THW slap a caveat-emptor warning on sex talk by the media for being lopsided and misleading

---

Week 3

---

Media talk reminds one of urging the serpent to slither into the barrel of a gun.

Date: 21 Jan 2021
Motion: THW slap a caveat-emptor warning on sex talk by the media for being lopsided and misleading
Role: Whip (gov.)

---

Whenever I hear or read talk about carnal affairs in general in public, I cannot ever be satisfied. There is a lot in common with the way the media talk about alcohol, as was mentioned earlier. The downsides and statistics of alcohol use are without exception brought up and the general tone is that “there is no safe maximum amount”, so the conclusion is always that people should use alcohol only when they pass a milestone in their lives, if even then (first communion, engagement, wedding, baptism, funeral etc.) And the same goes for sex. It is only necessary when trying to conceive babies, if even then. For, there are in vitro clinics. We’ve come a long way from Henry Miller. He passed away as late as 1980, and it’s roughly then that things began to slide downhill.

The norm for a healthy life in between the sheets was drawn in the 1970’s when couples declared that they did “it” on average twice a week (in Finland, according to the FinSex series of follow-up studies). That means a lay every three or four days or nights, and that would not sound too bad in a layman’s or a laywoman’s ears, is my educated guess. However, this was not attained anymore during the 80’s, when different factors began to factor into the equation. One that comes to mind readily is the onslaught of HIV, in its late stage AIDS, from 1983 onward. The days of casual sex were over once the news spread about the deadly ‘souvenir’, should one err to travel without a ‘raincoat’.

Our side acquainted itself with a spread-sized article in the nation’s biggest daily that sums up the situation. Like all articles, an averse attitude runs through it, even though it’s tempered frequently with all kinds of concessions. But that’s only because even its writer can acknowledge the reality: People go at it like rabbits, if and when they feel like. That’s part of human nature, and one would begin to sound like part of the clergy, if one would start denying that categorically. So, the idea is: “give them a little finger, but not the whole hand.” Even though the hand is what the side that opposes us in the conversation is often concerned with. Their own hand, not anyone else’s.

Intercourse Is the Norm – Not Because It’s Always Good But Because It Is Good for You
As our Chair pointed out, discussion often revolves around how all forms of foreplay should allegedly be equal to actual intercourse. This ware has been touted for a long time, even in schools. The problem with blowjobs and handjobs is that they are just another name for self-abuse, and when that is being performed by someone else, a better name for it might be abuse-by-another. They are not about the special communion that the sex act is about. They have come to the area of sex from the world of repressed subcultures: the general population under repressive theologically controlled religious societies; inmates, prisoners; teenagers who are supposed to retain their physical virginity; and the LGBTI community. What unites them is that they cannot always opt freely, so they settle for less. Free adults in free societies should not be concerned with that as a sound substitute.

Long Wait Precedes the Age of Consent But Should Not Follow It
It was also brought up that people can’t get their hands on each other that soon. Now, if we think about it, like our MP mentioned, it’s not that consummating to hop in to and out of a twice-a-week era of carnal activity in one’s life, meaning that first the person has waited a whole teenage to be licenced to thrill, then there is a brief period of activity and thereafter a lull sets in again, as if that was some kind of a “desirable” outcome. It is as if being schooled for work for the duration of one’s whole early life, then having a worklife for 2 – 7 years, after which retirement beckoned. Pension funds cannot afford that, and I suspect that that extends to the human race as well, at least on a national level, as birthrates are plummeting.

Norms May Be Modelled on Minorities But Fitted onto the Majority
This twice-a-week norm was attained by the white straight majority in the 1970’s, and soon it transpired that a lot of people cannot keep up with it. There should be about a hundred acts a year to meet that quota satisfactorily. Our side’s suspicion is, voiced by our 2nd speaker Secretary that first there was the HIV scare, which spread among the LGBTI community (mainly gay men), took a leap outward and led to the dwindling of casual encounters and flings among groups of any orientation. Then, surprise, poll results began to be gathered among groups that according to common sense out of necessity have less sex than gen pop. For LGBTIs, a partner is harder to find due to the scarcity of candidates. Everyone knows inner city is a jungle when it comes to casual encounters. If polls are conducted among those who most commonly live in the urban core, it turns out that they have less sex because they live in the triangle of nightlife <> tenement <> workplace, and there’s precious little carnal life to be derived from that scene, at least less than for the older straight white suburbanite.

