Category Archives: II puhuja (arkistosta)

Sahco Pt. II

Normaali

Viikko 17


 

Date: Apr 24th, 2017
Motion: THB that over time the social and health care overhaul will succeed
Role: Chair (opp.)


I have mused on the social and health care overhaul in Finland a little, and christened it ”Sahco”. I have been disappointed with what the earlier one and present regime have accomplished (= little, or nothing), so I think it’s time I presented you with an alternative vision about the reform that we ”have to” do, or are to do, at any rate. Let us first run through the basics.

The way that I understand the Sahco reform drive is that pressures from both doctors and patients have forced politicians to declare that the present state of health care, and to a lesser extent, social care, is inadequate, which has prompted a trend towards centralisation. There is also the financial question, or the seesaw between smaller units and the state, as to who will foot the bill.  As far as I can see, on the human level the reform is informed by

  1. patients’ desire for quality treatments
  2. patients’ desire to be able to jump queues and get quick fixes and
  3. doctors’ desire to have the most amount of colleagues and the best kind of equipment available

At present, there are several models and key numbers that rival each other:

  • Municipalities will shed off the responsibility for health affairs
  • There are 19 legacy provinces in the country
  • However, only 18 provinces are taken into account
  • There should be 12 hospitals with full service on a 24/7 duty
  • 1 extra hospital with full service on a 24/7 duty is being required by the Swedish-speaking, who want to have a hospital of their own due to their special, evident lingual needs.
  • Maternity wards at hospitals where fewer than 1,000 babies are born annually will be shut down
  • Specialised health care, (whatever that means), will be divided between 5 administrative and regional units

Even so, I think that the controversy is pointless, as it seems that the changes would be minimal compared to the amount of debate that has been maximal. To redeem the volume of ink that has so far been spent on the issue, I propose that the following, more drastic model be put into action to implement the reform.

  1. People need major operations fairly seldom in their lives. Most people are operated once, twice or thrice in their lives. As the need is fairly rare and the biggest concentration of expertise is based in the capital city Helsinki, I would have all operations of a major magnitude (by-pass operations, cancer removals, plastic surgery, hip replacements) performed in Helsinki. Helsinki has the best hospitals, the best doctors and the best nurses. And everyone who needs a surgery of the big sort can afford to have the operation in Helsinki, even with additional costs from accommodation, travel, eating out and so on.
  2. Giving birth is the only major operation that many people go through in life that can’t be classified as an accident, defect, disease, emergency, injury or illness but which requires a hospital. I would apply the same kind of thinking here as before. As labour is part of one’s life likely only once, twice or thrice, I would place maternity wards at only three hospitals within the country. To serve Northern, Central and Southern Finland equally, I would place baby-delivery services in Rovaniemi, Jyväskylä and Helsinki. They would allow any pregnant Finn, but more logically people would choose the one that they would consider the nearest. As an aside, Kuopio, which is a town with a university hospital, could be regarded as an alternative to Jyväskylä, as it may have a more central location within Central Finland. The country would be divided up geographically with diagonal northwest-southeast lines into three sectors.
  3. All minor medical procedures (dental care, injuries, vaccinations etc.) would be carried out at health centres around the country as usual. Services could be offered by corporate or communal players. Politicians could set the bar of state-sponsored services at the desired percentage.

The enclosed image depicts the model that I favour. It could be considered the ”3 + 1” model. I hope that this bolder, more radical and drastic model will gather support, once people realise that they need medical services, but that they do not need them as frequently and as near to them as they think they do.

Thank you.


Arvio: Edellisellä viikolla katsoin, että opposition muut jäsenet voisivat tehdä erinäisiä muita asioita, jos sihteeri keskittyisi lääkäreihin, kun tästä nimenomaisesta aloitteesta puhutaan. Tässä nyt sitten opposition puheenjohtaja esittää vaihtoehtoisen mallin. Nimenomaan hän tekee sen, koska väittelyssä ”järein” aines sopii ensin puhuvalle.

 

Mainokset

Into the Unknown

Normaali

Viikko 2


 

Date: Jan 10th, 2017
Motion: THB that life-extending medical procedures should be denied to the terminally ill
Role: Chair (opp.)


As the Leader of the Opposition, I’m going to offer a broadside against the motion of the govt., and I’m not even trying to rebut anything at this point. If I frame the debate as the captain of my ship, others after myself may go into detailed dismissals of the proposed motion.

