Many moons ago I mentioned that when it gets really cold, we sometimes see "Pillars of light". They are... um, pillars of light that rise from bright lights. I finally managed to take picture of them, and by popular request:
Showing posts with label Finland. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Finland. Show all posts
Frozen
Many moons ago I mentioned that when it gets really cold, we sometimes see "Pillars of light". They are... um, pillars of light that rise from bright lights. I finally managed to take picture of them, and by popular request:
On Christmas
Finnish Christmas is somewhat different than Christmas observed in USA and most other countries. For starters, packages are not handed out on Christmas Day, but on Christmas Eve. Reason for that is probably due to the fact that Santa lives in Finland, so he delivers our presents first, but I'm sure you all knew that already.
There's also another piece of Finnish Christmas that is not sadly that much observed anymore. That is the "Nuuttipukki", which is like the evil twin of Santa Claus (Joulupukki). Nuuttipukki used to visit households on January 13th. As opposed to being a jolly old man, Nuuttipukki was/is a scary-looking old man with horns, who sings/performs in exchange of offerings (often alcohol).
No, I'm not making this up.
I wish we still had these old traditions. I guess the problem here is that Nuuttipukki is not really marketable idea that could be turned in to a commercial venture.
There's also another piece of Finnish Christmas that is not sadly that much observed anymore. That is the "Nuuttipukki", which is like the evil twin of Santa Claus (Joulupukki). Nuuttipukki used to visit households on January 13th. As opposed to being a jolly old man, Nuuttipukki was/is a scary-looking old man with horns, who sings/performs in exchange of offerings (often alcohol).
No, I'm not making this up.
I wish we still had these old traditions. I guess the problem here is that Nuuttipukki is not really marketable idea that could be turned in to a commercial venture.
There's something wrong with the society
We had another shootout in Finland, and this time the number of casualties is even higher: 11 dead (including the gunman). I wont try to make any excuses. The fact is that there is something wrong with the society.
The interesting thing is that all the people who have done something like this (Gerdt, Auvinen and Saari) are all people who lived through the early-nineties recession when they were young. It could be that it turned them in to what they are.
Anyway, there are tangible things that the society and the government can do to fix the problem. It wont be easy, but it will result in a better society.
Increased resources for work on mental health.
Ever since the recession in the early nineties, the resources directed at mental health have been cut back. Which is bad, since that was when they were needed the most. Finland has recovered exceptionally well from the recession, but the funding that were taken from mental health was not given back. So we have a situation where crazy people walk the streets because they do not get proper treatment in time. Hell, back in August there was a case in Kerava (pretty close to where I live) where this 18.year old (or so) guy stabbed a younger girl to death. He had seeked help for his mental problems, but he was told that due to limited resources, he could get an appointment several months away, no sooner. End-result: A stabbed girl. This is totally unacceptable.
Schools need to be given resources to employ psychologists and curators that have the time and resources to actually talk with the students. They could have a monthly talk with each student, just to check how they are doing and that everything is OK with their lives.
Also, the class-sizes should be made smaller, so teachers have adequate time and energy to give to each student. With dozens of students per class, paying attention to each student becomes harder and harder.
Increased sense of community
This is the easiest thing to do, and the hardest. This doesn't really involve any money (well, maybe a little) or anything like that, so it's easy. But it's hard because it means change in people's attitudes. Finland is a pretty introvert society in many ways. We place high value on respecting other peoples privacy. And sometimes that means that people could become isolated misantrophes and people around him wouldn't notice anything. We need to change that. We need to make people feel part of the community, as opposed to having a community of isolated individuals. People need to feel that there are people around him that can help him when needed, and we need to pay more attention to the people around us.
The three people who have done something like this in Finland were all loners and introverts. Some of them were also victims of teasing at school. We need to change this. We need to foster a sense of involvement among people and we need to have absolute zero tolerance for bullying and teasing.
Also, to increase the sense of community, we should re-think the way our schools are arranged. The change from primary to secondary education can be quite a shock, and that takes place at the age when the one thing you really need, is stability. In Finland, when you move from primary to secondary, you get a brand-new class with new classmates. Everything is mixed up. Instead of doing that, what if we try to preserve the class that existed in the primary? So even though you would be in a new school, the classmates around you would be mostly the same as before. You would then have same classmates from ages 7 to 15. If possible, the class should be preserved in high-school as well.