The conclusion of my speech is that, like in so many other matters, those who have a problem with something, the zero-to-ten-percenters, are targeted by journalists and politicians alike. Policies are devised inspired by them and articles are written about them. The story mentioned that both polled men and women brought up that they would want to “do it” far more often but that they fall short due to no partner or unwilling partner. The logical conclusion should be that society should help these people catch up with their self-set goal for themselves instead of trying to reduce the carnal lives of the rest of population onto the same level as what it is for the firstmentioned. Free trade and the corporate world should not intervene with their authentic love dolls and other kind of industrial decoy ducks. Expressed in more leftist terms, the whole scene would need to be like “to everyone according to one’s needs”, rather than “let’s share in the misery”.

---

Perustelu(t)/puolustelu(t): Nyt on kova. Olen yrittänyt välttää sukupuoliaiheiden käsittelyä, mutta kun siihen lopulta on suuri paine eikä aihetta voi ikuisuuksiin vältellä vaikuttamatta tomppelilta tai teknikolta, koko juttu purkautuu kovalla paineella suoraan silmille. Kun kirjoitin, jokainen lause tuntui kuin hermopeliltä, jossa kävelin kuin veitsenterällä. Mietin, eikö tämä koskaan pääty. Tiedän jo nyt, että kirjoitin pidemmän puheen kuin useat aiemmista, mutta toivon, että hermoilu myös näkyy tekstissä sen keskimääräistä parempana osuvuutena. Puhe on tekstissä mainitun artikkelin inspiroima. Siinä on myös aika paljon kaksimielisyyksiä, jotka voi tulkita ohimennen lauotuiksi vitseiksi tai vain sivuuttaa.

THR the notion of immigration as the only hot item to consider

---

Week 51

---

1789 is not so distant history, after all.

Date: Dec 16th, 2019
Motion: THR the notion of immigration as the only hot item to consider
Role: Whip (gov.)

---

Refugees that have been flooding into Western countries the world over have brought with them a sea change in public discourse. At some point, it seemed that the only topic that there was in news was the transgressions that some of these immigrants committed and the defensive posturing that sometimes happened by receiving native populations.

This kind of a view of the social scene, that of “us” vs. “them”, is a simplification of what is going on in the real world. Reality is far more complex in terms of its structure and dynamic. There aren’t merely conflicts between natives and immigrants. A more nuanced picture of the situation comes when we consider all the “quarters of friction” that there are in society, as my side’s team on this side of the table put them forward.

Authorities
People have often a bone to pick with authorities and officials. Often the context in which this happens is the assumption that they are gobbing up too much of taxpayer money, shoving it in their own pockets and neglecting to transfer funds in the direction of ordinary people or provide them with services. Other issues are lacking communication in terms of problems, available services and prospects. It is often claimed that officials are loath to tell how things really are, whether things are looking up, the same or down. It is viewed that officials do this to shore up their own position, but the realer reason might be that they do not regard themselves as responsible for the public as long as they report to their superordinates.

Corporate World
People have often a bone to pick with companies, corporations, firms and multinationals. There are several reasons. Unethical profiteering is often the reason, ethical problems in the chain that brings the raw material to the shelf and odd instances of food poisoning, animal cruelty, material defects, slowness or unwillingness in recalling merchandise etc. One special quarter is Big Pharma which operates on its own murky agenda oftentimes. Recently, its list of sins has included the fact that it collects blood from explicit drug users in drug-using, poverty-stricken areas in USA and turns the raw material into blood products for a global market that is often intoxicant-free and well-off. More surprisingly, it has also failed to procure enough medicine for pharmacies in Finland, which face a “drug crunch” from time to time today. It was estimated that one patient in 25 fails to get his or her medicine because of this, even if there was money to make. The fact that drug plants are quite far from the end users was mentioned as one of the reasons, i.e. logistics and disruptions in it works against the patient. The most overarching and glaring gripe that customers have is, for all that, that they are often the lowest rung in the ladder that corporations care about. Shareholders, typically, figure much higher in boardrooms.

Fellow Natives
People are not on the same level. There are innumerable small frictions that litter life in small towns and big cities. A clear “X” can be formed between the factions conservatives, liberals, the Left and the Right, each one in their own corner. That’s the first political one. In addition, income classes form invisible barriers in society, regardless of where the money comes from or doesn’t. Men and women are natural cats & dogs mutually. Bicyclists and car owners mix like water and oil. Those who spend their summers in a campervan or at a cabin don’t understand the lifestyles of sedentary people. Vegans and vegetarians have a lifestyle clash with omnivores, although it hardly ever boils to the surface. Few people like policemen and lawyers, who eke out a living out of the misery of other people. Neighbours are the “scum of the Earth”. Familied people with their ambience-deaf children often evoke the indignation of older single people. Those who went to the army do not understand conscientous objectors or civil-service “privates”. I could go on. The only factions that seem to be absent in the West are religious cliques. Yet, many of these frictions could reach a boiling point, if people did not live such isolated lives and have so much restraint, when they’re in the company of other citizens.