The Principle of Care and Medicine  When we consider patients at a hospital, care does not differentiate between healthy & sick, well & ill people among the inmates. Life in itself is incurable, and set to end after a century or so. One may die at 27 or 117, but most people die somewhere in between. Besides, medicine is meant to help people in all circumstances. If people such as criminals, lunatics or prisoners are entitled to care, why should the terminally ill be somehow inferior to them? Hell, they torture people in Guantanamo; I can’t now remember whether it was an island or a piece of land, but even the prisoners at Guantanamo get treatment if they get unwell. So, if they are entitled to that care, why shouldn’t those be treated who are terminally ill?

Animal Testing  Here I’m going to contradict myself a little after what I just said, but I think that life-extending procedures extended to the terminally ill would reduce the amount of animal testing that we need. If medical procedures, and especially experimental treatments are tested on terminally-ill patients, as they will die anyway, we lessen the burden on animals, and so forth on our conscience. The terminally ill are a special-interest group. They may act as ’guinea pigs’ for medical research, but for that purpose we need their written permission, their signature. We in the opposition would rule out those who are non compos mentis, as we cannot consider them eligible to make this kind of choice. We think that organisations such as PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) would approve of this stance of ours, as not so many real guinea pigs would be needed to be tested, if humans tested their own ”poisons” on themselves.

Finally, I will delve into the repercussions of this proposed bill, should it be passed:

Freezing of Eggs/Tadpoles/Bodies  If we consider any kind of medical procedure of a life-extending nature to fall under the jurisdiction of this motion, it would also affect the business of artificial insemination, which is not insignificant in scale and scope any longer. A dying person’s last hope may be a child to be delivered after his or her passing, in which case it would very cruel to snuff out the possibilities for this. For, if a person was diagnosed as terminally ill, then that person would surely be denied the right to donate or receive sperms and eggs, the activity which revolves around banks that put them in nitrogen tanks as a form of life-extension. Moreover, the prospects that cryogenics offers are even more daunting (to the government). Some individuals may opt to bypass this silly piece of legislation-to-be altogether in allowing their bodies to be frozen for the time being or into the far future, so that they could be cured later on, when this particular piece of legislation has passed (into oblivion) and/or there is a working clinical procedure to cure their ailment.

For these reasons, I’m asking you to reject this proposal of the government. I’m looking forward to hearing my colleagues (Niko, Alexis and Ella) continue in the same spirit.

Thank you.


Puheen kesto: 7 min 19 sek
Arvio: Puhe on roolissaan napakka, kipakka ja loppuaan kohti väittelylle ominaisen science-fiktiivinen, vaikka jotain muutakin olisi varmasti voinut lopetukseen käyttää. 15 minuuttia prep timea ei vain ole kovin suosiollista luovalle ajattelulle. Kokonaisuutena puhe on hyvä, ja siitä olikin muiden helppoa jatkaa.

Fleurs du Mal, Orc(hid)s of Evil

Normaali

Viikko 20


 

Motion: THB that all internet users should have their IP addresses displayed publicly to discourage/prevent trolling and abuse on the internet
Role: Chair (opp.)
Date: Nov 20th, 2014


In Defense of Trolling

Trolling is a modern phenomenon which is usually condemned. Trolling is seen as an evil of the Internet Age that we
were spared in the past. Why? Let’s think for a second about what kind of commentators moderators let through and how ”trolls” differ from them. I can discern 4 different types of easy passes that people get all the time.

1) Moralists fare well on commenting sites. Those who clamour for justice, condemn criminal behaviour or criticise corrupt behaviour get always heard. Do we really benefit from their opinions? No, we don’t, as we have our knowledge of what is right and what is wrong that does not need shoring up. Also, we have our justice systems in place that should take care of morals through the verdicts that come out. If judges don’t know what they’re doing, why should the layman  know? Has (s)he read more jurisprudence?

2) Lax commentators get heard. They usually write one or two lines without proper grammar or punctuation. They may swear or be generally unkind. Do we benefit from their opinions? I doubt we do. Thankfully they are brief in speech.

3) Whiners and complainers are listened to. Anyone who tell about their own anguish, bad luck and misery get a free pass. They ”cannot” be bad people. (They may have caused their own grief.) Do we benefit from their opinions? Their misery often does not translate into anything anyone else could find useful or desirable.

4) Agreers. Finally, ultimately, the last group that gets heard and affirmed a lot is those who agree with the tenor of the story in question: an article, essay, science digest, editorial or something else, such as a press release or a communique. Do we benefit from these Yes (Wo)men’s opinion? No, because we have already heard the nuclear message from the original author of the story proper.

Moderators take a tolerant to harsh stand on most other kind of feedback on their online output. The label ”troll” is easily and lightly applied to any other kind of feedback than that above and previously mentioned. Something suggests to me here that there is a need to look in the mirror.

