been done is irreparable, according to some, and inevitable, according to others. You can make up your own mind as this debate continues.

Puheen kesto: 7 min 3 sek
Arvio: * * * *. Avauspuheeksi tämä on aika lailla omiaan, sillä siinä ei tarvitse vielä ottaa huomioon ”mitään”, ei keskeyttelijöitäkään. Tätäkin jotkut osaavat hyödyntää ja toiset eivät. Siksi puhe lataa tiskiin kolme pointtia, joista toinen on paras, koska siinä on selkeä argumentointi sisällä. Toisaalta toisen pointin referoima lehtiartikkeli (joka linkistä avautuu) on tosiasiallisesti varsin tasapuolinen ja esittää asioita ei pelkästään naisten vaan myös miesten kannalta pyrkien osittaiseen neutraaliuteen. Mutta se ei ”avaudu” keskustelun kulussa. Tämän puheen jälkeen saman puolen seuraajan on helppo tai vaikea, valmistautuneisuudesta riippuen, jatka samaa linjaa.

Bandmate Encounters of the Turd Kind


Viikko 9


Motion: THW put a ban on computer-aided match-making sites [of the musical kind]
Role: PM (prop.)
Date: Oct 19th, 2013

In this speech, I’m going to discuss all the obstacles that there are to stop members of online bandmate-finding services from finding each other and collaborating. I joined one such service a decade ago, and it has been only downhill from then on. The service has yielded zilch when it comes to musical progress. I’m trying to come up with the reasons why.

It is not difficult to write an ad for the service or answer one. The problems only begin thereafter. The service abounds in ads for high-pitched, full-fledged heavy-rock vocalists a la Myles Kennedy, who are ready to rock out like Robert Plant. Talent shows seek out exactly the same kind of people. Ads for other kinds of musicians are fewer and farther in between. If you’re trolling for an accordion player, chances are that he is already playing in the ranks of the Eläkeläiset or is Kimmo Pohjola.

The first thing that you do not have in common with the fellow advertiser is your rendez-vous. Most likely (s)he will want to remain in his or her ”home studio” and send you a half-finished demo outtake that you are supposed to fill in by what you are expert at, say, the bass guitar, or Fairlight synthesizer. You are then supposed to send the unfinished demo back with your contribution on it, so that you two never meet. Whether the demo goes anywhere is another matter entirely. You were collaborating, from work station to work station. You are a link in the global value-adding music-producing chain.

The second thing that you do not have in common with that other musician is time. Probably your mate on the other end of the modem line is busy working full-time, so that (s)he doesn’t make music even as a hobby but rather as a dream. (S)he decided that (s)he was going to make it by the time (s)he got to be 50, so (s)he still has to try, even every now and then or just once in a while. However, other preferences and preoccupations come first. Work, children, wife, relatives… All are relatively more meaningful than making music with some expendable outsiders. After all, stardom is only a matter of attitude and negotiation, so there is all the time in the world to get there.

The third thing that you do not have in common with the other bloke is that your tastes do not jell together. That other bloke is always one, two or three steps ahead of you in musical taste, because he borrows, buys and listens to music more than you do. There is always some obscure progressive-aggressive rock band out there, whose musical ideas he likes better than yours, whose latest record was better than the demo/record you never made and whose management of success has always been better than the success you never managed to achieve together.

Even though there is technically nothing wrong with musical match-making services of this kind, socially they only manage to attract exactly the kind of people who are utterly deluded and inhibited from meaningful social interaction and musical success of a discernible kind. One can keep coming to a service like that like a bullied youth keeps coming to the yard at recess, hoping to make friends.

If one wants to make it in music, there are two other options. One is talent shows of the prevalent sort, as shown on the TV. They lead to either humiliation or praise, but at least only little time gets wasted. The other option is to do it the old-fashioned way.

Puheen kesto: 4 min 50 sek
Arvio: * * *. Puhe lähtee ennalta arvaamattomaan suuntaan, jos sen ottaa kirjaimellisesti otsikon mukaan ilman hakasulkeita. Tällöin muiden naamoille nousee närkästys, jos heidän täytyy peesata ensimmäistä puhujaa eivätkä he tee muistiinpanoillaan mitään. Omassa aiheessaan pysymällä puhe on kriittinen, kärkäs ja ytimekäs. Puhe on hauska. Jos siihen lisää sanat ”tämä on satiiria” paikka paikoin, niin se tulee oikein hyvin ymmärretyksi.

Club Med as Opposed to Club Dem


Viikko 8


Motion: THB that democracy can/should be defined again in the 21st century
Role: PM (govt.)
Date: Oct 20th, 2013

Tourism and Democracy

Dear Assemblage, the Chair, Ladies and Gentlemen,
in my speech, I’m going to speak for some unorthodox methods for defining the level of democracy in the world. Usually democracy is defined through the indexes of the UN, OPEC, WB, Harvard or some such institution. Just as there was a McDonalds Index of this or that, my goal is to prove that tourism is a reliable means for saying how much of a democracy a given country is. So let’s start off.

France and England lead as the destinations of global tourism. Everybody has been to or thinks that London and Paris are great [desti]nations to go to. Accidentally, France and England are also prime examples of democratically ruled nations. Republic policies, lest we forget, coalesced into being in France. Today still Frenchmen’s democratic traditions correlate favourably with their touristic appeal. Wealthy Russians, in particular and on the other hand, like to flee to London to enjoy the kind of freedom of the press, religion, sexuality and speech that they do not enjoy at home. Arabs from the Middle East come to London for the same reasons, also to buy real estate, being flush with cash at the same time.

Tourism seems to love some countries for 4 reasons that I’m going to enumerate in the next bit. Let me also tick off some places that do not conform to my rule. Bangkok and the rest of Thailand is popular, but ruled by a military regime. Japan is a democracy, but it is more favoured by business tripsters. Cuba is a Socialist dictatorship, but draws increasingly people from abroad, many of them left-wingers and therefore in favour of such a destination. But these are exceptions that are supposed to confirm the rule of thumb.

The Four Things that democratic resorts and destinations have in common are Comfort, History, Technology and Tolerance. Namely, people go where they can comfortably keep tabs on the rest of the world, without being judged or spat on, while finding artifacts, monuments and things worth seeing at the same time. North Korea is not a touristic hot spot, and you would find it lacking in all of those four compartments: comfort, history, technology and tolerance.

All of this certainly has to do with the general openness that a country exhibits. Tourism enters the picture after a nation has come to terms with its past, its civil wars, its limits for other kind of growth and self-esteem among other nations. Internal contemplation and consummation leads to external, international curiosity.

Now I’d like some questions from you, so be so kind…..

To summarise, my speech was about how tourism has established itself as an index of the level of democracy a nation enjoys. In my speech, I mentioned a) two prime destinations (Paris and London), b) three notable exceptions and c) four reasons why tourism should have acquired this kind of exalted status among things that define a nation, republic, weal, happiness and so on. My speech will be followed by other like-minded speakers from our side. Thank you.


Puheen kesto: 5 min 5 sek
Arvio: * * * *. Puheessa on hyvää svengiä ja yritystä. Siihen jää sopivasti tilaa kyssäreille. Siinä on selkeä rakenne tai luuranko. Se ei tyhjennä aihettaan mutta aloittaa nasevasti.