The similarity between refugees and the West is that the same kind of frictions existed in the source countries of the refugees as well. In fact, those frictions there boiled over and caused a reason to flee for one’s life. It must have been bad. War, famine, drought, infrastructure collapse, persecution, you name it. The difference between the refugees and the West is that it has not gotten to that point here yet. We have somehow managed to curb our passions when it comes to harming our fellow men. But we might be tempted. Refugees, on the other hand, may well have learned their lesson by now: factions and frictions inside nations are not a good thing. They have seen where that leads.

We should let these internal frictions be felt and sensed, so that we could get a truthful image of the present situation, 18 years after the fall of the twin towers, an event which kind of ushered in the present world order. My team and my side want to introduce the term “intranational tensions” alongside the concept of “international tensions”. Maybe airing those tensions would do some good.

Thank you.

---

Arvio: Whipin puheessa tehdään  yhteenvetoa edellisten puhujien annista. Puhujia ei erikseen mainita. Aihe on ajankohtainen niin kauan, kuin Eurooppaan virtaa pakolaisia maailman kriisipesäkkeistä ja etupäässä maahanmuuton vastustamisen ympärille kehittyneet puolueet kasvattavat parlamentaarista kokoaan eri maissa. Jos puheessa on jokin vika, niin kenties se, että se on mieluummin fatalistinen kuin kantaaottava.

THW remove pop and rock music from public libraries, as it does not civilize one there

---

Viikko 48

---

Date: Nov 28th, 2017
Motion: THW remove pop & rock music from public libraries, as it does not civilize one there
Role: Whip (gov.)

---

Ladies & Gentlemen, Chair, Assemblage,

Public schools and libraries are some kind of a way to discover new music, but they are not the fastest route to discover pop music nor the plausible solution to make one music-savvy to begin with. What I have learnt in the course of visiting libraries are for instance the debut LP of the Stone Roses (I borrowed it), which was a “Revelation”, and whatever sinuous music videos Guns n’ Roses made after November Rain (I borrowed a compilation). That, none the less, is not enough to ground oneself in rock and pop. Instead, our side has suggested a triphase way to come into contact with fabulous, contemporaneous tunes in a succession of three different approaches.

Our PM was in favour and spoke for the third approach, our Minister for the second approach and our MP for the first approach. I as one am going to speak for none particularly but for the whole, and I’m going to present you with a graph as the conclusive summation.

Picking Up Pop From the Media
It is possible to feed off the media for music. This means watching and listening to channels that provide music and music-related entertainment all the time, 24/7. This may be further backed up by making copies of the heard music or seen videos on VHS or C cassettes. This was a manner of consuming music which had its heyday for most of the 1980’s and 1990’s, but which was feasible as early as the mid-1960’s. Yet, it’s possible still, on condition that the devotee will use pay and digital channels instead of free cable or terrestrial channels, as they’ve ceased to provide quality music for free, having switched to reality-TV instead.

Purchasing Pop Advised by the Media
After exiting teenage, most music consumers have enough disposable income that they can BUY the music they consume to a high degree. For music fans, it’s advisable and maybe necessary to read the music press, for otherwise it would be nearly impossible to make educated choices in a record store. There would not be a “compass”. But this is a tricky pursuit. The right solution is not to blindly buy the product that reviewers rave about and give four or five 🌟’s to. The trick is to be able to read between the lines in the reviews, adapt that to one’s own tastes and make judicious purchases on a regular basis. This manner of consuming had its heyday in the late nineties and noughties when CDs were being sold on the cheap, as they became the target of music piracy online and their demand was quickly decreasing.

Paying for Pop in Monthly Installments
Since the dawn of the digital age, it has been possible to use different kinds of legal services to obtain access to music without having the soft copies. This copyright-deferent manner in turn gives access to amounts/mountains of music that were unimaginable earlier to others than record-label personnel. The idea is to dwell on individual artists less and explore the outer and inner limits of music at large. This has been in vogue mainly during this decade. Again, one’s own taste is the arbiter rather than the opinions of social media or the playlists created by the streaming-service personnel. Occasionally, computer-generated algorithms produce music to listen that is absolutely spot-on. This method is cheaper than the previous one but more costly than the first one. A cost-effective means, in other words.

Intriguing in all of this is the fact that one could become more cultured in pop and knowledgeable about uncharted higher territory in each one of the mentioned ways. However, a definite lack of dedicated energy in pursuing one’s chosen path could result in not making any real headway, ultimately losing the designed plot and being eventually forced to return back to “base camp”, i.e. to ignorance about the issue.