The real reason why moderators, on behalf of original authors, take such a hostile stand on free-thinkers on the Internet is that they want the journalists’ cadre to be that force in the world that is creative, opinionated, funny, silly, analysing, thought-provocative, and summarising. Readers need to be their audience, herd and pasture; otherwise, the tables turn upside down, and those journos lose their position of being the Fourth Estate in capital initials.

Accordingly, those who are being called trolls are simply often merely people who think outside of the box, in their (wo)man-caves, free from restraints. The working definition of a troll is actually the working definition of a ”radical”: someone who wants to change the prevailing (thought) structures. This is seen as disturbing, subversive, pathological and unhealthy. Most often there is no collusion or outsourcing: any one troll is acting on his or her own, without money or assistance from other quarters.

In my estimate, trolls notoriously true to form and their name are those who
a) rejoice over someone’s death
b) reveal sensitive data about other people’s private lives
or
c) rouse people they know or don’t know to suicide.
They deal in sex & death, and they are a far cry from your average garden-variety middle-of-the-road atheist dissident who scribbles something down the internet. Dissidents dish out facts, whereas trolls spew out obscenities, bias, hatred against peoples and individuals and love of chaos. Thinkers are orderly, while trolls are truly unruly.

Thank You.


Puheen kesto: 5 min 50 sek
Arvio: * * * * ½. Puhe on onnistunut ja siinä on hyvä kosketus aiheeseen. Se myös onnistuu nousemaan kiistanalaisesta otsikosta huolimatta yli ja ohi sen.

 

What’s My Beef?

Normaali

Viikko 19


 

Motion: THW allow U.S. food chains to land in Finland to widen the international selection of menus
Role: Chair (opp.)
Date: Sep 4th, 2013


Junk Food?

Recently I tucked into a junkfood meal that I took home as a takeaway. Many times previously I have not understood why people call McDonalds, Carrols, Dairy Queen, White Castle, Hesburger among others junk food, but that time it hit me home. It all began with my eating a Mega Burger as a meal with fries on the side….

Normally I eat a Double Burger (the equivalent of a Big Mac), which is the average or median meal at any given fast-
food joint. Something that takes the hunger away but leaves also room for a dessert or a drink. A Mega Burger is meant to snuff the hunger out entirely. More cost, more substance. Or, so I thought.

When I was @ home eating my burger, I discovered 5 things about burgers that make me feel sick:
♠1) If I tried to eat it with my bare hands, all the mayonnaise in the burger would make the beef slip in and out and
make the whole thing wobble uncontrollably and uncomfortably.
♣2) If I tried to eat the burger with cutlery, I would feel poncy and useless.
♥3) If I ate the burger without warming it up, the burger would taste lukewarm and uninspiring, like warm beer does.
♦4) If I microwaved the burger first for a mere minute (@ max. heat), it would change its taste and turn into an
unsavoury and smelly meal.
◊5) All this time I had an alternative in the fridge to the burger meal: an equally insipid, salt-poor salmon
casserole, for free, without any cost.

In other words, there was an occasion on which I could NOT have enjoyed my junk-food meal by any stretch of the imagination or measure. Junk-food lovers, I believe, do not fall victim to this, as their portion sizes, eating venues and taste buds tend to be different. There was no way to enjoy that $9-12 meal, however hard I might have tried.

More emphasis should be put onto how and why greasy diners and short-order kitchens dupe us into buying meals that don’t match the amount of money we hand over. Their incurred expenditure per a meal may be 2 euros while we pay up to 12 euros. The profit margin is huge compared to a lot of other products on the market. That is the real reason why we are talking about junk food. Another reason is that French Fries taste like **** when they are warmed up uneaten a day later. But that’s something my fellow speakers may talk about later on.

Junk food is a masterly optimum nutritional-cum-monetary performance/calculation. If you eat too little of it, you are left hungry, craving for more. You can easily meet that craving by ordering a little bit more while you’re waiting. If you eat too much of it, you are left with a sick feeling in your system, but you can’t get a refund. Your disappointment will melt away through metabolism. The continuing profits come from those who have learnt to eat that small-to-mid-size meal. And the profit margin is hefty for the company which serves it, as it bases it on base, bulk ingredients bought anonymously from a grocery wholesaler.

Junk food is junk not only for its nutritional qualities but also because of its embittering financial qualities, leading us up to such a word as ”junk bond”.

It’s the economy, stupid….!


Kesto: 4 min 44 sek
Arvio: * * * *. Aihe on hieman arkinen, mutta siitä on jotakin terävää sanottavaa. Lista sopii käsillä ilmehdittäväksi, sormi per asia. Aihe ei vastusta aloitetta täysin suoraan, mutta ei sitä voi oikein tulkita muutenkaan kuin kautta rantain vastustavaksi. 

