If anything is childish its that gawdy, kitchy Academy Awards show. George C Scott and Marlon Brando had it right.

Aurismäki movies suck anyway

Phil: the issue of Academy Awards and US foreign policy is not a new one. There are many people in Hollywood who don’t like Bush and it’s often discussed what would happen if someone like Michael Moore used the Academy Awards ceremony to hold an anti-Bush speech. I bet someone has already held such a rant there.

Would you Phil really prefer Kaurismäki went there and then told Bush to shove it if he won the prize? That’s what he’d most likely do if he’d end up there.

Now he doesn’t want to do that. He doesn’t want to create a scandal. He doesn’t want the attention, he doesn’t want the money, he doesn’t want to be invited to Hollywood parties, he wants the anonymity rather than the superstar status.

Sure, he might even be afraid of losing if he would be nominated.

It’s not just about Bush. He has once said the last good Hollywood movie was made in 1964. Since he thinks every Oscar goes these days to a movie that is crap, himself getting an Oscar would be proof that his movie is crap according to his own definition. Now he surely wouldn’t want that.

Now I’d like him to be a candidate and be less political about the Oscars, especially as the pro-Bush people are anti- not pro-Hollywood, exactly like Kaurismäki himself. I bet George Bush also prefers 1950s movies to today’s Hollywood extravaganzas.

But movie directors have a right to be eccentric. He makes his movies and he has the right to decide what he makes out of them. Even if he hates limelights, he’s still done his share of promoting movies and indeed allowed his previous movie to be a candidate for an Academy Award, even if he declined to travel to Hollywood for political reasons. I think the movies themselves are important, not what political points the auteur behind them wants to make. I like both Kaurismäki and Hollywood movies and find it always a bit comical when someone says, all Kaurismäki movies are crap (perhaps not even having seen many of those) or all Hollywood movies are crap (while only watching non-Hollywood ones).

Winning an Oscar would mean Kaurismäki would have less privacy, and I’m sure he would really rather take the privacy than the money. That’s something I can respect, even if I totally disagree with him that Academy Awards have anything to do with Bush.

“it’s often discussed what would happen if someone like Michael Moore used the Academy Awards ceremony to hold an anti-Bush speech. I bet someone has already held such a rant there.”
– Someone has. His name IS MICHAEL MOORE

“Would you Phil really prefer Kaurismäki went there and then told Bush to shove it if he won the prize? That’s what he’d most likely do if he’d end up there.”
– I would love to see that! Even better if he went up there and ranted in Finnish.

Would you Phil really prefer Kaurismäki went there and then told Bush to shove it if he won the prize? That’s what he’d most likely do if he’d end up there.

Like Michael Moore did a while back? Yeah!! That would be great. But they’d probably forget to televise his speech though, heh.

He has once said the last good Hollywood movie was made in 1964.

He must not watch very many movies.

Now he doesn’t want to do that. He doesn’t want to create a scandal. He doesn’t want the attention, he doesn’t want the money, he doesn’t want to be invited to Hollywood parties, he wants the anonymity rather than the superstar status.

Probably cause the Finnish state funds all his movies, so he doesn’t have to worry about $$$.

Even better if he went up there and ranted in Finnish.

“Hey heyy…why is the overhead music playing so early and why are those two beautiful ladies coming to escort me off the stage, nobody can hear my rant!”

Fred, consider the situation of the obscure Finnish director entering the scene and saying “I don’t want your stinking statue, I give it to George Bush and he can stick it where he wants to.” He’d make Finland infamous in an instant.

If there’s any risk he’d do anything of the like or a Michael Moore imitation (Fred, of course it was Michael Moore himself, I had forgotten about it), I’m actually relieved he’s not on his way to Hollywood.

Still, I’m sure many Conservative Republicans loved his previous move that was an Academy Award nominee. I truly think there is something that many Republicans can recognize in Kaurismäki’s nostalgia for the good old days in the past.

Kaurismäki is no anti-American fanatic. He really loves those pre-1964 Hollywood movies and has learned a whole lot about movies watching them. That’s exactly the kind of stuff many culture war Republicans love. They too think Hollywood lost it at one point or another. Nobody loved those old Hollywood movies as much as Ronald Reagan. That’s a taste he shared with Aki Kaurismäki.

Or maybe he just has ideals and beliefs that he likes to stick with (like you) and he feels that the Academy Awards are not a suitable forum for his art. It’s his film, he does whatever the heck he wants with it and there’s nothing you can do about that.

And yes, most of the stuff that comes from Hollywood (and wins Oscars) these days is pure crap. The occasional gems are mostly exceptions to the rule. And this is coming from a self-proclaimed pop-culture whore.

Although I wouldn’t be on the receiving end of any awards nominations, I have boycotted travel to the US until the Bush administration is removed and commend Aki for his actions. I’d rather deprive the administration and their heinous foreign and anti-enviro policies of the few measly dollars that they’d collect in taxes from my spending there and try advise as many people as I can to do likewise.

I think The Man Without A Past that was Academy Award-nominated is a very powerful and intriguing movie. It doesn’t appeal to everybody, but it appeals across the political spectrum. Choosing it as a nominee shows good taste from the Academy.

Kaurismäki lost to Caroline Link and her movie Nirgendwo in Afrika (Nowhere in Africa). That was a very good movie too.

It’s kind of an interesting scenario that the Great Finnish Film Director lost to woman the last time around he was nominated and now he doesn’t want to participate at all.

But certainly he was very uncomfortable about being nominated in 2002 and his issues were with Bush and with Hollywood. It’s a tangled web of political and artistic opinions.

Even if he hates Bush, I don’t see what that has to do with the Oscars. Nowadays, Hollywood has very little ties to the government. I mean, fair enough, if he doesn’t want his movie to enter, that’s his choice. But his childishnesss reminds me of some pissed off teenage girl starting her own I HATE BUSH page on MySpace. Cause that teenage girl has just as much affect on the Bush administration as Aki does.