What NOT to do
As before, close to half of the discussion so far has been about increased gun-control. While that might seem like a quick solution to the problem, it's not. We should not waste our time talking about what tool the killer happened to use, we should be focusing our time to think WHY the killer did what he did, and how we could prevent it. Taking away the tool does not take away the desire to kill others. If he has no gun, he will use some other tool (like Gerdt did at Myyrmanni, or how the Akihibara killer did in Japan).
Not only is the talk about the tool a waste of time, it distract us from the real issue. At worst, we might have a situation where gun-control is increased, but mental-health work etc. gets no additional resources. Politicians and people would then think "there, by removing guns we removed the problem. good work everyone!". Yes, we might not have shootouts anymore. What we would get instead is stabbings, arsons, hit 'n runs etc. We are doing all of us a huge disservice when we allow ourselves to be distracted like this.
What about the politicians?
Well, communal-elections are coming up. But the thing is that there isn't really a party who has profiled itself as being focused on these issues. Well, maybe the Christian-Democrats, but I won't vote them out of principle. Voting them would bring along all that fundie-baggage that I have no desire to support. Mrs. and I actually joked that we should start a "Family Party" that focuses on issues like these, without bothering itself with religion and all that other crap.
Of course, the "Family Party" would have the risk of being perceived as a "Think of the children!"-party...
The interesting thing is that all the people who have done something like this (Gerdt, Auvinen and Saari) are all people who lived through the early-nineties recession when they were young. It could be that it turned them in to what they are.
Anyway, there are tangible things that the society and the government can do to fix the problem. It wont be easy, but it will result in a better society.
Increased resources for work on mental health.
Ever since the recession in the early nineties, the resources directed at mental health have been cut back. Which is bad, since that was when they were needed the most. Finland has recovered exceptionally well from the recession, but the funding that were taken from mental health was not given back. So we have a situation where crazy people walk the streets because they do not get proper treatment in time. Hell, back in August there was a case in Kerava (pretty close to where I live) where this 18.year old (or so) guy stabbed a younger girl to death. He had seeked help for his mental problems, but he was told that due to limited resources, he could get an appointment several months away, no sooner. End-result: A stabbed girl. This is totally unacceptable.
Schools need to be given resources to employ psychologists and curators that have the time and resources to actually talk with the students. They could have a monthly talk with each student, just to check how they are doing and that everything is OK with their lives.
Also, the class-sizes should be made smaller, so teachers have adequate time and energy to give to each student. With dozens of students per class, paying attention to each student becomes harder and harder.
Increased sense of community
This is the easiest thing to do, and the hardest. This doesn't really involve any money (well, maybe a little) or anything like that, so it's easy. But it's hard because it means change in people's attitudes. Finland is a pretty introvert society in many ways. We place high value on respecting other peoples privacy. And sometimes that means that people could become isolated misantrophes and people around him wouldn't notice anything. We need to change that. We need to make people feel part of the community, as opposed to having a community of isolated individuals. People need to feel that there are people around him that can help him when needed, and we need to pay more attention to the people around us.
The three people who have done something like this in Finland were all loners and introverts. Some of them were also victims of teasing at school. We need to change this. We need to foster a sense of involvement among people and we need to have absolute zero tolerance for bullying and teasing.
Also, to increase the sense of community, we should re-think the way our schools are arranged. The change from primary to secondary education can be quite a shock, and that takes place at the age when the one thing you really need, is stability. In Finland, when you move from primary to secondary, you get a brand-new class with new classmates. Everything is mixed up. Instead of doing that, what if we try to preserve the class that existed in the primary? So even though you would be in a new school, the classmates around you would be mostly the same as before. You would then have same classmates from ages 7 to 15. If possible, the class should be preserved in high-school as well.
What NOT to do
As before, close to half of the discussion so far has been about increased gun-control. While that might seem like a quick solution to the problem, it's not. We should not waste our time talking about what tool the killer happened to use, we should be focusing our time to think WHY the killer did what he did, and how we could prevent it. Taking away the tool does not take away the desire to kill others. If he has no gun, he will use some other tool (like Gerdt did at Myyrmanni, or how the Akihibara killer did in Japan).