It Ain’t Over Until the Fat Lady Tweets

Normaali

Viikko 18


 

Motion: THB that obesity is a curable disease that is currently being treated with the wrong set of remedies
Role: Chair (opp.)
Date: Apr 3rd, 2013


Dear Ladies and Gentlemen, the Assemblage and Chair,
on behalf of the opposition, I’d like to speak against the motion of the govt. Namely, I believe that obesity is:
– a buffer/margin against the threat of a famine <raise one finger, not the middle one>
– a gift from God to appreciate and accentuate our natural differánce <raise another finger>
– a reflection of one’s true personality <raise a third finger>

Obese people are pyknic according to the famous characterization of Ernst Kretschmer, an Austrian Nazi-era psychiatrist. They represent joviality, gregariousness, willingness to break bread or share a sud with other people. Obese folk have a natural capacity to enjoy life and others. Therefore, they should be endorsed and fetéd as part of the ”fabric” of social ”tissue”.

Obese people can be treated with a slew of cures today. The most success- and painful option is to have gastric bypass surgery, which means the reduction of the size of the total volume of the stomach (bag). By eating less under duress, the obese people quickly lose several (dozens of) pounds of overweight. Other options:
# – carbohydrate-poor diets
# – diets that are considered ”crash diets”
# – exercise
# – motivational partners
# – nutritional counselling
# – weightwatchers

Evolution made obese people obese. It could be that the juncture was when people as a race turned to agriculture for food. It was maybe then that the first flabby fat tissues began to emerge around the muscles in the human body on a permanent basis. Maybe the invention of alcohol accentuated this development, as we know it to be fattening and such by turning quickly into fat in unexercising people. But this is not the point. The obese got an evolutionary advantage out of being fat in times of extreme famine, extinction and depredation. Excess fat has BEEN the saving grace of the human race. As Richard Wrangham famously put it in his book, cooking food and brain size have gone hand in hand, and fat people have been at the forefront of this nutritional (r)evolution. We need to value their contribution to the evolution of the human success story. Fat people are the reserve of human endurance, so that’s why they should have a place on the pedestal and a position of importance in society at large.

If and when it is abundantly clear that circumstances favour slim people, people will/would lose weight automatically. Moreover, they will pass genes causing or ensuring that down to their children. Right now, slim people are churning out fat children, so there is something in the air that favours this ”reverse” genetic development. Maybe those who are obese portend or presage the coming of hard times (of famine and turmoil)? Wouldn’t you want to be fat in times of hunger and want?

Thank you.


Kesto: 5 min 5 sek
Arvio: * * * *. Tein tämän puheen siinä 15 minuutissa, joka on allokoitu tähän, suorituksena siis hyvä. Tässä käydään aiheeseen sitä kautta, että koko asia olisi turhaa, eikä käydä niinkään väittelemään keinoista (siihen, mikä katsotaan muutenkin turhaksi.) Seuraavat puhujat voivat sen sijaan vääntää kättä keinoista ja kyseenalaistaa ne. Näin käydään luonnollinen kaari makrotematiikasta mikrotematiikkaan, mitä usein peräänkuulutetaan.

The Kingdom of Silent Wisdom

Normaali

Viikko 17


 

MotionTHB that elder employees should pass on their (so-called) ”silent knowledge”
Role: Chair (opp.)
Date: June 3rd, 2013


The Problems in Passing on Silent Knowledge

Every now and then some well-meaning ”idiot” comes forward with the argument that different ages (have to) mix at work, so that the accumulated wisdom that earlier generations have acquired can be passed on to the younger ones. This is BS, and I’m going to prove to you why.

What little wisdom the elders may have, they do not want to pass on. They guard it like hawks, for if there was a problem of the let’s-sack-and-get-rid-of-somebody kind in the workplace, they would like to stash their knowledge as a way of setting themselves up for protection against the assets of the young. The latters’ assets are a more up-to-date education and strength in bearing stress and getting (new) things done. Senior employees have to have something of their own, and its is exactly this concealed, a posteriori experience. They think that they do not want to divulge it, lest they be kicked out in the very next breath. It’s a safeguard. (They may tell what they know about two weeks prior to their retirement.)