And yes, most of the stuff that comes from Hollywood (and wins Oscars) these days is pure crap.

Like the award for best foreign film

And yes, most of the stuff that comes from Hollywood (and wins Oscars) these days is pure crap.

Are you sure about that? Yes, Hollywood produces alot of crap. But the stuff that wins Oscars is pretty damn good. Brokeback Mountain, Crash, Good Night and Good Luck, Enron: Smartest GUys in the room etc…

The Oscars seperates the shit from the good stuff.

Isn’t it so that a few seconds “screening delay” (=cencorship) was introduced to the Oscars after some famous people took the opportunity to vent out their anti-Bush views on the formerly live show?

Here’s the text of that Michael Moore speech that might be now the last anti-Bush rant at the Oscars:

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/Michael_MooreAcceptanceSpeech.htm

I agree with Phil, there are a whole lot of crap films made in Hollywood, but the Academy Award winners (though sometimes some of the losing nominees seem to be better than the winners) are usually way above average.

Best foreign film is usually very good.

Oops, link to Michael Moore speech should have been:

http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/resources_files/MichaelMooreAcceptanceSpeech.htm

If Aki was to pick up the prize, I think he wouldn’t make any political rants. He would show up a bit drunk and smoking a cigarette, take the Oscar and have exactly two words, perhaps thanking SHS (Suomen hönöseura), walk out, give the statue to the first bum on the street and head for the bar.

Although I wouldn’t be on the receiving end of any awards nominations, I have boycotted travel to the US until the Bush administration is removed and commend Aki for his actions. I’d rather deprive the administration and their heinous foreign and anti-enviro policies of the few measly dollars that they’d collect in taxes from my spending there and try advise as many people as I can to do likewise.

–Are there any other countries on your boycott list?? You’re hilarious

Like I said (although when has it actually mattered what I say, it’s what Phil *reads* that matters), there are some gems. Last year was a good year for Oscar, but it isn’t always so. Most of the winners are mediocre compromises. [i]Chicago[/i] and Renée Zellwegger anyone?

I think that I lost a big part of my faith in the Oscars when [i]Forrest Gump[/i] won Best Picture. Every single movie that was nominated with it was far superior both artistically and intellectually, but the sentimental feelgood candy ended up winning.

There is 1 Million dying right now in Darfur, and all we get is a baby temper tantrum on how this guys hates bush.

Where are your priorities? Not with the dying I see. Oh I forget, its the EU policy to let folks die, and not care.

#18

winter why don’t you just bomb the shit out of Darfur and Sudan? that would surely fix the problem. Look how the Iraqians are rejoicing for your effort to bring *democracy* to Iraq by bombing it massacering civilians and pushing the country into civil war

“bomb the shit out of Darfur and Sudan? ” Is that what the UN asked the USA to do? Well if it was, we turned it down.

This one is on your watch, what are you doing? Remember it only takes 100 days to kill 1 Million people.

Anything that would lower Finland’s public profile in the US is worthwhile, so Kaurismaki’s decision is certainly welcomed news.

“lower Finland’s public profile in the US is worthwhile”

Yes, lets hide our head, so no one knows we are here. But then if the USA does something, we will be the first to say something.

“This one is on your watch, what are you doing? Remember it only takes 100 days to kill 1 Million people.”

Who do you mean by “you” here? Finland? EU? At least the EU seems to have some consistency in not bombing countries, whereas the US claims to defend freedom, but only does it where there’s oil.

“Or maybe he just has ideals and beliefs that he likes to stick with (like you) and he feels that the Academy Awards are not a suitable forum for his art.”

Yes, like NOT paying your TV-license, based on principles. Although Kaurismäki doesn’t – afaik – break any law though.

Does it really matter? Does anyone in the US even care who’s nominated for or wins the foreign movie Oscar?

Who do you mean by “you” here? Finland? EU?

You are the leaders of the EU and thus the world. Just what are you going to do?

Are you outraged about the genocide in Darfur. Both the Khartoum government and its henchmen Arab janjawid militias are conducting a systematic, village-by-village destruction of civilian African blacks and non-Muslims.

Nothing since the Rwanda mass murdering highlights more the amoral UN’s impotence than the failure of that world body to act in the Sudan, even as the UN introduces more legislation to damn democratic Israel.

A brigade (3,000 or so) of Finnish or EU troops (they will not be USA troops) could easily shatter the poorly-led and poorly-trained bullies who are killing the innocent.

But will you do anything? That is the question of the year? Not some stupid Oscar for a do nothing movie producer. You are the current leader of the EU. Its all on your watch.

Why no USA troops?

I am convinced that the USA would be attacked (Press, verbally, in print, even mass demonstrations) the minute we put a soldier on the ground in Darfur by the very humanitarians, the UN, the EU, who are calling the USA to now act on Darfur.

We therefore will never intervene in this one. So its all yours. Have fun.

@28 You mean is ours as the EU’s or as Finland’s.

If the EU’s then I am sure that France would oppose whatever the UK says and Germany would worry about their unions, and Belgium worry about their beer production and Netherlands about their wooden shoes and the Spaniards about their siestas and bla bla bla.

If Finland, then we would talk about it endlessly and then blame everybody else and finally come to the conlcusion that we would need a tax increase to fix this and finally conlcude that this should be handled by the US anyway.

S

They said it well in yesterdays (100th) episode of Southpark: “I realized today that we can bomb other countries and still pretend that we don’t want to. That way the world will only hate Bush instead of the USA.”

“If the EU’s then I am sure that France would oppose whatever the UK says and Germany would worry about their unions, and Belgium worry about their beer production and Netherlands about their wooden shoes and the Spaniards about their siestas and bla bla bla.”

