Category Archives: VI puhuja (arkistosta)

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.

Owning Up

Normaali

Viikko 20


 

Date: April 4th, 2013
Motion: THW equalize the level of dividend taxation between different shareholders to the same level
Role: Rep. (opp.)


At this point in time, big business is being dealt a hand by the government in the form of dividend taxation. The intention is Good. The idea is to have big proprietors remain in the country in helping them to keep more of their money. Otherwise, their intention in all likelihood were to escape to the tax havens of Estonia first and different island tax havens secondly (the Cayman Islands being the proverbial example, but Jersey, Malta etc. following in its heels). Finland decreasingly offers a lucrative place to operate a business. ”Safety” and ”stability” are no longer watchwords to run a business by. Namely, volatile nations have learnt to please investors and possibly protect the formers’ interests more than those of their native citizens.

The people at the losing end (small investors) are a marginal group. Their dividends are taxed strictly, but at least they get to keep most of it, over a half. It is money they have not personally worked for. Rather, they should demand other money-friendly investment instruments from their banks and fund managers. It’s the latters’ job to come up with lucrative investing schemes. On the other hand, Finland cannot afford to lose any of its holding-company capitalists. Their importance as employers, consumers and spenders is way too important. Personally, I can say that when I got money out of a holding company I had a share in (9 %), I spent all of the money I got within a year and that money was further slapped with the VAT on most occasions or transactions. Alcohol expenditure, for instance, was significant, and that in itself is a great source of tax revenue for the govt. of this country.

Even if this recent development was a bad collective decision, it can be made right with a slew of other personal decisions. If holding companies get the warm shoulder, maybe people should form holding companies. Maybe the state itself should get a lot of its revenue from holding companies, including Finnair, Senate Properties or some other state-owned corporation. If direct taxation sucks, why wouldn’t we all use indirect taxation then instead; at least, those who can?

Any tax reform may feel good, if one is at the receiving end of the said, specific tax reform. A holding company doesn’t necessarily have to be a corporate behemoth’s piggy bank. It can be Your piggy bank, and if you are a good citizen/consumer, you will then spend what you get in capital income, and that in turn will fuel and lubricate our shared, joint economy and weal.

Thank you.


Arvio: Puhe on hieman sekava, mikä johtuu siitä, että sen kirjoittamisajankohtana tapahtui jonkinlainen muutos osakkeiden ja osinkojen tuomien pääomatulojen verotuksessa. Muutos oli sellainen, että se asetti erilaiseen asemaan ne, joilla oli yhtäältä suoria osakeomistuksia ja toisaalta erilaisia rahasto-omistuksia pankkien kautta tai hallinnointiyhtiön osakkeita. Jos tätä ei tiedä, puheessa ei ole juuri järkeä. Vastustuksen pointti on siinä, että opposition edustajana haluan jonkin pääomatulon muodon, johon kohdistuu matalampi verotus, kuin että kaikki pääomatulo olisi raskaasti verotettua. Lyhyenä, vaikeasti pidennettävänä puheena tämä puhe jättää toivomisen varaa.

Ch-ch-ch-changes…

Normaali

Viikko 15


 

Date: Aug 26th, 2013
Motion: THW make people experiment with drugs so as to bring about positive changes in their lives
Role: MP (opp.)


I want to talk about change. As I see it, there are at least three kinds of change, alteration or transformation. The variants range from desirable change to destructive change, and it would be anyone’s duty to avoid the latter kind. Without further ado, let’s plunge into an enchanted world…

The easiest way, which is within the radius of one’s comfort zone, to change as a person, would actually be to stick with one’s routine. Anyone can do that. When doing so, it seems that everything remains the same, but that is NOT true. There is a buffer, margin or niche for change in our routines. What this means in practise is that our broadband carrier, clothing, cuisine, friends, music taste, relationship with relatives, and so on, undergo constant, timebound erosion and regeneration. Even with incremental changes we might end up eating Italian-style cooking at the end of the year, if we make one experiment that costs us nothing in preparing cannelonis at the beginning of January. Likewise, arguing with our boss once in March could get us fired by the the end of October, if and when stress and things and stuff piled up insurmountably. Life undergoes change in this way. I call it evolving routine.

