I find it quite odd that anything state funded is ‘neo-liberal’. Unless of course he just means ‘conservative’.

Phil’s right and Tuomioja’s wrong. Nowadays I haven’t been agreeing with Phil too much but yes, this time I do. Sitra should do what they best want to do with that money and try to find innovative solutions, no matter if they’re social democratically correct or not.

It was Tuomioja’s ex-girlfriend from the 70s, Tarja Halonen, who blocked Esko Aho’s entry to the Bank of Finland, by the way, by refusing to nominate him to that position shortly after Aho lost the presidential election to Her Social Democratic Highness.

I’ve heard Tuomioja use the word “neo=liberal” quite liberally in the past. It’s kinda like how too many Americans call everything they don’t like “communistic”

On number 3: Bit like the same you call everything state funded essentially to be a ‘failed welfare state crap’.

Looking at your introduction section, I noticed you have been in Finland for three years. I have lived in another country for three years as well (and shorter perioids in few others, including Japan), yet I don’t have the arrogance to think I am somehow qualified to suggest them how they should run their country.

yet I don’t have the arrogance to think I am somehow qualified to suggest them how they should run their country.

But Finns do that all the time, vis-a-vis the US.

Of course any foreigner, resident or not, should be able to suggest how we should run our country, and we, too, have the right to think that the US shouldn’t be run as it is.

This all as long as any arguments are based on facts, not prejudices and stereotypes. IMHO Phil’s arguments are sometimes more based on the former, sometimes the latter but don’t worry, when he’s wrong we try to lead him to the right path . (Yes and he knows Finland better than people like me the USA – I’ve never even been there.)

Phil is like a little kid screaming:
“looky the Emperors butt nekkid”
and we’re trying to convince Phil the Emperor is wearing a thong

Zyzkowitc (whatever) had a great tactic. Everytime someone says him the word “porvari”, he says “stalinisti”

Number 8: hahhaha that reminded me of an incident Ben Zyskowicz had with some supposedly leftist guys on Mayday a couple of years ago. Zyskowicz was celebrating with his friends in Kaivopuisto, wearing his student cap (ylioppilaslakki), when the leftis guys started shouting to him and one of them came and stole Ben’s cap and ran away. Ben just responded to this saying: “Sorry, dudes, communism died over ten years ago!”

“…one of them came and stole Ben’s cap…”

Ah..I Think that was Reko Ravela…He was an anarchist at time, so Ben picked up wrong -ism.

On #7 I think the charm of this blog is that after you get over the initial rage raised by the blasphemy on sacred pillars of Finnishness, such as everyman’s right, conscription, non-bias of YLE 20:30 news (especially during Arvi Lind’s time) etc., you enter a state of cool, detached meditation, where everything is clear and you can give a lecture, why everything is as it is in Finland, let the reason be rational or irrational.

If it weren’t for Phil and evil little Finnpundit I would never know what that dangerous revolutionary Vladimir Ilyich Tuomioja is up to. One of these days he will cut our throats and proclaim the dictatorship of the proletariat! It’s good to have a rich fantasy life especially when banished to faraway sub-Arctic countries…

Well, socialistic press and mass media don’t critisize Halonen, Tuomioja or Lipponen, so if you want to see opposite of praising views about our all mighty social democrats, you have to know where to look. And I don’t mean any loonie nationalistic wierdous.

I think red rebel radicals, “Doomsday” with his ex-girlfriend have made worst job possible in foreign policy, for example in practise alienating diplomatic relations with the USA.

To be honest, I don’t thing George W. has would have registered us either way. What I do found more relevant is that Tuomioja and Halonen are in many ways in a false position – if they would be as radical as the red baiters claim. I mean the consensus hasn’t shifted anywhere: we are busily accommodating ourselves to the global economy just as always, Halonen and Tuomioja are presiding over this policy. So, it is a bit comical to see this boundless outrage and hysterics over them. Well, as said, it’s good have a healthy inner life…

I’ve heard Tuomioja use the word “neo=liberal” quite liberally in the past. It’s kinda like how too many Americans call everything they don’t like “communistic”

No, “they” call it socialist – the way you do in the last sentence: “So parliament should only fund pro-socialist ideological groups?” But where did that “too many” come from? Heck, does that mean that you’ve realized how strage it is to use such a label?

Anyway, Tuomioja says in essence that it would be nice if there was a pro-welfare state think-tank in Finland in addition to this “neo-liberal” one (lead by a före detta Centre chairman, whose party is the most pro-subsidies in Finland, by the way, as long as the subsidies go to farmers or the owners of land and forest in general or someone in living outside the bigger sities or …).

“So parliament should only fund pro-socialist ideological groups?”

The parliament should not fund any ideological groups.

Tuomioja says in essence that it would be nice if there was a pro-welfare state think-tank in Finland in addition to this “neo-liberal” one

Most of Finnish academia is already a pro-welfare state think-tank.

In any case, such an organization would most likely not attract much private funding (as left-wing think tanks do in the US). So Tuomioja essentially means that the funding would yet again have to come from the state.

we are busily accommodating ourselves to the global economy just as always, Halonen and Tuomioja are presiding over this policy.

Actually, Halonen and Tuomioja are not presiding over this “policy”; in fact, in all their statements, they are decidedly against globalisation. The only problem for them is that they can’t seem to do anything about it, except rail against it by citing ill-defined moral issues. That’s hardly “presiding” over a policy.