Exactly, that’s how our happy, dysfunctional European family works. I would like to correct the Finland part: If Brussels could pass a directive, that all countries beginning with the letter F, excluding France, should send 3000 soldiers to Darfur, all our public services would be cut back a one little bit more and the troops would be right there, after the Russians could give us a lift with their Antonovs.

Heck, we are already running out of veterans of war at the rate of about 1 division per year…

Hmmm, I propose Antti’s lemma: As the time approaches infinity, every thread in FFT approaches asymptotically the discussion about flag waving and kicking asses in faraway countries for all beginning subjects of the thread.

Anything that would lower Finland’s public profile in the US is worthwhile, so Kaurismaki’s decision is certainly welcomed news.

I cannot see how this is even a blip on the radar in the US. Who cares about the Best Foreign Language Picture award anyway? Most people don’t even go see the ones in the more popular categories.

Maybe not wanting to get awards is something Finnish. After all Kaurismäki’s asking not to be nominated for an Oscar came after only a few days after Ahtisaari said he wouldn’t want to be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize again. In both cases they had been nominated before, lived through the stress of “what if” and then they weren’t awarded.

Antti is right about how Kaurismäki behaves in award ceremonies. Still, the Oscars is a ceremony where Kaurismäki is never going to be seen, so anyone’s guess is equally good of what he would do if he would show up there. It’s clearly not just another award show for Kaurismäki, as he makes a big deal out of not going there, while attending some other shows.

“A brigade (3,000 or so) of Finnish or EU troops (they will not be USA troops) could easily shatter the poorly-led and poorly-trained bullies who are killing the innocent.”

Most EU countries opposed the Irak war. So it doesn’t seem logical to expect them to support intervention this time either. USA on the other hand is flip-flopping when there’s no oil.

“Why no USA troops?

I am convinced that the USA would be attacked (Press, verbally, in print, even mass demonstrations) the minute we put a soldier on the ground in Darfur by the very humanitarians, the UN, the EU, who are calling the USA to now act on Darfur.”

So Bush will not stop until he hunts down the terrorists. Except if someone says something mean and his feelings get hurt. Then he stops immediately.

[i]Chicago[/i] and Renée Zellwegger anyone?

You’ve proved me wrong Anzi! Chicago was terrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrbile.

Shrug, so what. He has every right to do it.

@34,
don’t misunderestimate Bush. He caught Osama, didn’t he?

Heeeeyyy … I’ve heard this story before. Didn’t Celine Dion once refuse a Grammy because she hates our so-called Land of the Hillbillies so much? Life goes on.

Kudos to Asumakihackysacky. (Can’t remember how to spell his name.) Really, I mean. He took / is taking a stand against the shrub. Gotta love him for that, right?

Okay, I’ll just shut up and get back to … wait a minute … what am I supposed to be doing?!?!?! Oh, yeah, I almost forgot … I’ll just get back to freaking out about what the little guy with the funny glasses is going to do with his newly-tested bombs, ignoring the civilian death toll in Iraq, and other (un)American things.

funkybrownchick: Is this Céline Dion refusing a grammy story a joke or can something like that have happened?

I thought Céline Dion loves America. She lives in Las Vegas and performs there continuously:

http://www.lasvegas-nv.com/celine-dion.htm

hero

“flip-flopping when there’s no oil.”

excuse me. But there is OIL there.

So lets summarize:

First it is Frances fault, then Germany, then those guys who wear wooden shoes????

Its your fault. This one is squarely on Finnish hands. Question is? Will you have red hands after 1 million are killed? Answer: Yes, this one is on your watch.

By the way there is Oil there, so just like the food-for-oil scam you all were in, you do get the reward.

“This one is squarely on Finnish hands.”

I feel so responsible it hurts my soul.

@Winter #28 “We therefore will never intervene in this one. So its all yours. Have fun. ” #40 “excuse me. But there is OIL there.”

Yes there may be oil and the USA may not intervene on the ground in Sudan as it is unwilling to confront China so directly. Nonetheless they are still working hard to gain control of this oil via pressure on the UN & EU. Meanwhile people of Sudan continue suffering.

*
Sudan is believed to hold Africa’s greatest unexploited oil resources, even greater than those of the Gulf of Guinea. US oil companies are barred from operating in Sudan and other Western companies are chased from the country by the Washington administration. The Canadian oil company Talisman Energy is even facing charges of “complicity in genocide and war crimes” in a US court due to its past engagements in Sudan. At present, Asian oil companies dominate the field in Sudan.

If an oil export embargo is approved, China and India would lose their influence over Sudan’s vast oil reserves and a Khartoum regime change would open up these resources to the West. The US is in favour of sanctions, China is against. *

*-* afrol news

“The US is in favour of sanctions,”

yep, they worked so well with Sadam and North Korea. Lets all sit back for more UN paperwork.

@44 Let’s not forget Cuba

I challenge you to go to any city in the States and ask man in the street; who won the last year’s Oscar for the foreign film? Snow balls chance in hell that you will find one that has the right answer. I figure that Kaursimaki’s chances are about the same than the before mentioned snowball’s.

Ah Cuba, home of Club Gitmo, the terrorist’s retirement resort for life. Gotta love the side you all support, they have beheadings, gay executions, stoning of women, and you all support them? over club Gitmo? How cute.

@44 “yep, they worked so well with Sadam and North Korea. Lets all sit back for more UN paperwork.”

hmmm, Iraq was suffering badly under US led UN sanctions, especially restrictions on medicines. Choosing to attack them hasn’t made life any better for Iraqis nor for the thousands of US families who have suffered death for this crusade.
It appears US policy is heading toward pushing PRNK into a corner that may well end up doing an awful lot of of harm.
Pull yer head in!

Hey Helsinkian,

No, I’m not kidding. Back in the 90s, Celine was catching on everywhere except for the US. Then (I think I remember) she gave an interview for an US media source … they said something about her not catching on here & not being nominated for a Grammy, and she said some snarky comment about not being an American anyway or not wanting the award or something like that. (She’s French Canadian.) Anyway, we all know the end to the story … she caught on, she was nominated and the rest is history.