A subset of routine is addiction and an addicted way of life. People may be addicted to gambling, nicotine, caffeine, other people, near people, strange people, and of course substances ranging from THC to sleeping pills, LSD, PCP and opioids. If one cultivates this side of one’s life without inhibitions, one is stuck in a rut that can only lead to trouble. The definition of a junkie according to a reformed user was this; ”someone who does the same freaking thing every day, and hopes that it will one day lead to a different result”, this in reference to the standard ”kick” that people experience from any given drug of our choice (and the coming down off the drug, which is arguably often eventless). Of course, nothing ever changes. Instead, one gets carved inside by the drug, and this weakens us so that we become resistant to any true change and more positive outcomes and prospects in life. I call it destructive routine.

The only real, good way to evolve and change is to do it for real. This means putting one’s foot on it. The schedule has to be cleared. There needs to be a vacant slot in the year, preferably spring, summer or autumn. Routine cannot be part of the day anymore. One has to eat when one can, what one can (maybe out of a can). One week could and should be devoted to just one particular activity. Why? Because this would ultimately lead on to results, for the better or for the worse. Change of this sort happens usually only when the time is ripe, things have come to a head, and nothing else would work. Crises are the catalysts for change of this sort, but they don’t always function as wake-up calls. One can go living one’s life on the principle of an evolving or a destructive routine (as outlined earlier on), even if the writing was on the wall and a looming need to change was on the horizon. Routine is easier for the human body and soul, even if the human spirit is disdainful of it. I call and consider changes after crises subverting routine.

People need to move and relocate; change, develop and evolve. The reasons may be corporal, mental or social — it does not matter. Two good earthly, secular motives for change that other people understand as well are, of course, financial reasons and fulfillment in life. Change propels us both away from and toward happiness. But only we ourselves can define what genuine happiness is. Saving oneself is (on) everyone’s responsibility.


Arvio: Puhe on kenties yllättävä äkkisyvältä filosofiselta näkökannaltaan. Tämä puhe sopii MP-puheeksi siksi, että se ottaa kohteekseen aloitteen loppupuolella vastaan tulevan toisen avainsanan muutoksia, ”changes”. Pj:n ja hänen kumppaninsa voidaan ajatella käyneen sanasotaa tähän mennessä jo aloitteen mainitsemaa ensimmäistä avainsanaa, huumeet, vastaan. Tämän jälkeen whip saa solmia paketin kasaan, jos kaikki osapuolet ovat asiansa hoitaneet.

The School Yard Isn’t an Elephants’ Graveyard

Normaali

Viikko 10


 

Date: Apr 6th, 2013
Motion: THB that young people should be given at school some education on life & humility by older lecturing visitors
Role: MP (opp.)


#1
Young people can listen to and tolerate education by just about anyone, and they do; at least the nerdiest ones do, as they stare at any adult with doe eyes, but the overall benefit should be assessed and calculated in advance. If someone comes along to scare the ”s#it” out of our spes patriae, the adverse effect will take hold, and one should not strive for that, of course. Rather, youngsters should be given lectures by people who have excelled and made something out of themselves during their lifetime — celebrities, businessmen, sports athletes, models, musicians, charity runners, talk show hosts and poker-playing pros. It’s tales by this kind of people that the young want to hear; talk that is bold, aggressive, challenging, assertive and so on and so forth. Whining and fake satisfaction with a life led ’treading water’ should be left exclusively to those who never achieved anything in their lives.

#2
Young people could listen to old people telling them about this and that, but the problem therein is that that education would be mistake-, problem- and regret-oriented. I am reasonably sure that old people are filled with regret, and that they would love to pour it all out into the impressionable minds that would care to listen but who are also vulnerable and inexperienced in that vulnerability.

It would be better if seniors discussed their own problems among themselves and their own, without bothering younger people, who instead could and should give those seniors helpful advice on how to use home electronics, computers in particular, since this seems to be the stumbling block for most middleaged and older folks. The problems of the young are contemporary, and solving thereof should be left to professionals; not amateurs.

#3
In my time of youth, two older gentlemen came to my senior secondary school to give a talk or rather a performance, as I remember well. I saw them perform at a stopover on a tour called Poetry in Motion. The idea was that two poets would recite their stuff to an accompaniment of two different kinds of guitars — a rock, electric one and a Spanish, acoustic one. The poems and poets were likewise supposed to be complementingly different: one presenting us with subtler and rose-tinted and the other with grittier and rawer stuff. As it happens, both of these artist gentlemen are now dead. One died after some years had passed from a pedestrian-vs.-car traffic accident and a blow to the head (and thus, mental faculties), and the other after developing cancer. Did we get precious advice from these two men? I don’t think so. If it had been that good, both of them would have survived better and would roam the plains here and now among the rest of us today.