Not only is the talk about the tool a waste of time, it distract us from the real issue. At worst, we might have a situation where gun-control is increased, but mental-health work etc. gets no additional resources. Politicians and people would then think "there, by removing guns we removed the problem. good work everyone!". Yes, we might not have shootouts anymore. What we would get instead is stabbings, arsons, hit 'n runs etc. We are doing all of us a huge disservice when we allow ourselves to be distracted like this.
What about the politicians?
Well, communal-elections are coming up. But the thing is that there isn't really a party who has profiled itself as being focused on these issues. Well, maybe the Christian-Democrats, but I won't vote them out of principle. Voting them would bring along all that fundie-baggage that I have no desire to support. Mrs. and I actually joked that we should start a "Family Party" that focuses on issues like these, without bothering itself with religion and all that other crap.
Of course, the "Family Party" would have the risk of being perceived as a "Think of the children!"-party...
"We shall fight them on the balconies...."
There has been a storm in a teacup over here. What happened is that someone decided to hang a nazi-flag in his balcony in Helsinki. People noticed it, and called the police. The cops came over, inspected the situation and told the people "There's nothing we can do. It's not illegal to display a flag on your balcony". After a while, someone climbed to the balcony, and ripped the flag down, while others applauded him.
Naturally, the opinions on the matter have been divided. Some people think that the person who ripped the flag did a good thing (even though he broke the law, since balconies are considered to be part of your home, so he was guilty of trespassing and maybe theft), and that the society should ban the "ideology", and the display of nazi-symbols should also be banned.
I and several others took the exact opposite viewpoint. If we want a free society with free citizens, it means that we must tolerate ideas, symbols and viewpoints that we might not personally condone. I have no sympathy for nazis, but if we start banning opinions and ideologies, how exactly are we different from the nazis? Nazis punished people who had "wrong" opinions, and now we should do the same, all in the name of "freedom"?
It was surreal to see people who called themselves "opponents of nazism" advocate the use of exact same methods as nazis used to use. They advocated punishing people for their opinions and ideas without batting an eyelid. When I and others told them that they are in fact mimicking what nazis did, the fact totally escaped them.
It's not really a free society, if we are free to agree with one another. The measure of freedom is that we can disagree. that we can have opinions that others might not like. If we want to have freedom of opinion, it means that EVERYONE has that right, including the nazis.
At this point I was told that "of course you are free to have any kind of opinions you like, but you should not be allowed to express them just like that". For a while I had to think that was the person joking or not. But no, apparently he was being serious. Are we a free society if we are not allowed to express our ideas and opinions?
It's strange, really. So we should ban nazism and related symbols, but in the meantime we have two (or more, depending who you ask) communistic parties in Finland. We even have a big statue that glorifies communism in Helsinki that was donated by Moscow. I bet that communism has just as much victims as nazism has, maybe even more. Yet no-one is calling for the banning of that ideology, nor is anyone vandalizing the statue (although there are several people calling for it's removal). The only difference I can think of is that nazis lost the war, while communists won it.
Of course all this does not mean that nazis (for example) should be allowed to attack minorities etc. Ideology and opinion is not a "get out of jail"-card. The point is that opinions can never be considered a crime. Someone might have the opinion that "all red-headed people should be beaten up", and he should not be punished for that opinion. If he actually started beating red-headed people up, THEN he would be due for a punishment.
Yes, it was stupid to hang that flag on the balcony. But people should have the right to be stupid.
Naturally, the opinions on the matter have been divided. Some people think that the person who ripped the flag did a good thing (even though he broke the law, since balconies are considered to be part of your home, so he was guilty of trespassing and maybe theft), and that the society should ban the "ideology", and the display of nazi-symbols should also be banned.
I and several others took the exact opposite viewpoint. If we want a free society with free citizens, it means that we must tolerate ideas, symbols and viewpoints that we might not personally condone. I have no sympathy for nazis, but if we start banning opinions and ideologies, how exactly are we different from the nazis? Nazis punished people who had "wrong" opinions, and now we should do the same, all in the name of "freedom"?
It was surreal to see people who called themselves "opponents of nazism" advocate the use of exact same methods as nazis used to use. They advocated punishing people for their opinions and ideas without batting an eyelid. When I and others told them that they are in fact mimicking what nazis did, the fact totally escaped them.
It's not really a free society, if we are free to agree with one another. The measure of freedom is that we can disagree. that we can have opinions that others might not like. If we want to have freedom of opinion, it means that EVERYONE has that right, including the nazis.