I sooooo tried to find the source for all that stuff & the original interview online but I can’t find it. It was a long time ago. The details are a bit sketchy, but I vaguely remember it. Is anyone else on here old enough to remember this stuff?

Funky Brown Chick

PS: Phil … A radio show? Cool. Rock on with your bad self!

“The Oscars seperates the shit from the good stuff.”

There’s a good word for Oscars in Finnish, ‘rinkirunkkaus’. I can’t come up with a decent translation, but the point is that the Oscars really do not separate the shit from the good stuff. There’s a whole world of American movies, a whole world of Hollywood movies beyond those nominated for Oscars, and quality isn’t the thing separating them from Oscar-movies.

Also, check up your information about how the Finnish Film Foundation works and then say that Aki’s company (Sputnik Oy) doesn’t have to worry about their finances.

“There’s a good word for Oscars in Finnish, ‘rinkirunkkaus’. I can’t come up with a decent translation”

Circle jerk.

Kaurismäki is a hypocrite, he’s just trying to get some public attention

If my comment has been here before, the reason for that is because I’m fukking lazy

“US policy is heading toward pushing PRNK into a corner”

thats the same policy that China, S Korea, and Japan all Have?

But wait, what is Finlands policy? Waive French White Flag Of surrender?

Aki took a strong, public stand on something, and that is more than most of us can claim.

@ Winter. What is that ‘French flag of surrender’? Is it the same as the US ‘peace with honor’?

Wanker

#52:”Kaurismäki is a hypocrite, he’s just trying to get some public attention”

Undoubtedly his move is aimed at getting attention, but what is wrong with that, and how does it make him a hypocrite?

#54: “Waive French White Flag Of surrender?”

If you really insist on repeatedly boring us with that worn-out cliché, at least try to get your verbs right!

For what it’s worth, North Korea’s policy is a logical consequence of that of the US: if you’re gonna be in the “Axis of evil”, make sure that you really do have actual weapons of mass destruction.

So winter, better get that dusty old flag from your closet. You’re gonna need it.

“if you’re gonna be in the “Axis of evil””

you have to have killed millions of your own people.

But then again when are you Finns going to go visit North Korea for your holiday? Or any of the other “Axis of evil” countries?

What? You won’t vote with your feet and go there to show the USA how wrong we are? Darn, just when I thought you might actually do something for this world.

“just when I thought you might actually do something for this world.”

Even doing nothing is a helluva lot better than what Bush has been doing!

Even a State Department official admits that US policy in Iraq has been arrogant and stupid!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15362568/

you have to have killed millions of your own people.

Like China. Surely China is in the Axis of Evil? And when did Khomeini kill millions of his people? Saddam certainly did during his US-backed aggression against Iran, in which he reportedly used lots of WMDs with the blessings of the US. But then he was among the good guys, so it doesn’t really count, does it?

But then again when are you Finns going to go visit North Korea for your holiday? Or any of the other “Axis of evil” countries?

It’s hard to keep track of the Axis, as the US keeps flip-flopping over who the bad guys are, but Finnish travel agencies arrange trips to at least Cuba, Libya, Syria, Iran and North Korea. Not quite as popular as Teneriffe (though Cuba is quite popular), but there seems to be a market.

Please go to North Korea, take some pictures, visit the provences with no food, lets see if you make it back.

By the way we support Putin now. Hope you like the new gas prices. Don’t even worry about the murder of a little correspondent, she was just spilling the beans.

Please go to North Korea, take some pictures, visit the provences with no food, lets see if you make it back.

Sure I will, right after Baghdad. Being freedomized and all, it should be a prime tourist spot.

Geez, Winter, as far as I can tell, you’re just a neo-con troll with no ties to Finland whatsoever, so this is the last time time I will go to any effort to even comment to you.

“right after Baghdad”. Maybe you should plan a trip to Washington DC. where they just killed a tourist on the mall, right in front of the Congress building, then tried to rape his wife.

Might be safer in Baghdad. But wait, DC is run by Liberals. Guess that’s your place to go.

I challenge you to go to any city in the States and ask man in the street; who won the last year’s Oscar for the foreign film?

That’s an irrelevant point. The main reason film producers everywhere are interested in an Oscar is that it results directly in sales. Even a nomination for a foreign language film will result in a distribution deal in the US. Distributors use the Oscar nomination (and certainly the Oscar win) in all their advertising, and it does raise audience curiosity to the point that significant money does start flowing. And why should the American worker-consumer fund Finnish filmmaking to begin with, considering the enmity of Finns towards America?

Not only is audience curiosity about an Oscar-related film heightened, but usually curiosity about the country that produced the film follows. In that sense, Kaurismaki’s gesture is worthwhile, since popular US interest in Finland would only cloud a more realistic assessment of Finland as a potential enemy of the United States.

#67: “…Finland as a potential enemy of the United States.”

So we’re in the Axis of Evil now, are we?

Finnpundit:
popular US interest in Finland would only cloud a more realistic assessment of Finland as a potential enemy of the United States.

Interesting. Are you suggesting that the American public is too stupid to realise the evil nature of Finland?

68. Is this another Kommie Klutz Kid’s rhetorical question? Finland does not export terrorism nor support WMD development akin to the Axis nations. You should know that, o uneducated Finn, you.

However, Finland is a potential enemy of the United States, as it promotes – similarly to Germany and France – anti-American bigotry on a vast, state-sponsored scale, in order to preserve support for a welfare state model that has become unviable, and in order to deflect the rage of the Muslim immigrant populations which the welfare state continuously fails to assimilate.

There are more reasons, of course, – such as envy, jealousy, simple geopolitical rivalry, and that never-ending unconscious desire of Europeans to see the Jews exterminated – but those two are the main reasons.