That’s what I think about the govt’s proposal! They can send it to the secretary, who can fold it into origami.

Thank you.


Arvio: Lyhyehkö puhe sisältää tiukkaa asiaa. Sävy on ivallinen, törkeäkin, mutta tarkoituksena on torpata vahingolliseksi katsottu aloite. Näin lyhyeen puheeseen kannattaa ottaa enemmän kuin 2 kysymystä täytteeksi. Vastauksetkin voivat olla tavallista pidempiä.

Unlimited Ltd.

Normaali

Viikko 9


 

MotionTHB that one can learn anything if one just puts one’s mind to it
Role: Rep. (opp.)


Occasionally, it is claimed that people use only a fraction of their brain capacity. It is suggested that we could achieve a much better ”processing” efficiency, were we somehow empowered cognitively. The movie Limitless riffed on this idea, apparently, in portraying the fantasy life of a man who suddenly gains full control of his brain in taking a dubious empowering pill of almost the ”Matrix” kind.

After having seen a documentary on the dimensions of human memory by the BBC, I think it’s high time we considered the true nature of our cognitive faculties.

For some reason, I don’t seem to be able to master certain things. I think they are interconnected in some way. I’ll give a brief description of each one of them.

Card games   Memorising card game rules is not easy for me. I can play about three card games without tuition: Old Maid, Poker, Sevens (~ group solitaire) and Uno. The rules of other card games elude me, and I might not even be ABLE to learn the hardest of them, such as bridge, or any difficult card game with ancient roots and arcane rules.

Ballroom dances   The only thing I can dance a little is waltz, mainly because it goes in the 3/4 time signature. That, however, is of little use when it comes to most dancehall-played popular music — also the older, less recognised forms — as it is in 4/4 time almost exclusively. When someone shows me a dance move, I generally don’t register it or comprehend it. I don’t understand how jive moves differ from tango moves or those of tap dance or how they form sequences. It’s all Greek to me.

Party jokes   I understand humour well, and I understand it within each of its subsets such as puns, crass double entendres, absurdities, visual gags, cross-references, allusions, situation comedy and nerdy Easter-egg fun. What I can’t do, at any rate, is tell people jokes if and when they want to hear one. I assume other people are able to tell jokes because they a) consume humour ”products” all the time (a wide concept, ranging from movies to funnies) or b) they don’t forget jokes they have laughed at. But I can’t.

(Mixing drinks…)   This is not confirmed but I assume that it’d be hard for me to memorise the contents of different cocktails. And I’m not alone in this, as the favourite mixer of the drinking classes of Finland is soda water and the favourite spirit is vodka. And those two are a ”cocktail” or a drink in their own right. Drink contents seem oddly irrelevent, especially after downing 6 of them… what it would all boil down to would be puke, anyway.

I think that these 3 to 4 things are interconnected. They all represent orchestrated movements that come to their fulfillment in a social context. All of them ease up friction in social interaction and provide a lively, albeit a slightly flat pastime. Some lead toward finding friends or a partner. None of them can, however, guarantee that objective, or success in Life in general.

And I can’t do them.

It seems that people who are good at the aforementioned things have been wired that way from the beginning. It isn’t necessarily so that their execution ”resides” in a different part of the brain that the rest of us just leave deserted and uncharted.

The brain is noted for its plasticity, meaning that it may rewire itself due or thanks to trauma or 10,000 hours of intensive training. Yet, the older pathways are surprisingly resilient. I might learn a new card game, drink, joke or ballroom dance with concerted effort, a lot of patience and a dedicated mentor. That would not, however, be appropriate. At best, I could be become a mediocrity in any of those fields. Earlier beginners and talented masters would beat me at every turn. A better use of my available time is vital, given that life is a relatively short endeavour. I should focus on my strengths instead.

It seems, sad but true, that the unharnessed potential that there is in the brain, lies in processing faster what we already do WELL or learning areas related to what we already KNOW.

Thank you.


Arvio: Hieman henkilökohtaisempi puhe — vaihteeksi — on suhteellisen mukaansa tempaava sen yleisemmän teeman takia, joka aloittaa ja lopettaa puheen. Aihe ei jätä kylmäksi väittelyseuran jäseniä. Itse aktiviteetti vaatii aivokapasiteettia, vaikka vuorta nimeltä debatti voikin lähestyä kovin monelta kantilta.