...against stupidity goes on. And it does not look good. No matter how many facts and studies you bring to the table, some people refuse to believe.
*sigh*
Showing posts with label stupidity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label stupidity. Show all posts
Green is the color of money
The Greens in the Helsinki metropolitan area released their proposal for congestion-charges for the city. I wont comment on the actual idea of congestion-charges, but I DO want to comment on their proposal, which is downright stupid.
The charge works as you might expect: you need to pay if you drive to the metro-area. You can either pay per kilometer, or you can buy a monthly "pass". If you buy that monthly pass, you also get a 30-day ticket for the mass-transport in the metro-area. Which is a good idea.
Everything else about their suggestion sucks though.
Their idea is to basically charge money from commuters who drive to the metro-area (Metro-area in this case is the cities of Espoo, Vantaa and Helsinki) from the surrounding counties. Also, if you drive inside the metropolitan area and cross a city-limit (like, driving from Helsinki to Espoo) you need to pay.
Well, what's the problem here? Simple: if you just drive inside one city (like, inside Helsinki), you do not need to pay one dime extra.
Why is that a problem? Well, it's the idea behind all this. Fact is that further away from the metro-area you are, the less viable alternative mass-transit is. And now those who live outside the metro-area would be punished because they commute to the metro-area. And while they are punished, the people inside metro-area (to whom mass-transit IS a viable alternative) are not encouraged to use mass-transit. People who live in Helsinki can keep on driving inside Helsinki, without having to pay one cent extra. Even if they had a tram/bus/metro 50 meters from their home. People outside metro-area who have no other alternative but to use their car, are expected to pay more.
I commute by train, since my workplace is right in the downtown of Helsinki. The Mrs.'s workplace is not in the downtown, so she carpools with her father. The reason for that is that there is not one mass-transit connection between our home and the place she works. Not one.
The Greens' proposal would make it quite a bit more expensive for her (and her father) to go to work. And the mass-transit-ticket they would get in return would not even be useful for her, since it's not valid here. We would have to live closer to Helsinki to be able to use it.
Her only "viable" alternative is to get a 30-days train-ticket (costs 106 euros/month) and in addition, a 30-day bus-ticket from Helsinki to Espoo (where she works, costs 114e/month). It would cost her 220e/month just to go to work. Daily commute would be 60-90 minutes in one direction. So she would spend 2-3 hours a day commuting, and she would pay 220e for the pleasure.
I have mailed two Green politicians about this (one of them my representative in the parliament), but I have received no reply.
why did Greens suggest something like this? Why aren't they suggesting new fares for people who live in Helsinki (or Espoo, or Vantaa), but still use their own car? I guess the reason is simple: This was one of their themes in the communal-elections. And it's not politically smart to tell the voters "if you vote us, we will make you pay more". No, what they said was basically "If you vote us, we will make these other people pay more". People outside the metro-area would be asked to pay more, but those people do not vote in the metro-area communal elections.
The charge works as you might expect: you need to pay if you drive to the metro-area. You can either pay per kilometer, or you can buy a monthly "pass". If you buy that monthly pass, you also get a 30-day ticket for the mass-transport in the metro-area. Which is a good idea.
Everything else about their suggestion sucks though.
Their idea is to basically charge money from commuters who drive to the metro-area (Metro-area in this case is the cities of Espoo, Vantaa and Helsinki) from the surrounding counties. Also, if you drive inside the metropolitan area and cross a city-limit (like, driving from Helsinki to Espoo) you need to pay.
Well, what's the problem here? Simple: if you just drive inside one city (like, inside Helsinki), you do not need to pay one dime extra.
Why is that a problem? Well, it's the idea behind all this. Fact is that further away from the metro-area you are, the less viable alternative mass-transit is. And now those who live outside the metro-area would be punished because they commute to the metro-area. And while they are punished, the people inside metro-area (to whom mass-transit IS a viable alternative) are not encouraged to use mass-transit. People who live in Helsinki can keep on driving inside Helsinki, without having to pay one cent extra. Even if they had a tram/bus/metro 50 meters from their home. People outside metro-area who have no other alternative but to use their car, are expected to pay more.
I commute by train, since my workplace is right in the downtown of Helsinki. The Mrs.'s workplace is not in the downtown, so she carpools with her father. The reason for that is that there is not one mass-transit connection between our home and the place she works. Not one.
The Greens' proposal would make it quite a bit more expensive for her (and her father) to go to work. And the mass-transit-ticket they would get in return would not even be useful for her, since it's not valid here. We would have to live closer to Helsinki to be able to use it.
Her only "viable" alternative is to get a 30-days train-ticket (costs 106 euros/month) and in addition, a 30-day bus-ticket from Helsinki to Espoo (where she works, costs 114e/month). It would cost her 220e/month just to go to work. Daily commute would be 60-90 minutes in one direction. So she would spend 2-3 hours a day commuting, and she would pay 220e for the pleasure.