The lethality of those reasons, however, gets manifested in the pass Finland gives to terrorism, as long as it gets directed to the right targets. Just witness the support the Finnish people are willing to give to the Hezbollah. It is only a short step from such a stance to giving open support, financing and encouragement to terrorist groups wishing to target the US.

All Finns know that such a scenario is completely possible in Finland today, as the Finnish state, academia, and media have given de facto encouragement and justification for exactly that.

Thus, for Americans, it becomes important to view Finns as a potential enemy, and formulate policies and strategies accordingly.

69. Another rhetorical question again, from a Kommie Klutz Kid. Why is it that none of you can come up with anything worthwhile to say, and only seek enlightenment from abroad?

The American worker-consumer is so completely involved with the more important task of enabling economic production throughout the world that potential threats can often slip under the radar screen, so to speak. A benign presentation of Finland might well strike an Americans fancy, especially as Americans have limited time to get to know the outside world, given their priorities as economic enablers on a global scale. Thus, the presentation of any image of Finland as a friendly state should be discouraged as much as possible, as such notions can only lead to mistaken conclusions.

Finnpundit: Are you saying it’s not in the interests of the American worker-consumer to watch European movies? Sorry if this question sounds rhetorical, I’m just curious if you trust the capability of the worker-consumers to decide for themselves what movies to watch.

I wish Kaurismäki had submitted his movie to the Academy but he said again he won’t, despite being pleaded to do so by the Academy as no other movie from Finland can now be nominated. I also wish movies, at least fictional movies that are not related to Michael Moore movies, could somehow stay above politics.

Quotations from the latest dispatches from Cloud Finnpunditland:

“Finland does not export terrorism nor support WMD development akin to the Axis nations. You should know that, o uneducated Finn, you.”

Sure I know. I just wasn’t sure if you did.

“Finland is a potential enemy of the United States, as it promotes – similarly to Germany and France – anti-American bigotry on a vast, state-sponsored scale…”

So not jumping through hoops held up by Dubya and not taking all our information from Fox News or the 700-Club constitutes anti-American bigotry, meriting the designation of “potential enemy”. Strange indeed. You know, Europeans don’t need to be told by the state what conclusions to draw from the dysfunctional Bush administration: we can draw our own conclusions, thank you very much, just like increasing numbers of Americans are doing.

“…that never-ending unconscious desire of Europeans to see the Jews exterminated …”

I’m not sure what your problem is, but you might want to check this website on logical fallacies before your next rhetorical foray:
http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html
Especially the one about the straw man argument:
“This is the fallacy of refuting a caricatured or extreme version of somebody’s argument, rather than the actual argument they’ve made. Often this fallacy involves putting words into somebody’s mouth by saying they’ve made arguments they haven’t actually made,”

However, judging from Finnpundit’s level of argumentation, the problem may be one of political paranoia combined with a tendency toward hallucination.

“…the pass Finland gives to terrorism…”

So what how has Finland “given a pass” to terrorism. Were we suppsed to send troops to Iraq for Bush’s great WMD Easter egg hunt?

“the support the Finnish people are willing to give to the Hezbollah”

I follow current events rather closely, but I think I missed that one too, but then again, I live in the real world.

“…for Americans, it becomes important to view Finns as a potential enemy, and formulate policies and strategies accordingly.”

So folks, when can we expect the invasion to start? What if the US Government doesn’t recognise the threat that Finland poses to its national interests? Perhaps Osama bin Finnpundit will start organising some more direct action against this terror-coddling nest of evil! If a Finnair or Blue 1 plane ever veers off course into the Hotel Torni, we’ll know who is behind it.

Kimmo: Accusing Finnpundit of terrorism is as cheap as Finnpundit saying we’re all anti-Semites. Finnpundit is just trying to provoke you and he seems to have succeeded pretty well.

No accusations – just speculation

Let’s just say that I’m having a little bit of fun satirising Finnpundit’s way of thinking.

Actually, anti-Semitism has been very recently discussed in Minnesota, as a strong congressional candidate there has previously had ties to Nation of Islam, whose leader Louis Farrakhan in turn is known for anti-Semitic opinions.

Minnesota’s 5th Congressional district (that includes the city of Minneapolis) is set to elect an antiwar candidate, Keith Ellison, who is set to become Minnesota’s first African American congressman and the first ever Muslim in Congress:

http://www.voanews.com/english/AmericanLife/2006-10-07-voa28.cfm

For 28 years they have been represented by a Lutheran Norwegian-American, Martin Olav Sabo. The retiring congressman endorsed his chief of staff, Mike Erlandson, who lost the Democratic primary to Keith Ellison by 10 percentage points. Many consider the Democratic primary there more difficult to win than the November election.

Political scientist Lawrence Jacobs commented the primary result to VOA:

“I think many Americans think of Minnesota as a state that is dominated by whites, but Minnesota has changed in rapid and dramatic ways. It’s seen a large influx of Somalis and immigrants from Asia, particularly Cambodia, and it turns out that you have this population of a cohesive active Somali community that’s ready to support a Muslim and work with African Americans and white liberals in putting together a coalition. The other key factor is that Minnesota has a long tradition, stretching back to Hubert Humphrey and Walter Mondale, in supporting civil rights and the inclusion of African-Americans and others of color in the political process.”

Ellison has distanced himself from Farrakhan’s anti-semitism, yet his past record of activity for the Nation of Islam (without being a member) remains an issue.

I guess Finnpundit’s strategy of promoting a picture of Finland as the enemy of the United States is a part of the more anti-European effort in America to paint a picture of America and Europe as adversaries.

So we’re going down this road again. Of course it’s easier for Finnpundit to promote his agenda as there are so many anti-American voices in Europe.

My contention is that Europe and America have fundamentally common interests. Anti-Europeanism weakens and isolates America just as anti-Americanism weakens and isolates Europe.