Finally, as the whip and overseer, I want to suggest that the amount of money people spend on pop music will follow the normal distribution if it proceeds along the succession professed and shown here. At first spending is modest, then it peaks and thereafter it begins to taper and wane. The following image illustrates this development in a graphic way.

I hope this makes you realize that the realm of the private is the way to go in order to acquaint oneself with pop music, or any other field of artistic merit, for that matter.

Thank you.

---

Arvio: Puhe käyttää erilaisia (teho)keinoja alleviivatakseen päämääräänsä. Ei ole ehkä sattumaa, että alussa mainitaan kaksi erilaista mutta aikalaisina vaikuttanutta roses-loppuista bändiä sekä laulun nimessä se kuukausi, jonka aikana bloggaus on julkaistu. Joitakin saattaa kummastuttaa, mihin suuntaan aloitteesta on lähdetty, sillä voisi olettaa, että väittely koskisi kevyen musiikin epäkristillisiä ja turmelevia ominaisuuksia eikä “altistumisen vaikeuksia”. Väitellähän ei kuitenkaan siksi, että väittelyn “tulisi olla” TYLSÄÄ.

THW subsidise (or encourage) match-making sites based on science rather than choice

---

Viikko 46

---

Date: Nov 27th, 2013
Motion: THW subsidise (or encourage) match-making sites based on science rather than choice
Role: Whip (govt.)

---

Dear House, Ladies & Gentlemen,

In my Whip Speech, I will try to clarify why it would be better to use intelligent machines to pair people up instead of letting them rely on their free will. My main argument, on behalf of the whole side, is that people do not like their own choices and therefore it’s better if someone else decides for them, as long as there is grounds for doing that — that there is something to unite people instead of dividing them apart.

One million Finns, amounting to 17.5 % of the population, live alone, classed as singles, even though, in the past, they were called spinsters and bachelors, widows and widowers as well as separated and divorced. All of these people would benefit from someone making the human uniting connection for them. All they would need to do was to register with a match-making site and log in frequently, not forgetting to meet up with some prospective people every now and then.

When I was younger and took part in the Seniors’ Ball in the Upper Secondary School (lyceum), gym teachers were the ones who paired boys and girls off, if they did not have boy- or girlfriends of their own to dance with. Few did. I was raffled or offered a slightly overweight girl, who had moved to town halfway through the curriculum, so I did not know her from before. She was pretty, with reddish brown hair and some freckles, like an “English Rose”, and I enjoyed dancing next to her, because I felt our dancing moves were different but compatible. Had I been able to choose a partner by myself, I would have picked a thin, feisty, familiar girl, who would have complained about the other girls, the teachers and myself to me, because that’s what girls do. So, it was great that someone else chose on my behalf and — hit the jackpot. I couldn’t have chosen better on my own.

It seems that love, marriage, human unions and creating offspring are the area for people where they need other people on other people’s terms, because the reciprocality is key rather than individuality. It’s noteworthily different when the focus is on work, education, hobbies of self-realization, which are all areas of great individuality. So, why not let computers, aided and abetted by humans, make the choice?

I’ll go fast through our PM‘s points: She said that touch deprivation is a serious problem (even though there were giggles when this was uttered). Minister claimed that the visual choice people make is a poor choice; people may have “hearts of gold” and “beauty on the inside”, but that sure doesn’t show on traditional match-making sites. Our MP opined that if our side was allowed to decide, superstition in forming bonds would give way to rational choices, abetted by psychology, social psychology and statistics etc.. To that, I’d like to add that people are fatalistic about that choice, and it’s sometimes better for us to let someone or something else make that choice. I know that this goes against the grain of societies’ fundamental belief in freedom, but let me just state that freedom is overrated and overstated.

Rebuttal-wise, there have been rants against us stating that pseudoscientific sites could not possibly be trusted with making an important choice for people. Our view is entirely different. Just like it has happened in terms of other Internet services, first there would be

1. a mushrooming stage, when services sprang up, and then there would be
2. the intercompetition to find out what is the best or at least a reputable service, and finally there would be
3. the endgame, where one of two services gain dominance over the others, merge them successfully or are bought by industry giants.

Pairing people up could be based on many things, ranging from statistics to horoscopes (taking into account not just the primary sign but the secondary and tertiary signs as well) to collecting habits to rock-music preferences to income to profile of liberalism/conservatism/hedonism. Company databases would collect each information focusing on different aspects, so that finally the algorithm or set of data that caus[at]es love could emerge from Big Data and give us the definitive factors or variables.