At this point I was told that "of course you are free to have any kind of opinions you like, but you should not be allowed to express them just like that". For a while I had to think that was the person joking or not. But no, apparently he was being serious. Are we a free society if we are not allowed to express our ideas and opinions?
It's strange, really. So we should ban nazism and related symbols, but in the meantime we have two (or more, depending who you ask) communistic parties in Finland. We even have a big statue that glorifies communism in Helsinki that was donated by Moscow. I bet that communism has just as much victims as nazism has, maybe even more. Yet no-one is calling for the banning of that ideology, nor is anyone vandalizing the statue (although there are several people calling for it's removal). The only difference I can think of is that nazis lost the war, while communists won it.
Of course all this does not mean that nazis (for example) should be allowed to attack minorities etc. Ideology and opinion is not a "get out of jail"-card. The point is that opinions can never be considered a crime. Someone might have the opinion that "all red-headed people should be beaten up", and he should not be punished for that opinion. If he actually started beating red-headed people up, THEN he would be due for a punishment.
Yes, it was stupid to hang that flag on the balcony. But people should have the right to be stupid.
Here's your goddamned exclamation point!
My frustration and annoyance with tabloid-newspapers and other similar trash-newspapers grows by the day. They are filled with non-news that they report in a way that makes them sound like the most important piece of news in the known universe. Like _the_ news for today: "PARIS HILTON in Helsinki!". Is that REALLY interesting piece of news? Is it important? And why is the headline shouting at me? Why do they use all-caps?
Those caps and exclamation points are there to obviously make the news seems important. It's so important that they need to shout it at me. Well, excuse me, but what makes that particular piece of news so important? Why should I or anyone else care when some airheaded bimbo who is famous for being famous (really, has she ever really DONE anything notable?) is visiting Helsinki? And the sad thing is that there's about zillion idiots out there who do find that news really interesting and important...
Sure, the tabloids sometimes report on genuine news. But when they do so, they do it in a emotional way. They try to appeal to the feelings and emotions of the readers. Like during the Jokela Shooting they made huge headlines how the "principal tried to save the lives of the pupils" and was then shot and killed. We got articles about what the principal was like, what kind of family she had etc. etc. None of that was relevant to the actual news at all. Of course, the actual articles about the incident were filled with generalizations, errors, speculation and just plain crap. Stuff like "Why did the shooter do this? We might never know", despite the fact that he left behind a manifesto where he explained his twisted rationale. Tabloids said that "Should we blame computer games for this? Did he train using computer games?", when the shooter specifically said that his actions should not be blamed on games, movies or anything like that, and how everyone with a working brain will see that killing a person with a handgun is VERY different when compared to "killing" a bunch of pixels with a click of a mouse. But now, logic and facts never entered the equation when the tabloids smelled money.
It's time to draw a line in the sand. No more stupidity. We should expect more from the media.
Those caps and exclamation points are there to obviously make the news seems important. It's so important that they need to shout it at me. Well, excuse me, but what makes that particular piece of news so important? Why should I or anyone else care when some airheaded bimbo who is famous for being famous (really, has she ever really DONE anything notable?) is visiting Helsinki? And the sad thing is that there's about zillion idiots out there who do find that news really interesting and important...
Sure, the tabloids sometimes report on genuine news. But when they do so, they do it in a emotional way. They try to appeal to the feelings and emotions of the readers. Like during the Jokela Shooting they made huge headlines how the "principal tried to save the lives of the pupils" and was then shot and killed. We got articles about what the principal was like, what kind of family she had etc. etc. None of that was relevant to the actual news at all. Of course, the actual articles about the incident were filled with generalizations, errors, speculation and just plain crap. Stuff like "Why did the shooter do this? We might never know", despite the fact that he left behind a manifesto where he explained his twisted rationale. Tabloids said that "Should we blame computer games for this? Did he train using computer games?", when the shooter specifically said that his actions should not be blamed on games, movies or anything like that, and how everyone with a working brain will see that killing a person with a handgun is VERY different when compared to "killing" a bunch of pixels with a click of a mouse. But now, logic and facts never entered the equation when the tabloids smelled money.
It's time to draw a line in the sand. No more stupidity. We should expect more from the media.
China, meet Finland, Finland, this is China
Finland is part of the exclusive club that is being chaired by China. That club is called "Countries that censor the Internet".