It’s also stupid to equate America with a certain politics and Europe with its opposite, as both are politicially very diverse.

Where has Kaurismäki explained his refusal to accept the Oscar entry? I am eager to find an explanation to this happening, and seeing the link that lead me to this very pompous comment, I thought that here some light could be shed on the situation.

How wrong was I? General (though misleading in this context) comment “Film director Aki Kaurismäki has no great love for current US foreign policy” becomes particular “this action happened because of Bush”.

It is known that Aki’s views on the movie business (or where the word ‘business’ should really belong in this context) clash easily with those of U.S. industry heads. And his views on the organization behind the awards…

…but still you say he did this because of Bush? Where’s the meat, or are are you really Ben Matlock?

Turkish Daily News headlined their story “Kaurismaeki boycotts 2007 Oscars over Bush”, Phil isn’t the only one to draw such a conclusion.

I think it’s obvious it’s both a distaste for Bush and a distaste for present-day Hollywood that led to Kaurismäki’s decision. I think Phil has a right to underline the foreign policy issue in his headline, yet he also has commented Kaurismäki’s anti-Hollywood views in this thread.

My contention is that Europe and America have fundamentally common interests. Anti-Europeanism weakens and isolates America just as anti-Americanism weakens and isolates Europe.

That’s too much of a facile syllogism. European interests lie in continuing the process of freeriding off of the American worker-consumer, at the Americans’ expense. This is not a fundamentally common interest. Furthermore, pro-European policies are more of a problem for the US, rather than a boon. A lousy ally is worse than no ally at all, as an ally means a dialogue between the two becomes necessary. And we all know how Europeans use dialogue as an excuse for doing nothing.

It’s also stupid to equate America with a certain politics and Europe with its opposite, as both are politicially very diverse.

Yes, but it’s all about emphasis. For example, American policies might slip into big government welfare-statism in some cases, but no American politician would ever win an election with the promise of defending or increasing welfare.

So for brevity’s sake it’s easier to speak of broad currents. To point out exceptions to the rule usually means that the particular critic doesn’t have any worthwhile counter-argument to begin with.

As to Finland, the big danger for the US is to view Finland as some sort of a benign ally-to-be, when in fact the exact opposite is true. Perception is very key in formulating policies, and it behooves Americans to get a correct picture of the depth of anti-American bigotry in Finland. The best way to do this is to stress that, for all intensive purposes, Finland is an enemy, and should be treated as such.

” European interests lie in continuing the process of freeriding off of the American worker-consumer, at the Americans’ expense… pro-European policies are more of a problem for the US, rather than a boon.”

So why doesn’t the big, strong USA do something about these European oppressors? Surely they should be intelligent enough to recognize that they’re being had?

“To point out exceptions to the rule usually means that the particular critic doesn’t have any worthwhile counter-argument to begin with.”

No, it’s usually an indication that a sweeping generalization has hopes in it.

“As to Finland, the big danger for the US is to view Finland as some sort of a benign ally-to-be, when in fact the exact opposite is true.”

Do please give us some concrete examples about the Great Finnish Threat to America’s standing in the world. Although I’ve never been much of a nationalist, I’m starting to feel better about my country all the time!

If a Finnair or Blue 1 plane ever veers off course into the Hotel Torni,

Now that’s a worthwhile idea, the first you’ve offered. Finland would certainly deserve it.

Have you run out of your haloperidol again, Finnpundit?

Well the Oscar’s never stood for anything else but Superficiality with an big “S” and Kaurismäki has never been fond of that regardless of country. If you want to make a statement against it and have the opportunity, you probably will.

Ingmar Bergman never showed up for the same reason to pick up his Oscar, it was Jörn Donner on Bergmans behalf.

I feel the Oscar’s are entertainment for me. For other people, can be a lot of things.

72. Are you saying it’s not in the interests of the American worker-consumer to watch European movies? Sorry if this question sounds rhetorical, I’m just curious if you trust the capability of the worker-consumers to decide for themselves what movies to watch.

Movies remain very powerful promotional pieces for the nations that produce them. Foreign movies especially have a big following in the US amongst the more liberal and educated. The choice to watch them is up to the consumer, of course, but here we have a case where a Finn voluntarily chooses not to promote his film in a particular market. As the movie might sway certain sectors of the American demographic to view Finland in a more benign manner (instead of more critically), it is truly fortunate that the filmmaker himself prevents the wider dissemination of his own movie.

As actually winning the Oscar would have been a long shot, Kaurismäki’s decision to boycott the Oscars probably brought more attention to his film than if he had approved his nomination and lost.

86. Uh, no. US distributors of foreign films almost always pick up, – for distribution – all the foreign film Oscar nominations, and manage to make profits for everyone, just on the nomination advertisement and hype (and more so for the actual winner). This particular Kaurismaki film will probably find some distribution, as Kaurismaki is already a known name for those American audiences that like foreign films. But it won’t have as much sales pull, and as much exposure, as an Oscar-nominated foreign film.

And that, of course, is good.

From what I have been able to read on the matter, Kaurismäki’s latest film has been quite favorably received in the places in North America where it has been shown so far. It is likely to be seen by that minority of Americans who like that kind of movie even without participating in all the glitz of Oscar Night.

And even if not being an Oscar nominee means that a few Americans who might have otherwise seen it decide not to – so what? The guy seems to be doing quite well, even if his movies aren’t the multiplex blockbusters that dominate media attention.

Above all, I question Finnpundit’s totally ridiculous and downright paranoid premise that the USA is somehow in mortal danger of being cunningly duped into having a positive image of a nefarious and secretly hostile Finland, and that Kaurismäki’s films would constitute a major part of this sinister project.

Don’t bother with finnparanoid, he has schizophrenia and on the top of that seems like he’s a sociopath lacking emphaty and all (and his desire to see finns massacered.)

By the way finnpundit when is the american invasion against finland happening I’m sure you’re on the first invasion boat to arrive here.