To conclude, I’d like to say that the beneficiaries or our agenda are the 17.5 % of the population who live in “want” (alone) and those who marry but wind up in divorce. They stubbornly believe in free will and raising up messed-up kids who suffer through each and any divorce, or there are no kids to begin with. We want to say that if you can’t choose yourself, let someone who ‘knows better’ do it for you. An objective database can trump being a subjective weather vane.

Thanks, and see you in church.

---

Arvio: Tässä puheessa whip tekee työtään puolensa ahkerana työmyyränä. Erityispiirteenä on se, että oman puolen pointit kaikkineen tiivistetään 5. kappaleeksi. Jos katsotaan, että whip lisää yleistä ymmärrystä, tämä voi silti olla perusteltua. Aihe sinänsä kohoaa keskustelunaiheeksi usein.

THW take as many refugees as possible, as defined by the national infrastructure

---

Viikko 41

---

 

Motion: THW take as many refugees as possible, as defined by the national infrastructure
Role: Whip (govt.)

---

When it comes to refugees, the discussion is lively and ambiguous, as the previous contributions have amply demonstrated. Our side has championed refugees strongly, whereas the opposing side has maligned and condemned them in equally strong-language terms. Being a spectator, I might be tempted to choose either side at the flip of a coin.

However, as the whip, I’m going to opt for defending the refugees in the way that is open to me. I’m going to tell you why they should be let in in pandering to the theory of “influential allies”, something which is usually missing in the political debate, where the individual is rotely placed at the center, being alone the “driving force” of forces around her/him.

Our first speaker reminded you about the national reputation and the fact that no nation is an island. All countries have ties to neighbouring countries and they also have ties to more far-off countries which expatriates have emigrated to and immigrants immigrated from. France has a special relation with Algeria. Indians and Pakistanis have a special relation with the UK. The descendants of slaves have always had a special relation with the former slave-trading conquering countries, this hinting at a trading partnership, even if the merchandise were the “merchants themselves”. In other words, refugeeship would only be a way to form new ties in an evolving world, and nothing more than that. It would be about give-and-take, not just about giving or taking per se.

Our 2nd speaker told you that the reason for aiding and abetting refugees is the fact that they may result in improving your life quality in your own sphere. A refugee can be a future spouse or dependent. Refugees may turn up at the workplace, owning or manning them, usually as colleagues. Dining out would be a very common way of meeting refugees, but true for any number of us.

Our 3rd speaker offered you the viewpoint that, even if one personally did not have any contact with refugees, that MIGHT be the case among one’s family and relatives or friends and acquaintances. Would you sever your contacts off with them due to their hooking up in some way with refugees? Considering they might only pop up in conversation without your never even having personally met them, your attitudes would be the thing souring down or cheering up the prevailing “situation”.

In any event, what I’m saying is that none of this may be relevant to you as a citizen. You may NOT care about national reputations, personal contacts or familial affiliations, as we’re a nation of singles’ households; those singles sometimes having severed their ties vertically to their genetic and geographical past, and horizontally to their fellow man, except for the employer or the state. In that case, consider this: you still have to like refugees, for they are liked by the elite of this country. If you care to take note, you’ll see that politicians, artists, businessmen, clergymen, athletes, journalists and civil activists all tend to accept and endorse refugees.

Together they have more power than the side opposing refugees, in all likelihood. An individual member of the elite does not count either way, but as a mass, members of the elites are too formidable to offer resistance to. As much as you may like critics of immigration, they seem to be feeble, prejudiced, disorganized, uneducated and misled. They do have visibility and a voice, also structures, but it’s small fry compared to the forces that have allowed immigration into our country. This, I think is the final argument that carries in the end: even if you don’t like refugees, the fact that people more powerful than you like them forces you to like them, too.

Thank you.

---

Arvio: Puheessa summataan kaikki aiemmat puheet yhdeksi kokonaisuudeksi. Ideana on kursia kokoon muiden parhaista (tai sopivimmista) paloista vielä yksi hyvä puhe. Loppu on hämmentävä. Toivon sen taivuttavan kuulijan puolelleen; puhe kun on yhdistelmä retorisilla keinoilla ja tosielämän esimerkeillä vaikuttamista. Mutta en tiedä, miten se otetaan vastaan. Joku voisi pitää sitä valheellisena, epäloogisena vetoamisena ja kehäpäätelmänä.

THB that original inhabitants of popular places should take precedence over newcomers

---

Viikko 38

---

Motion: THB that original inhabitants of popular places should take precedence over newcomers
Role: Whip (gov.)

---

Every aspiring young person has some kind of relationship with cities, counties, countries, provinces, states and towns. Some of them suit us fine, while others ring a false note/tone. Some localities we just can’t put up with.