Also, there is resistance at the receiving end. Some young people are so cocksure of themselves (in particular the boys) that they do not ”want to know”. They think that they already know best, and #uc# the rest, which time will test. Young people are not naturally attentive, alert, curious, compassionate, interested or nostalgic, something a successful transfer of silent knowledge would most likely require. They expect to gain something from merely listening out. It’s only in one’s late thirties that these kinds of qualities begin to emerge without the requirement of an immediate payback. Namely, ”gold-diggers” want nuggets of wisdom rather right now, but ”life-time prospectors” are happy just to do the rounds on the river and breath in the fresh morning air and relish the beauty of it all.

The third problem is aging and getting too weak, in the end. In a nutshell, when workers are still sharp enough to give information, they are sly enough not to give it away for free (see §1, or 2nd paragraph). When their inhibitions loosen up later on in retirement and on pension, it often so happens that @ that point they would already be so ravaged by Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, dementia, memory loss, sedatives and sleeping pills that they no longer can relate or relay anything of significance or interest to the young listener. Nursing homes and kindred places are filled with mindless chatter, out-of-date gossip, bad reminiscence, weather talk or anything else that does not interest one, frankly speaking.

In conclusion, do not hold up the card of ”pass on silent knowledge”. That has not happened on a large scale ever, and that won’t happen either in the future, or in the present. It seems that each generation have to take to their grave what they learnt during life. Deal with it. Cope with it. Be aware of it. Thank you.


Puheen kesto: 4 min 40 sek
Arvio: * * * * ½. Tässä on oikea yhdistelmä (m)oraalista närkästystä, terävää argumentointia ja riittävän keveä aihe. Tarkoittaen sitä, ettei puhe nostata liian paljon intohimoja toisin kuin immigraatio, homous tai muut identiteettiaiheet. Pitkästä aikaa pisteet kotiin.

Femme Fatales

Normaali

Viikko 16


 

MotionTHB that this country would need more feminism and feminists
Role: Chair (opp.)


Anna-Mari Sipilä wrote as the editorial writer in Helsingin Sanomat that the motion’s contents is true for women in Finland, and the whole of Scandinavia for that matter. Being in the opposition, we’d beg to differ to a great extent.

First of all, if Ms. Sipilä and her ilk spent even half of their energy on enterprise and building up companies from scratch, they would already be at least time-wise if not achievement-wise where they wished to be — at the top of the career and expense-account ladder. They’d like to jetset from place A to place B all around the world. If they busted their asses for real, building something instead of stalking like foxes on the sidelines or slaving away on the payrolls, they would find out whether they really are their worth in gold or not in the real, hard world. They might find out that it’s really men who make successes happen and provide the real start-ups with money as well as ideas and skills. What in that instance, Cinderella? Did you lose your shoes last night?

Second, let’s assume that the woman in question will get the dream job with the dreamy salary after whining that she should get it. What awaits that woman (in power) these days is the wages of Capitalism: the ungrateful task of handing in the pink slip to thousands of workers with spouses and families and children, as power goes hand in hand with creating ”creative destruction” in search of the elusive profit (that pays for the dream salaries). Only childless cold-hearted ones like Ms. Sipilä would probably actually enjoy that duty. Leadership today is very much about operating in a volatile and aggressive bear market. It takes an ounce of sadistic or masochistic tendencies to be able to work there. 80 % of British women are ”traditional women” according to a study, probably in part because of facts and trends like these.

Third, there are already avenues for women with aspirations, where womanhood is not an obstacle to anything. On the contrary, education, didactics and care are already some of the arenas that have virtually been reserved ”for females only”, complete with principals, rectors, deans and chancellors in the top posts. In that world, it’s routine to read about how a high-ranking female educator has sacked a male underling because of poor performance or strange behaviour. In that world, femininity is king. Besides, what about problems in that world? Schools are not problem-free but problem-ridden, partly because women have not made them into mirror images ”of themselves”, i.e. perfect, idyllic, pastoral, beautiful, just, observant shrines to learning and wisdom… Women hardly care about the development of schools, even if their word is the absolute law over there. Maybe women and their input or contribution is not that golden in the end?

I’d like to conclude by saying that equality is nigh on completely reached in Western Europe and if women want their version of equality to be passed on to the less fortunate peoples and races, they CAN do it on their own!


Puheen kesto: 4 min 5 sek
Arvio: * * *. Puhe on tehokas ja ankara, eikä anna paljon löysiä kuulijalleen, oli hän sitten naispuolinen tai vain hallituksen jäsen. Ongelmana onkin lähinnä se, että se ei osoita vastapuolelle oikein mitään paikkaa olla, viihtyä ja nauttia olostaan vaan yrittää maalata vastapuolen nurkkaan, josta ei ole ulospääsyä. Tämä voi olla hauskaa, mutta se ei ole rakentavaa. Siksi pisteet tippuivat.