It’s funny how Finnpundit sees Europeans as the persecutors of jews but on the same time is totally oblivious to the fact that he’s the persecutor of Finland and other welfare states, calling for the ethnic cleansings and mass murders or Europeans.

I’ve never understood how saving money for the rainy day would somehow be “freeriding” or stealing. But I guess nobody else than Finnpundit can. Afterall, in a sick and twisted mind there works a sick and twisted logic.

Finnpundit, I understand you’re saying Europe is a do-nothing, sweet-talking lousy ally with no readiness for action when that is most needed. Basically what you’re saying is the “French flag of surrender”-thesis in a more sophisticated version. Keep repeating your idea, I see things from a different perspective and it doesn’t sound that convincing to me.

Your way is one way of seeing things, a selective interpretation of history. That’s to completely forget everything Europeans do and also to forget all the benefits America has had of the Atlantic Alliance over the years. America has not simply done all that has been done for Europe without any self-interest being part of the calculation.

Finnpundit: “To point out exceptions to the rule usually means that the particular critic doesn’t have any worthwhile counter-argument to begin with.”

So one rule is the Atlantic Alliance is good for Europe, bad for America. I believe it’s been good for both… Another rule is America is free-market, Europe is not. Since when are exceptions to the rule useless as counter-arguments? Broad trends need not be as broad as you see them. If there are enough exceptions, those may serve as a counter-argument. It’s about counting arguments pro and con. Of course, you’re in the business of propaganda and you don’t count those arguments that weigh against you, just those that weigh for you. Sadly that’s a very common way of seeing things these days.

Yet there are Americans who think America could get more out of alliances and that alliances work. I know you don’t believe that but what do you say to them? The same you say to us Europeans?

BTW, do you tell the Georgians, “don’t apply for NATO”, you’d only be freeriding and we don’t want that???

“completely forget everything Europeans do”

Please name one thing you do?

#93

well at least we don’t murder and torture people in the name of *democracy* and *freedom*. Nor do we promote ignorance and black and white view of the world.

#93
“Please name one thing you do?”

Lots of things! we cut down trees, we eat our lunch, we go to the lavatory. On Wednesdays we go shopping, and have buttered scones for tea.

winter: Are there no Europeans in Afghanistan and Iraq? Would your preference be that not a single one European would be there to assist US troops?

@96,
I, as a european, might prefer that. I mean, what interests do we have in Afghanistan? The Pakistanis obviously have an interest in their neighbour, which is why they helped the Taliban rise to power. The Indians might have an interest in propping up anti-Pakistani forces. Even the Russians might have some interests as long as they are committed in Tajikistan, next to Afghanistan. But why should we hae anything to do with the place?

pod: The Pakistanis did themselves a disservice, when they helped the Taliban to power. That government there helped to bring about 9/11. That attack hurt primarily America, but it also hurt Europeans. The sense of solidarity that Europeans felt toward America led to many Europeans participating in Afghanistan. The Taliban régime is a kind of régime that can hurt people everywhere, it’s not just a local problem for the people, who suffered under their tyranny. The nature of that government was such that there is still quite a broad consensus to make sure that those people can not get back into doing what they were doing five years ago.

One thing is of course the desirability, for America, for Europe and for Southern Asia, not to allow the Taliban ever to get back doing their thing. Another thing is can we attain that in practice? Do we still care about Afghanistan? There is the risk that regardless of the strong worldwide opposition toward a Taliban comeback (where Iran is helpful, since the Iranians are among the strongest enemies of the virulently anti-Shiite Taliban), in practice, since not only many Europeans but also many Americans don’t care that much about Afghanistan, the Taliban may indeed come back. They are already a force to be reckoned with and they have gained some of the ground back that they lost immediately after 9/11, when the optimists at Pentagon let us understand that the Taliban had been dealt a mortal blow.

And pod, indeed Finnpundit would agree with you that Europe’s interests are totally different from America’s interests. I don’t and I think that we are in the same boat as far as global terrorism is concerned.

“The Pakistanis did themselves a disservice, when they helped the Taliban to power.”

Pakistan wasn’t alone there. The Taliban would never have achieved the military power they got if the USA had not been so generous in supplying military aid to anyone opposed to the Soviet occupiers in Afghanistan.

“I think that we are in the same boat as far as global terrorism is concerned.”

You would think so, but the threat (or at least the maintenance of the perception of the threat) of global terrorism is actually in the interests of the current US administration, which is using it as a pretext to push through its extreme right-wing agenda, including the erosion of civil liberties.

Keith Olbermann puts it rather well:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15392701/

Do we still care about Afghanistan is a good question. One reason we should be wary of starting nation-building missions far away is that if we get bored or fed up, the people who live there and maybe have started to rely on us will be left in a lurch. Think Saigon, 1975. Or the Harkis in Algeria, 1962. Or Odessa, 1919. The good thing about national interests is that they stay the same over a long period of time, they’re predictable. Vague distaste towards the Taliban isn’t really enough to build a policy on, given that the Northern Alliance warlords were just as big thugs as the Taliban.
I’m not sure this war on an abstract noun thing really gives the US any major permanent interest in Afghanistan. Sure, they’ve acquired a few bases there, but they’ve bases everywhere. They can write it off, if they have to. As a base for an attack on Iran, Afghanistan would be useful. Perhaps the Taliban could be rehabilitated for that, they hate the Shi’a Iran quite as much as the Americans do.

Kimmo W: “the threat (or at least the maintenance of the perception of the threat) of global terrorism is actually in the interests of the current US administration, which is using it as a pretext to push through its extreme right-wing agenda, including the erosion of civil liberties.”

Terrorist attacks and “maintenance of the perception of the threat” are two different things.

Afghanistan had a government that was harboring terrorists who were launching attacks on US soil. Those very real attacks were in no way in US (or partisan Republican) interests and the Bush Administration was taken by surprise, when 9/11 occurred.