This time, as an example, I’m going to talk about LA, the City being the original “redwood” homebase to some while a “Zoo Station” for others. To me, LA represents the weekday of Saturday. What do we know about Saturday?

1. It’s part of the weekend, the first half (or the middle part, if we count the evening and night of Friday in.)
2. It’s gotten its name from a Roman god called Saturnalis.
3. Some associate it with sauna.
4. Some concerts are staged on Saturday.
5. Booze flows on Saturday.
6. Doctoral vivas may be held during the pre- and afternoon part of the day.
7. Financially, it’s the worst day for commercial transportation/logistics companies, as it’s not a day for work-related commuting, and everyone will have travelled for leisure either on the previous day, or a day thereafter, on Sunday.
8. A sausage has been named to it (in Finland).
9. It’s “alright for Fighting” (according to Elton John).
10. During Easter, Saturday has no special religious or liturgical meaning, at least to the layman.
11. Most businesses are partially open on Sundays. It may be very good when it comes to discounts, refunds, sales or shopping (in a stationary way).
12. Pets like Saturdays, for it’s the first day of the week when their owners have truly time to feed, maintain, walk and wash them.

In short, Saturdays are the day of the week, when it’s still OK to be messy, or a Mess, but which nonetheless do not the next day bite one in the ass.

What is, then, my relation to Saturdays?

Well, it’s not my best-liked day, but it’s not my bugbear either. It’s firmly one of the in-between days that I tend to have, united in that quality with Thursday. I have found that it’s an agreeable day, more for entertainment than for benefit, epiphany, erudition or profit. This means that my relationship with LA is a bit precarious and volatile. I have the potential to like LA, but that comes with a bit of strain, luck and determination. The underlying impression or illusion is that the day has more control over me than I have over the day. It also passes much faster than I think.

These impressions I have assembled in having been once to LA, for a few days, and having lived through innumerable Saturdays over the course of my life.

I do not obsess over LA, like some people do. We have to remember that the actual atmosphere in LA has very little with its original settlers to do. The ambience of raw competition, dog-eat-dog mentality, live-and-let-die attitude, viciousness and superficiality, and so on, have been created by all the arrivistes, upstarts, nouveau riches and social climbers who have since flooded the city saddled with their ambitions, aspirations, hopes and longings. They, in turn, have originally come from humbler, rainier locations, expressly to counter that “poor provenance”.

I believe that the True Spirit of LA has more to do with Sunday than Saturday, were LA still that mission station once set up and inhabited by Spaniards. Once upon a time, LA had a promise about it. Now those days are long gone. Those, who come to LA, have to show some promise. They will get something in return, if they redeem themselves; this promise is given to them by those who have already settled there to prosper. But, maybe it’s a Com-Promise…

Because LA has been tweaked into some thing it originally was not, I back up and forward the govt.’s motion that original inhabitants of popular places should take precedence over newcomers.

Thank you.

---

Arvio: En tee puheessa viimeisen puhujan työtä toisten puheita tiivistävänä ja selittävänä “intendenttinä”. Sen sijaan puhun omiani. Tämä on väärin, mutta joissakin tapauksissa näin voi käydä. Joskus kyseessä on ymmärrettävä lapsus, ja haluan esittää yhden esimerkin, miltä se sitten näyttää ja kuulostaa (eli tältä). Syyt ovat nämä: a) muut puolen puhujat eivät ole myöskään tehneet hommiaan, jolloin ei ole “mitään tiivistettävää” tai b) muut puolen puhujat ovat tehneet “liiankin hyvää” työtä ja ammentaneet aiheen tyhjiin omilla puheenvuoroillaan, jolloin minkä tahansa uuden aineksen, jopa selälleen flippaavan, lisääminen debattiin bloosaa vain lisää myötätuulta oman puolen purjeisiin.

THW renew the FM radio world thoroughly

---

Viikko 34

---

 

Motion: THW renew the FM radio world thoroughly
Role: Whip (govt.)
Date: Aug 24th, 2016

---

Now that Spotify has been awhile with us, we should take a look at how it has changed the way we consume music as opposed to radio broadcasts.

As our MP-representative said, Spotify is the realest radio that there is around minus the hosts and talk-based programming and interaction. Musically, what can be heard is far more stimulating than what can be heard on mainstream radio channels from 88.6 MHz to 105.7 MHz. Why does radio suck? What happened?

