Wednesday, April 20, 2005

Look at the difference between the way these two Finnish news outfits report on the same bit of news:

The anti-American Helsingin Sanomat reports that Prime Minister Vanhanen used a conference in Brussels to chide the EU for a lack of cooperation, while the more staid SST, Finland’s News Service, reports that Vanhanen also called for more European cooperation with the US, a fact totally omitted by Helsingin Sanomat.

Quite frankly, I would oppose Vanhanen’s call since, as an American, I oppose any cooperation with the freeloading welfare states of Europe, and would support their destruction. But it is ironic that welfare statists would work against that entity (the US) that is their main financial support.

Given such obtuse thinking, the prospect for bringing about their destruction is not as far-fetched as one might think.

7 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

The bias of Helsingin Sanomat has been so blatant and obvious (at least since the sixties and seventies) that I have come to the only logical conclusion: They must despise their readers deeply.

Antti

12:51 AM  
Anonymous Owen said...

Hi,

Consider me a curious reader but I would be glad if you would clarify one of your statements, finnpundit, so that I can understand better where you are coming from.

In this post you included a phrase describing yourself "as an American". In a post about Mark Steyn on Tuesday, February 22, 2005 you described yourself as "an ex-European". In a comment today on "Finland For Thought" you said, "Now because I do not look Finnish, am I also a suspect?", implying (to me at least) that you are finnish - and somewhere else (that I haven't managed to find in the five minutes I have been looking) I think I remember that you claimed that you were a native finnish speaker.

Are you a Finn who changed their nationality to American and then moved back to Finland, or am I misunderstanding?

8:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Whatever. He seems all the more like some crackpot. A true nutcase. Expressing his wishes for destruction of Finland and Europe. And he, for all, had the nerve to call me a "bigot". Perhaps the criticism, facts and estimates that I presented were not that far from future to be fulfilled and they are starting to worry him, big time..

But puntti, you have always your wonderful America, where don't have to see our arduous reality. It must be a real pain to be here, dontcha think?

3:37 PM  
Blogger Finnpundit said...

Owen, you've confused some statements that the other poster, finndistan (or something like that) said with what I've said.

But in either case, why would it matter where I'm from? In a globalized world, all of that becomes irrelevant, in the end.

Anonymous, you're willfully twisting my words, again. I've never called for the destruction of any nation, just welfare states. And the reason for that should be quite obvious - well, at least to anyone outside of a welfare state.

Welfare states are inherently exploitative. They can only support themselves if they're economically tied to a group of people on the outside that do not have welfare state protections.

And considering how much harm welfare states cause in the world, it should be obvious that such states should be eliminated.

6:39 PM  
Anonymous TA said...

Can you do another entry on why welfare states are inherently exploitative to people outside of those systems? I'm not (that) thick but I've either forgotten your logic or never understood it in first place. You seem to be suggesting that "Europe" (whatever that means) is exploiting the US - How? I could understand (although would disagree that wealth transfer within a national economy are exploitative, but don't get your thesis.

BTW anonymous has a point, although probably not the one he thought. If you are promoting the the end of the welfare state within a state where that system is supported by the majority of the electorate (in most W. European states that would be the "vast majority"), then you are supporting what we now fashionably call "regime change". That's could be construed as being just a wee bit aggressive.

And I final thought - don't the majority of Americans according to serious opinion polls support a universal healthcare system?

2:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Illegal (and significiant number of legal) immigrants are exploiting the American national labour. Outsourcing is rejecting the American national labour. And general lack of trade union influence is harming the Americal national labour. All of that exploitation is, however, benefitting the big business, the quarterly capitalism, their greediness.

The European markets and nations are not that far, but instead, not trying to please the global capitilism with no national faces (remember, this pundit has no home, it's irrelevant to him, got a clue?), they try to act to protect their own citizens. Every responsible nation and it's government should do so (USA doesn't enough). This pundit just don't like that Europe has not given so much in to this greedy exploitive capitalism but tries, with varying success, to equalise the conditions within the state. Pundit tries to twist that fact in his rants.

I think the situation in Europe is what the people want, or they would have elected otherwise. But Pundit doesn't like that the ordinary people have a decisive say on the matters of their own countries. He formerly expressed his will to change them on his (read: global corporative) way. By some not-so-democratic ways, it looks.

2:00 PM  
Blogger Finnpundit said...

TA: As you've asked for clarification, I've posted some thoughts on how welfare states are exploitative. Mind you, I'm posting on the run (I've got lots of work to do), so I'll have to elucidate on a step-by-step basis.

Regime change, yes, that is a good word for what I advocate, and if it has to be aggressive, so be it. The welfare states have to be confronted, and hopefully eliminated.

As to support for national health care in the US, the fact is that opinion polls might reflect public sentiment at a certain moment, but when real debate takes place (as in the most recent serious attempt of the Clintons', back in the early nineties), and the public learns how much it's actually going to cost in taxes, then the electorate winds up soundly rejecting it. This has happened time and time again, in the US.

3:07 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home