European governments have also had to deal with terrorist attacks (such as the Madrid and London atrocities) and in any case those attacks are real and they further first of all islamist interests and weaken civil societies.

The Taliban entered the stage in the vacuum that had been created when the Soviets left Afghanistan. The Americans couldn’t have supported the Taliban on the grounds that they were fighting the Soviets because of this. The Taliban aren’t the same thing as the Mujahideen who fought Soviet occupation. They are sort of anti-Mujahideen since support for them came out of the frustration on the former Mujahideen who had turned their guns on each other instead of building the country together.

Al-Qaeda, however, trace their roots to the Arab volunteers fighting the Soviets in the ranks of the Mujahideen and they were trained by the Americans. But they were first formed to fight for America against the USSR and only later when they needed a new enemy did they turn their weapons against their former American supporters.

I know it’s complicated to see Al-Qaeda and the Taliban as two different things, since they were intertwined to a degree when 9/11 occurred.

Here’s the BBC’s latest on the Taleban:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6081594.stm

#70 Thus, for Americans, it becomes important to view Finns as a potential enemy, and formulate policies and strategies accordingly.

I couldn’t agree more! Have you dug your Finnbunker yet? I just got mine done this weekend. I’m just waiting for those sneaky Finns to assault across the Gulf of Mexico from Cuba and force us all to eat mämmi and drink salmiakkikossu.

Maybe we could just give them Texas if they would agree to take Bush and leave us alone.

Kimmo, the Olbermann link was a good one and of course in many situations it is politically beneficial for any administration if the country is under attack because that tends to increase the vote for incumbents.

If the GOP are going to the midterm elections advertising bin Laden and Zawahiri (vote Republican or they’ll get you), I’m not really convinced that shows that the threat of terrorism is such a good thing for George W. Bush. As it is, the Dems are set to do a very impressive result in November (sure they can still blow it, anybody can before votes have been cast and counted) and the advertisements simply are proof of the GOP being at a loss right now.

Many Republicans are distancing themselves from George W. Bush right now. In one state after the other even some of those who have supported the Bush Administration through thick and thin are trying to portray themselves as independent mavericks. Still, it’s those Senators and US Representatives who are losing the elections for the GOP. They remind me of Dem politicians trying to distance themselves from Clinton’s sex scandals less than a decade ago. Interestingly, Clinton is still quite popular whereas many of those politicians have kept losing against the Republicans over the years.

Meanwhile the battle against the Taleban continues:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6086064.stm

91.That’s to completely forget everything Europeans do and also to forget all the benefits America has had of the Atlantic Alliance over the years

There is no such thing as an Atlantic Alliance, there is only NATO. And NATO is being hindered by some member welfare states whose anti-American stances make that alliance increasingly irrelevant to the interests of the United States, though the tipping point certainly hasn’t arrived yet.

92. Yet there are Americans who think America could get more out of alliances and that alliances work. I know you don’t believe that but what do you say to them?

As to those Europhile Americans who believe in the value of alliances with, say, France, Germany, Belgium, Sweden or Finland, – they simply don’t have enough historical knowledge or experience to make any informed decisions regarding these countries. It behooves those Americans who are informed to speak up.

NATO’s contribution to Afghanistan should also be examined more closely. For example, it’s quite clear that most of the European members of NATO (and non-NATO Finland) are positioned in the relatively quiet areas of the Tajik north, and not in the Pashtun hot spots in the south. That says something of the value of the “contribution” these nations are making. Are these troops protected because they’re of so poor quality, or because they’re beholden to defeatist politics at home? If so, what value are they as allies? Furthermore, it is also quite relevant that the Taliban began its offensive as soon as NATO took control, and the US reduced its presence in Afghanistan. The Europeans are clearly seen as softer and more irresolute by the Taliban.

What happens next in Afghanistan is anybody’s guess, but for NATO to be a relevant alliance for the US it needs to demonstrate its viability on the battlefield. Several thousand German troops sitting inside well-defended bases in the north is basically an empty gesture.

It’s about as meaningful as the 200-man police “training” program the Germans were running in Kuwait and Bahrain to train Iraqi policemen, to showcase their support for the US war effort. The Iraqi trainees themselves soon pleaded to be sent home, as they realized the German training was wholly inadequate and inept for the realities they faced at home, and that it was pointless to participate in such a feat of propaganda (I think the program has since then been shut down).

In any case, there are precious few examples, since the end of the Cold War, where an “Atlantic Alliance” has made sense for the US, with the exception of stalwart allies such as Britain, Poland, and other New European countries. All talk of shared values and common interests is simply talk. The reality is that European anti-Americanism clearly demonstrates European intentions to bring harm to the US are quite real, and that Americans need to devalue any European effort to deny the virulent nature of European anti-American bigotry.

“It’s about as meaningful as the 200-man police “training” program the Germans were running in Kuwait and Bahrain to train Iraqi policemen, to showcase their support for the US war effort.”

Finland is also involved in training Iraqi police – although this should not be construed as an endorsement Bush’s asinine policy.

“The Iraqi trainees themselves soon pleaded to be sent home, as they realized the German training was wholly inadequate and inept for the realities they faced at home…”

And how successful have the American trainers of an Iraqi police force or military been? My understanding is that many of the new Iraqi police are more loyal to their respective tribal groups than the new national government.

“Americans need to devalue any European effort to deny the virulent nature of European anti-American bigotry.”

You don’t need to be a bigot – or even a European – to recognise the Bush Iraqi policy as dead wrong!

109. Another irrelevant comment. Kommie Klutz Kidz simply love to dwell in a world of irrelevant commentary.

#110 And what does the pot call the kettle?

My name is John. I’m cool boy
50th Birthday Celebration Vol.4 [url=http://italia3.info/index5.html]50th Birthday Celebration Vol.4[/url]