A lot of the suckiness of radio can be attributed to the journalists who work there. There isn’t so much difference to print journalists, who publish high-school photos of themselves next to their headliner stories which usually tell of really tricky political realities or why not their experiences in dealing with the medical establishment while tending to their aging and ailing parent(s). Radio journalists may just as well post 16-year-old versions of themselves, tricking their listeners into believing they’re really 16 while they are juggling their 48-year-old lives with children, divorce, mortgage, attempts at exercise and minding that 86-year-old. Also, those journalists’ flaws may be attributed to their youth. Those presenters who are really only 25 may serve you their commune-living and rock-festival experiences every day in a row for those 8 years that they are allowed to work on a “youth channel”.

At any rate, as our side’s minister pointed out, many of us tune in for music, and I want to focus on that music. I think the biggest problem that radio stations have is the so-called playlist stations or heavy-rotation supply or downright virtual-jukebox stations. What this means is that they play some records over and over again for years, sometimes decades. This isn’t merely bad, as some songs are so good that “everyone” needs to hear them at least once in a lifetime. The situation turns however from good to worse when those same songs are played too many times, or, “ad nauseam”. A lot of the educationally good songs tolerate from 1 to 10 plays in the lifetime of a human being. Thereafter, they turn “sour”, tasting more like milk that has already gone bad. Yet, a lot of the stations play expressly this fare over and over again, hoping that there are still legions of people out there who have not heard this and that song in their lifetime. Also, they may erroneously claim that “if we did not do this, our listeners would disappear, never to tune in again…”

I claim that radio stations should conversely play mostly music that has not exhausted itself of meaning, significance and relevance. A good portion of the popular music that is available is “uncharted“, meaning two things.

1. It did not chart at the time of its release, meaning that it may have been a “filler” or an “album track” on a record of which only the first or title track has even been played in public.
2. People wouldn’t recognise the song or be able to place it on the timeline of the artist’s repertoire, even though they could otherwise pinpoint who/what the artist in question was/were.

We have to remember that a lot of the early 80’s to the late 90’s stuff that is being played right now on most of the world’s radio stations was once “new music”. In other words, if stations then had stuck to their guns and the same principles as stations now do, they would have blocked that music in favour of music that was recorded from the early 60’s to the late 70’s. And we might not know at all songs such as “Crazy Train”, “I Won’t Back Down”, “Freedom ’90”, “Losing My Religion”, “Nothing Else Matters”, “Zombie”, “You Oughta Know” etc. etc. etc.

Going back to what our prime minister declared in the beginning, music journalists working for music publications in print are probably fast losing their jobs right now, as fewer and fewer people follow what’s happening in the world of popular music; thus, they could be employed at radio stations, so that the latter could fulfill their mission (duty) to play genuinely educating music to the masses. I assume, at least, that a competent music journalist knows much more intriguing and exciting songs than an average radio listener, who has only pricked up her ears for the 200 most recognisable songs in popular-music history. The journalist should know that multiplied by at least ten (10x).

And if the station owners say that that can’t be arranged, as the music-royalty payments would then be dispersed and scattered over far too big a corporate landscape, I would say that it’s bollocks. There appears to be only three major record labels in the world today (meaning Sony, Universal and Warner; in other words, one consumer-electronics giant and two movie-business giants, all of them companies that have found ways to make more money than there is to be made selling records), and any originally independent record company would appear to be in the possession of one of these three. Therefore, it shouldn’t be too hard to pay smaller amounts to a multitude of bands under a few (= three) “umbrellas” instead of big lump sums to a handful of bands. I know that there are some independents around today still, but most of them are startups and were not around by the time the big buyouts in the music business began to happen. They, too, can be included in the moneysharing as long as they have produced and released something of merit and importance.

There might be a future for the radio still, but it for sure isn’t in the current state of affairs.

---

Puheen kesto: 6 min 39 sek
Arvio: * * * ½. Puhe on interaktiivinen, eri puolia referoiva ja monipuolinen mutta ehkä hieman vaikeasti seurattava. Toisaalta sitä on edeltänyt jo 6 puhetta, joten siinä mielessä on näköharha lukea tämä teksti ensimmäisenä puheena ja kuulla tämä sama teksti seitsemäntenä puheena — ja olettaa reseption olevan sama. Kun ihmiset ovat jossakin sisällä, he ymmärtävät sitäkin, mitä maallikot eivät tajua. Sisältö on kuultu jossakin muussakin yhteydessä, mutta onhan aihe tai agenda toistaiseksi ratkaisematon.