I have mailed two Green politicians about this (one of them my representative in the parliament), but I have received no reply.
why did Greens suggest something like this? Why aren't they suggesting new fares for people who live in Helsinki (or Espoo, or Vantaa), but still use their own car? I guess the reason is simple: This was one of their themes in the communal-elections. And it's not politically smart to tell the voters "if you vote us, we will make you pay more". No, what they said was basically "If you vote us, we will make these other people pay more". People outside the metro-area would be asked to pay more, but those people do not vote in the metro-area communal elections.
Religious baggage
I mentioned in my previous post that I couldn't vote for Christian Democrats, since that would bring with it all kinds or religious stuff I have zero interest in supporting. And just to be sure, the leader of Christian Democrats has opened her mouth and reminded me why I should not and could not vote for them. Ever.
"Olen pääministerin kanssa samaa mieltä siitä, että koulusurmissa kohdataan uusi pelottava ilmiö - ihmisviha. Jokelan ja Kauhajoen surmaajat ilmoittautuivat myös ateistikseiksi. Tämä ilmiö on käänteinen kristinuskon lähimmäisenrakkaudelle"
Translated:
"I agree with prime minister in that we are now facing a new and terrifying phenomena in our schools: misanthropy. Killers in Jokela and Kauhajoki said that they are atheists. This phenomena is totally opposite to the Christian empathy",
So, atheists are misantrophes and killers just waiting to snap? Mrs. Räsänen: Fuck you. And I say that with all due respect, since no respect is intended.
Who was it who said "Judge not, or you will be judged"? It would be nice for a change to see Christians actually listening what their savior actually said....
She also said: "Tarvitsemme yhteisöllisyyden vahvistamista, mutta tarvitsemme myös kansallista heräämistä siihen ihmisrakkauden sanomaan, jota kristillinen usko on synnyttänyt kautta vuosisatojen."
"We also need strengthened sense of community, but we also need national awakening to the message of empathy that Christian faith has created through the centuries".
Oh really? There are few people in the world who would have pretty strong opinions about that "Christian empathy". How about homosexuals, women, "unbelievers", "witches", indians and blacks?
"Olen pääministerin kanssa samaa mieltä siitä, että koulusurmissa kohdataan uusi pelottava ilmiö - ihmisviha. Jokelan ja Kauhajoen surmaajat ilmoittautuivat myös ateistikseiksi. Tämä ilmiö on käänteinen kristinuskon lähimmäisenrakkaudelle"
Translated:
"I agree with prime minister in that we are now facing a new and terrifying phenomena in our schools: misanthropy. Killers in Jokela and Kauhajoki said that they are atheists. This phenomena is totally opposite to the Christian empathy",
So, atheists are misantrophes and killers just waiting to snap? Mrs. Räsänen: Fuck you. And I say that with all due respect, since no respect is intended.
Who was it who said "Judge not, or you will be judged"? It would be nice for a change to see Christians actually listening what their savior actually said....
She also said: "Tarvitsemme yhteisöllisyyden vahvistamista, mutta tarvitsemme myös kansallista heräämistä siihen ihmisrakkauden sanomaan, jota kristillinen usko on synnyttänyt kautta vuosisatojen."
"We also need strengthened sense of community, but we also need national awakening to the message of empathy that Christian faith has created through the centuries".
Oh really? There are few people in the world who would have pretty strong opinions about that "Christian empathy". How about homosexuals, women, "unbelievers", "witches", indians and blacks?
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!
Stupidity
I don't know about you, but I'm sick and tired of stupidity. It seems that it surrounds us, no matter where we go. Here are few notable things I have encountered recently:
Smoking
A while ago Finland banned smoking in restaurants and bars (hooray!). Of course the decision was preceded by the typical "if you don't like smoking, stay at home!" and/or "this is a violation of smokers rights!". Now the talk has moved on to smoking in balconies. Should it be bannable or not? And, of course, the discussion follows familiar paths: "If you don't like the smoke, you can always close your windows!" or "this is a violation of smokers rights!". Well, boo-frigging-hoo! Yes, this might be a question of "rights". But what rights are we talking about here? Whose rights are more important: smokers right to actively poison their surroundings, or non-smokers right to breathe air that is NOT filled with carcinogens?
Hell, by that logic, we could complain because the law denies people the right to punch strangers in the street in the face. After all, if they don't like to get punched, they can always stay at home, right? Why is it perfectly OK to pollute air with tobacco-smoke, whereas it's strictly verboten to punch people? Why is anti-smoking-laws "trampling on the rights of smokers", whereas anti-violence-laws are NOT trampling on the rights of violent people?