The thing I have been afraid of and have been warning of happened. A moral panic caused a piece of legislation to be rushed through the parliament and made in to a law. That law is is called "Law of preventive measures to stop the spread of child pornography". In a nutshell, the law gives the authorities the right to create blacklists of websites that are to be censored. Theory is that only foreign websites containing child-pornography will end up on the list. The list is limited to just foreign websites, because if the website was in Finland, it would naturally be shut down by authorities, since pedophilia is illegal in Finland.
Well, that's the theory. In reality large part of the censored websites do not contain child-pornography. Many contain normal gay-porn. Many contain 100% straight porn. Many of those website reside in EU or USA (where pedophilia is also illegal). If those websites have illegal material, why haven't those countries shut them down? It's either because
a) they do NOT contain illegal material
b) They do contain illegal material, but Finnish authorities who discovered it haven't notified their colleagues in those countries
In addition, many of the websites in the blacklist are not related to porn at all! Yet for some reason, they are still censored.
And, like I said, the blacklist should only cover foreign websites. But now the authorities have added a Finnish website which critiques the law and the blacklist in to the blacklist as well! Am I the only one who is starting to get a bit worried about this?
Then there's the fact that Finnish Constitution bans censorship. So this law is unconstitutional as well. So that's three ways this law is flawed so far:
1. The law itself is unconstitutional.
2. The law is supposed to only deal with child-pornography. But the blacklist contains lots of websites that have nothing to do with child-pornography!
3. The law is supposed to only deal with foreign websites. But now they are using that law to muzzle a dissenting voice inside Finland.
The moment I heard of this law, I was certain that once the groundwork is done, some people will insist on using it for other purposes as well. And sure enough: record-labels and the like have told that they would like to see the law extended so that it covers websites that distribute material that infringes on their copyright! What next? Censoring websites that critique the government?
The whole law looks and feels evil. The authorities compile the blacklist (which is officially secret) of banned websites, and internet service providers can then use that list to block access to those websites. And the lawmakers did say that "using that blacklist is voluntary".... And then they continued by saying "but if service providers do not voluntarily use the blacklist, we will make it mandatory".
I'm deeply ashamed and PISSED OFF!
The thing I have been afraid of and have been warning of happened. A moral panic caused a piece of legislation to be rushed through the parliament and made in to a law. That law is is called "Law of preventive measures to stop the spread of child pornography". In a nutshell, the law gives the authorities the right to create blacklists of websites that are to be censored. Theory is that only foreign websites containing child-pornography will end up on the list. The list is limited to just foreign websites, because if the website was in Finland, it would naturally be shut down by authorities, since pedophilia is illegal in Finland.
Well, that's the theory. In reality large part of the censored websites do not contain child-pornography. Many contain normal gay-porn. Many contain 100% straight porn. Many of those website reside in EU or USA (where pedophilia is also illegal). If those websites have illegal material, why haven't those countries shut them down? It's either because
a) they do NOT contain illegal material
b) They do contain illegal material, but Finnish authorities who discovered it haven't notified their colleagues in those countries
In addition, many of the websites in the blacklist are not related to porn at all! Yet for some reason, they are still censored.
And, like I said, the blacklist should only cover foreign websites. But now the authorities have added a Finnish website which critiques the law and the blacklist in to the blacklist as well! Am I the only one who is starting to get a bit worried about this?
Then there's the fact that Finnish Constitution bans censorship. So this law is unconstitutional as well. So that's three ways this law is flawed so far:
1. The law itself is unconstitutional.
2. The law is supposed to only deal with child-pornography. But the blacklist contains lots of websites that have nothing to do with child-pornography!
3. The law is supposed to only deal with foreign websites. But now they are using that law to muzzle a dissenting voice inside Finland.
The moment I heard of this law, I was certain that once the groundwork is done, some people will insist on using it for other purposes as well. And sure enough: record-labels and the like have told that they would like to see the law extended so that it covers websites that distribute material that infringes on their copyright! What next? Censoring websites that critique the government?
The whole law looks and feels evil. The authorities compile the blacklist (which is officially secret) of banned websites, and internet service providers can then use that list to block access to those websites. And the lawmakers did say that "using that blacklist is voluntary".... And then they continued by saying "but if service providers do not voluntarily use the blacklist, we will make it mandatory".
I'm deeply ashamed and PISSED OFF!