 

THW boost the economy by having skips sent to alleys, avenues, streets and squares by the state

---

Viikko 32

---

 

Motion: THW boost the economy by having skips sent to alleys, avenues, streets and squares by the state
Role: Whip (govt.)
Date: Aug 12th, 2016

---

I read today about two women waging a debate on the pages of a women’s magazine (under the rubric of “debate”) about whether a woman named Marie Kondo is already too popular for her own good in this country. What this means in practise is that she is urging people to throw away anything that they own if that something no longer brings them pleasure or is in use. To simplify, if you no longer read your own Donald Duck comix, chuck ’em in the ditch. If you no longer drink alcohol, throw what little you may have left in the gutter. In the debate, one woman defended the attitude, while the other was not entirely against it but mentioned how it has become “like a middle-class religion” and how material possessions actually give us comfort and joy when administered well in the right context.

The funny thing was that in the aforementioned women’s debate, the younger woman (at 32) was defending more the right to own “s**t”, or, let’s call it “stuff”. One might have guessed that it would have been the other way round. The explaining factor was possibly that the younger one was also a blogger, writing a Blog, whereby she receives shipments from different kinds of cloth or accessory manufacturers in the hopes that she’ll mention or review them on her blog. As she has become a “victim” of “free stuff”, it’s understandably harder for her to say no to all that free stuff. It’s also a part of her professional identity, and that is hard to shed as we all know.

What should be said about that? Should we dig into the history of not owning stuff?

If we look into the history of the matter, I’d say that we discover two avantgarde groups who have disowned stuff in the past. One group is those with a theological mindset. Religious people in the course of history (Reformist Christians, Greek and Roman Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus) have often owned very little, being cloistered away in monasteries and convents as monks and nuns and their superordinates. In their view, possessions of the earthly kind pale in comparison with possessions of the heavenly kind. Peace of mind is more important than a 3-piece suit. The book of souls is more important than books and soles. Maybe they were onto something. We don’t know. Posterity has not had a chance to chat with those who have gone into the beyond, with or without a religious badge on their lapel.

Another group that has been leery of stuff is what I’d term the “advanced bourgeoisie”. The ideology of these people is to live in a minimalist way, buying only the best products available at high-end prices and buying only what they need. They may own only 5 shirts, one computer, three pairs of shoes, a Japanese kitchen knife, a blender, an espresso machine etc. etc. etc. In the end, one may end up owning quite many commodities that could be termed “luxury”, but the idea is nevertheless to reduce the amount of stuff to a manageable cupboardful by raising its quality price-wise and lopping off all the rambling accessories that a self-focussed urban professional does not need.  These people use money in a way that tries to retain as much of its value as possible both on the bank account and at home.

What unites the two avant-guard groups is that of course both tend to be single in their most textbookesque incarnations. It’s so much easier to be without stuff when one is without children as well.

I would say that in spite of some of their slightly “misanthropic” qualities these two groups are fundamentally right. You don’t need stuff. You can do without it. I know it deep down when I’m staring at the wall, without any toys, gadgets and joys, and feeling uniquely focussed and unbored. I don’t long to live inside of a prison (where the stimuli are minimal, thin on the ground, so to speak) but I’m actually longing to live inside a cell of an apartment as long as I can go out as well to enjoy the freedom of the (sub)urban community around me. This brings us around to the insight that maybe after all, even though it’s a cliché, the real riches are human relationships and collectivity.

I would say that you should aim for the stuff-free Life. Think of it as the extension of your personal mobility. It would enable you to change cities, condos, countries and continents. One thing is the fact that you are probably carrying around a mobile phone, erm…, that’s the old term; the new term must be the smartphone. Now, if you’re so smart that you are carrying a smartphone, why should you be so unsmart as to let your belongings weigh down your personal freedom when your smartphone is trying to give you as much of it as (humanly) possible? There would be a contradiction there.

Thank you.

---

Puheen kesto: 6 min 24 sek
Arvio (whip)puheena: * * (* * ½). Puhe onnistuu vangitsemaan kuulijansa mielenkiinnon napakalla aloituksellaan, joka on napattu mediasta. Hyvillä jaotteluilla eteenpäin menemällä se pääsee johdattelevaan lopputulokseensa. Sinällään hieno puhe kärsii loppupuheenvuorona siitä, ettei siinä ole viittauksia oman puolen aiempiin kannanottoihin tai vastapuolen torjuntoja. Siksi se sopisi parhaiten jommaksikummaksi aloitusparin puheeksi. Näiden voidaan kuitenkin olettaa käsittelevän aloitteen roskalava- ja valtio-sanojen tuomia mielleyhtymiä ensisijaisesti (aloitteita usein tulkitaan sana kerrallaan), joten whip-puheena tämä ei olisi summaava vaan soveltava ja pyrkisi tuomaan esiin yhtä otsikon mukaista näkökantaa. Sellaisenkin whip-puhesuorituksen voi kirjoittaa, jos ei jaksa olla “kunnon” whip.