Search

Saara Huhtasaari wrote that Sanna Marin had been in Italy promoting her book and told Corriere della Sera that she would likely not run for office unless Russia attacked Finland. In that case, according to Huhtasaari, Marin would have said she was available. Huhtasaari interpreted the statement as positioning herself rather than expressing a willingness to be a victim. According to her, Marin implied that conventional political work did not match her capabilities and that only a crisis threatening Finland's existence would be a sufficiently significant task. Huhtasaari compared this to the scale of historical leaders such as Kekkonen, Winston Churchill, Nelson Mandela, Lee Kuan Yew, and George Washington, using the metaphor of the "Napoleon syndrome" to describe the phenomenon. She specified that she did not mean it as a diagnosis. Huhtasaari also criticized the contradiction between Marin's book discussing hope and the self-image conveyed in the interview. She argued that the role of politics was to build structures that functioned without a single politician. As examples of such builders, she mentioned Lee Kuan Yew, who influenced Singapore's development, and Mart Laar, who made economic and institutional decisions in post-independence Estonia. Huhtasaari believed that there had not been similar builders in Finland for decades and that Marin did not belong to their ranks. According to Huhtasaari, statesmen did not announce in advance when they would return to politics, but either did their job or stepped aside. She criticized Marin for traveling to present her book, which discussed decisions made behind closed doors, and for associating a potential return with Russia's attack. Huhtasaari described this as a fantasy of seeing herself as a historical exception. #SannaMarin #Politiikka #Historia (translated)

Klaus said he had responded to a user named Sukkola, who he claimed had blocked him. He stated that his criticism was directed at Said Aw-Musse's position as a religious authority rather than at his personal actions. Klaus described classical Sunni Islam as a tradition in which sharia is seen as divinely ordained and as a legal system superior to human laws. According to him, it included legal, moral, and social rules regarding, among other things, testimony, inheritance, apostasy, and legislative authority. Klaus wrote that Aw-Musse had studied theology in Saudi Arabia and worked in a mosque where the teachings of Muhammad ibn Abd al-Wahhab had been used. He described this figure as an ultra-conservative thinker who demanded the return of Islam to its literal roots. According to Klaus, Aw-Musse's refusal to clarify his position on the primacy of Finnish law and the status of sharia justified suspicion. Merely following the law, in his opinion, did not indicate whether he considered the constitutional order of Finland to be just and final or a temporary imposition. Klaus expressed a desire to know what kind of Finland Aw-Musse envisioned in 50 or 100 years. Klaus believed that questions regarding women's rights, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and criminal law were not leading him into a trap but were inquiries into whether Aw-Musse accepted the principles of the Finnish rule of law. He deemed Aw-Musse's public stance significant for its societal relevance due to his religious role. According to Klaus, integration required not only adherence to the law but also acceptance of fundamental values. #uskonto #oikeudet #kulttuuri (translated)

Since I opened my verbal archive, it seems appropriate to address the comments that this matter has gathered and Taija's response, which has also been linked to my original post. Firstly, the headline of the local news story is accurate. A proposed increase of that sum has been presented (note that the salary sum is not the same as salary). The proposal is Taija's own, as she states in her response. However, Taija's response notes that it also includes retroactively paid salaries. This is true as well, since the matter is ongoing and there may be retroactive salary payments. However, this detail does not make the headline incorrect in any way, but the reader might conclude from this that she is seeking a 68% increase in her salary, which is not true. The fact remains: that fair €54k is, in Taija's opinion, her money, meaning the headline is entirely correct in using the term "proposed for herself." In my post, I made a comparison: Keusote's financial difficulties and Taija's salary increase demands. The comparison is relevant. Keusote's financial difficulties have been known for a long time, even before Taija started her position in October 2024. For some reason, this matter has stirred strong feelings on both sides. Many have jumped to (wrong) conclusions too quickly, and many have passionately defended Taija. I rarely receive private messages about any post, but I received several regarding this post. They have shed light on the background of the issue, and I will not address them here in any way because they are private messages. However, I would like to collectively ask several of you, that when you have passionately been cutting public administration and state-owned companies' costs and criticized the significantly higher salaries of the public sector compared to the private sector, why does the issue become completely different when it involves a person familiar to us all? Were the salaries of the leaders and heads of the welfare areas not excessive now that it comes to Taija? #palkka #julkishallinto #hyvinvointi (translated)

Martin Paasi selvitti melkoisen testin. Vastassa oli toksisen kyynisiin urapoliitikoihin tottunut X-oikeisto, joka oli jo menettänyt toivonsa rehellisestä poliitikosta ja epäili, minä mukaan lukien, Martinia melko pitkään. Martin on omalla, @MakisenJussi’a lainatakseni, koiranpentumaisella tyylillään raadellut hyökkäyksiä ja ad hominemeja silmääkään räpäyttämättä. Martin näytti esimerkillään, että ei ole pakko taipua ja polttaan sieluaan karrelle kyetäkseen olemaan relevantti toimija poliittisessa keskustelussa. Eilen internetiin ilmestyi alla oleva ”paljastuskirje”, joka tiputti loputkin suojaukset. Luulen, että jos niin haluamme, saamme todistaa uudenlaisen politiikanteon alkua. Koska me, kansalaisethan, sen lopulta päätämme, eikä yksikään poliitikko. Varsinkaan sellainen, joka on polttanut sielunsa karrelle ja elää vihasta. Miksi me edes kuuntelisimme sellaisia? #politiikka #kansalaisvaikuttaminen #rehellisyys

Jani Mäkelä osuu naulan kantaan: "Juuri katselin, kun Helsingin Sanomat oli tehnyt ministeri Essayahista haastattelun, jossa kysyttiin, miten kristitty voi toteuttaa nykyisen hallituksen politiikkaa. Ainakin median mielestä tuntuu olevan varsin relevanttia, minkälaisella taustalla politiikassa ollaan mukana uskonnollisessa mielessä." Itsekin olen sitä mieltä, että on huomattavasti relevantimpaa arvioida afgaanimuslimin kuin suomalaiskristityn soveltuvuutta Suomen ministeriksi. https://t.co/jbjQF5xFJC #Politiikka #Media #Uskonto