And maybe the roof too

When Franco Debono drew attention to the Arriva saga, people thought he would disappear again and be followed home by various political figures, their missus et al who, according to Dr Debono, spent a lot of time in his kitchen. So I believe that the coffee and/or cuisine were rather good but it’s not fair that he kindly invited others to his kitchen and forgot all about me when we chat so often about everything.

... reactions by the Prime Minister prove that (Franco) Debono’s hollering about Arriva’s non-arrival was justified- Anthony Licari

In any case, I feel he is echoing the feelings of most Maltese when expressing impatience. And this is why I had called him “a national politician” as compared to a party politician (National Politicians, November 28, 2009).

Various reactions by the Prime Minister prove that Dr Debono’s hollering about Arriva’s non-arrival was justified. And he maturely agreed to improve the situation as in other important circumstances (Positive U-Turns, August 2, 2008).

When plans were made to move the Valletta fountain and its tritons, many people reacted in disbelief. This plan reminded people of what a monsignor had said of an Archbishop, that when he had a dream, he wanted to realise it without looking at anything or anyone (Dreaming And Doing, September 5, 2009).

Luckily, the nephew is more reasonable than the uncle and mistakes can be remedied while looking at everything and everyone.

So the Prime Minister understood the public consternation and decided against the folly of moving the fountain.

This makes one optimistic about the possibility of change of plans for the roofless theatre, while looking at everything and everyone.

For, let’s face it, very few people started jumping for joy (although jumping in a roofless theatre does not present the danger of slamming one’s head against the ceiling) when they heard that an expensive new theatre was absolutely not going to have a roof. And people once more raised their arms to heaven like Moses in disbelief.

To understand the practicality or otherwise of this open venture, let us consider a simple situation. Our two main political protagonists sometimes find themselves sitting side-by-side in a theatre and surely they exchange a few words. The conversation may go something like this:

Lawrence: After all the fuss about our roofless theatre, it was not such a bad thing after all, Ġuż. It’s such a nice day.

Joseph: Nice day! You mean scorching, Wenz! Both our pates are less adorned today and the hot sun is making our heads red.

Lawrence: Yes, but a red head does not perforce a hothead make. Aren’t you enjoying Swan Lake?

Joseph: Yes, indeed, but what if a swan flew overhead and decided to do its business on us? I don’t suppose any of us would enjoy the omelette splash.

Lawrence: You must be optimistic, Joey. The incident may be followed by rain and our heads would be washed too.

Joseph: So you won’t consider placing a roof up there so we may come back whenever we like?

Lawrence: Between us, Joe – and don’t tell ex-Ambassador Bordonaro – I am starting to enjoy mature, flexible politics. I don’t exclude placing a roof on top of this theatre jekk il-Bambin irid (Baby Jesus willing).

Joseph: Bless you, Lawrence.

Lawrence: Come now, don’t start behaving like my uncle.

Joseph: Wouldn’t I have made a good Archbishop, then?

Lawrence: I don’t know…

Safe arguments

Many people don’t know it’s practically impossible to lose an argument, especially in a media interview. An interviewer may arrogantly tell you that the programme is his and he puts the questions. This is when he feels embarrassed by an interviewee’s question because the latter has the right to ask questions too, in democratic journalism.

An interviewer may become a pest by refusing the interviewee’s answer. However, if I ask you the question that I choose, you have the right to give me the answer that you want. Whether I like your answer or not is a different matter.

The best interviewers are those who work for politically neutral media and are uninfluenced by political bias.

However, there is no problem; interviewees may use the cliché method. This includes expressions like “you are painting yourself into a corner” or “when you are in a hole, stop digging”, whatever the argument is. You may tell a person who says “it’s going to rain “Ah! you are painting yourself into a corner and when you are in a hole stop digging.” Good repartees these!

But the question I like best remains: “How much does this fact worry you?” For, whoever told you that it worries me in the first place?