One of the politicians in Finland (who I normally dislike) floated an idea that I actually like: Finland could ban sales of tobacco in around 2030 or so. Smoking itself would still be legal, it would just be illegal to sell the stuff. I think that's an interesting idea, but why wait so long? Ban sales in 2015, along with total ban on smoking in public places. If someone still wants to smoke, they would have to do it somewhere where it absolutely would not bother anyone else. Besides, if you want to smoke, you can always stay at home, right?
Religious stupidity
So far, Finland has been quite spared from the religious stupidity that seems to plague large parts of the world (I'm looking at you, USA!). But we still have our share of crackpots.
One of the fine elected members of city council of Espoo (member of Christian Democrats as it happens) somehow managed to make it so that schools can no longer take the pupils on a field-trip to one particular museum, without parents explicit permission. Why? Well, that museum has a collection of artifacts that had been used in various pagan-rituals in South America (among other places), and the council-member is concerned that those items have "magical powers" that could harm the children. What the f*ck?
If I were a resident of Espoo, I would be up in arms about this. I would do everything in my power to have this person kicked out of the council, due to the fact that she seems to be insane. Who the hell votes for these idiots?
Creationists
Again, this seems to be something that we have been mostly spared so far. But still: we have our share of idiots. This isn't a major issue or anything, but it's very annoying because it demonstrates lack of thinking. Few days ago I ran in to the age-old argument by creationists: "Since theory of evolution doesn't explain everything, and evolutionists disagree with each other over some details in the theory, it means that evolution is a lie and creationism should be teached in schools alongside evolution!". No, you damn idiots, it does NOT mean that! Sheesh! Hell, do creationists agree on everything, and do they know (or claim to know) everything? If they don't, then doesn't that mean that creationism is a lie as well (well, it is, but for other reasons)?
And yes, creation-theory IS teached in Finnish schools. But it's teached in classes that handle religions, myths and philosophy. Evolution is teached in biology-classes, and that's the way it should be. And anyone who tries to cram creationism in to science-classes will immediately make it to my "list".
Smoking
A while ago Finland banned smoking in restaurants and bars (hooray!). Of course the decision was preceded by the typical "if you don't like smoking, stay at home!" and/or "this is a violation of smokers rights!". Now the talk has moved on to smoking in balconies. Should it be bannable or not? And, of course, the discussion follows familiar paths: "If you don't like the smoke, you can always close your windows!" or "this is a violation of smokers rights!". Well, boo-frigging-hoo! Yes, this might be a question of "rights". But what rights are we talking about here? Whose rights are more important: smokers right to actively poison their surroundings, or non-smokers right to breathe air that is NOT filled with carcinogens?
Hell, by that logic, we could complain because the law denies people the right to punch strangers in the street in the face. After all, if they don't like to get punched, they can always stay at home, right? Why is it perfectly OK to pollute air with tobacco-smoke, whereas it's strictly verboten to punch people? Why is anti-smoking-laws "trampling on the rights of smokers", whereas anti-violence-laws are NOT trampling on the rights of violent people?
One of the politicians in Finland (who I normally dislike) floated an idea that I actually like: Finland could ban sales of tobacco in around 2030 or so. Smoking itself would still be legal, it would just be illegal to sell the stuff. I think that's an interesting idea, but why wait so long? Ban sales in 2015, along with total ban on smoking in public places. If someone still wants to smoke, they would have to do it somewhere where it absolutely would not bother anyone else. Besides, if you want to smoke, you can always stay at home, right?
Religious stupidity
So far, Finland has been quite spared from the religious stupidity that seems to plague large parts of the world (I'm looking at you, USA!). But we still have our share of crackpots.
One of the fine elected members of city council of Espoo (member of Christian Democrats as it happens) somehow managed to make it so that schools can no longer take the pupils on a field-trip to one particular museum, without parents explicit permission. Why? Well, that museum has a collection of artifacts that had been used in various pagan-rituals in South America (among other places), and the council-member is concerned that those items have "magical powers" that could harm the children. What the f*ck?
If I were a resident of Espoo, I would be up in arms about this. I would do everything in my power to have this person kicked out of the council, due to the fact that she seems to be insane. Who the hell votes for these idiots?
Creationists
Again, this seems to be something that we have been mostly spared so far. But still: we have our share of idiots. This isn't a major issue or anything, but it's very annoying because it demonstrates lack of thinking. Few days ago I ran in to the age-old argument by creationists: "Since theory of evolution doesn't explain everything, and evolutionists disagree with each other over some details in the theory, it means that evolution is a lie and creationism should be teached in schools alongside evolution!". No, you damn idiots, it does NOT mean that! Sheesh! Hell, do creationists agree on everything, and do they know (or claim to know) everything? If they don't, then doesn't that mean that creationism is a lie as well (well, it is, but for other reasons)?
And yes, creation-theory IS teached in Finnish schools. But it's teached in classes that handle religions, myths and philosophy. Evolution is teached in biology-classes, and that's the way it should be. And anyone who tries to cram creationism in to science-classes will immediately make it to my "list".