Saturday, 23rd August 2008
PITY THEM
Much as I am loath to interrupt the oodles of fun that the people commenting on the preceding blog to this seem to be having, it’s time to put up some more irritating thoughts, so the easily-riled (the ones who have had a sense of humour by-pass amongst them) can have a new target.
A modern phenomenon is the way www2 has made access to the media so much wider. Geeks will forgive me if I’ve misunderstood the concept of www2, which I am taking to be the more interactive Internet – the evolution of the ‘net into a forum for personal input from everyone and his sister, be it picture publishing, “face-space” networking, music and video “sharing” (aka piracy) and blogging and commenting. The latter two (blogging and commenting) have almost merged, as blogs with a wide and/or active readership (ahem...) seem to take on a life of their own after the author has released his or her thoughts, in a more or less structured way, into the virtual ether.
In the old days, as I’ve had occasion to remark, you wrote your column, delivered it to the editor (Beck used to be hand-delivered, then faxed and now emailed) then waited a couple of days to see it in print. A week or so later, if you’d poked someone in the metaphorical eye, there’d be a letter to moan at you.
Now, you bash it out, press the button and, depending on the extent to which editorial control is exercised, up into public view it leaps. It takes some self-discipline to edit and make sure you’re saying what you want to say, so quick is the process. My few words of solidarity with Dr Karl Chircop, for instance, were slightly misunderstood at first, and on re-reading I can see why.
The speed with which the original piece is produced is as nothing, though, compared with the speed with which reactions are put into circulation. Again, the only real constraint is the extent of editorial control – taking time to consider the response certainly hasn’t caused any delay between reading and commenting.
In fact, while a thinking process of sorts clearly takes place, it certainly can’t be said that due consideration is given before the send button is pressed. For many, many of whom are classifiable as Lil’Elves (what a conveniently irritating word) the important thing is to scream and shout at Beck or ABC (not that there’s really any difference) If it’s possible to inject an element of smugness and personal insult, to say nothing of political invective, at the same time, then so much the better. For the life of me, I can’t see what the Lil’Elves have about which to be so smug, given that the MLP, their political grouping of fervent choice, has been a serial election-loser for about twenty years, but to read some of the comments, you’d think they’re lords and masters of all they survey, entitled to pronounce imperiously about anything and everything.
When you also take into account that the next General Elections are five years away and they’re going to have to face the electoral music with those two Deputy-Leaders and Jason Micallef “helping” Joe Muscat and his poor CEO, you have to wonder whether they’re whistling in the dark even at this early stage in the game.
If you want evidence of my many detractors’ eagerness to heap effluence on me, look at the reaction to a couple of comments (comments, mark you, not a whole column or blog) I had made on the war of words going on between the two foundations debating the works being proposed for St John’s. My only point was that instead of a concerted howl of “NO NO A THOUSAND TIMES NO” going up, it might have been more constructive to engage in proper technical debate, with all the facts and expert opinions coming into the mix. The reaction to this point, which I made in my usual style (which perhaps those less familiar with puerile English public school humour might not readily grasp) was amazing: I was accused of advocating the proposals and acting arrogantly in trying to stifle public opinion.
To the latter part of the charge, if push comes to shove, I’ll put my hand on my heart and plead guilty, but only in the sense that I am intolerant of people who think they know it all when, clearly, they have no basis on which to ground this self-image, and I don’t care who knows it. To the charge that I’m advocating the proposals, however, Not Guilty, Your Honour, I don’t even know what’s in them.
Moving on, www2 allows the self-delusional to give vent to their peculiar notions like never before. Take, for instance, the reaction to my blog last week about the way an award for the defence of human rights to Dom Mintoff can only really be taken as a piece of dark, black humour. Out of the woodwork popped all manner of elves, showing their true colours with a vengeance.
We had a veritable panoply of people telling us that Mintoff in fact deserves to be elevated to the saint-hood, since it was apparently he who, out of his own pocket, fed, clothed and otherwise ministered to the needs of the down-trodden. Never mind that it was public money that provided this much-needed succour and that many of the measures were going to happen anyway, our socio-economic history being what it was, nope, Mintoff did it all, super-hero that he was. You’d think he wore his underpants outside his trousers and flew faster than a speeding bullet.
To read these people, many of whom have cogent personal reasons to be grateful to Mintoff’s manner of running things (work that one out for yourself) you’d think that Malta was governed in a benignly democratic fashion, with rights and benefits being showered liberally onto the heads of all citizens, irrespective of their political colour, the only blot on the landscape being the scurrilous criminals in the Nationalist Party.
Those of us who lived those times, on the other hand, know the truth.
Step out of line to photograph the police during a demonstration and you were beaten, physically and hospitalised. Fail to toe the line, say as a Judge of the Constitutional Court, and you were brutally cowed into submission, with your court suspended. Take industrial action not ordered by the General Workers’ Union and you could forget about promotion or advancement, that is if you had a job at all at the end of it. Have a political opinion different to that of the regime and you might as well be a non-person, while the incompetent, the inept and the downright corrupt trample over you in their rush to stick their noses in the troughs and pick out the plums.
Am I exaggerating? If so, I’m sure the people who have been sticking up for Mintoff over the last couple of weeks will continue to churn out the party line, ignoring the clear and present danger that the silent majority will start to understand why many of them, the older Lil’Elves, feel obliged to give the old devil his due. Dr Faustus must have had the same constraints in his latter years.
Reading back over the above, I can see that I’ve achieved quite a bit, giving virtually every single one of the people who get off on slagging me off something with which to be getting their rocks off. I’ll close, though, by publicising a certain Vince Cachia, who responded to the news that Air Malta was to start allowing guide-dogs to travel with their owners with such cynicism and egoism that he got me and Mr Franco Farrugia agreeing with each other, which is quite a feat.
Mr Cachia wrote, in the course of demonstrating that humanity is not necessarily an attribute that all humans possess, that “civilised people do not travel with animals”. Many people found his attitude reprehensible and my reaction was to let this oaf know that civilized people give due consideration to the needs of those around them, a concept that is clearly alien to people like him.
I went to point out that I'm sure that if he happened to be sitting next to someone with a guide dog and he objected, an upgrade would be provided. The upgrade, of course, would be in favour of the person with the dog, both of whom would object to sitting next to Mr Cachia but be too civilized to say so.
RSS
Comments
“What utter rubbish.” Are you referring to my comment here or somebody else’s? Whatever, you need to be specific if you expect others to give you some respect .
I’ve had a few comments withheld here but I don’t think that was due to their political content and they are too few to mention. However I do take exceptions to the fact that some people are allowed to get away with their blatant derogatory remarks blatantly and those on the receiving end are barred from defending themselves. On three different occasions I referred to a person as ‘the court jester’ and got censored yet on numerous other occasions that person was allowed to describe me and other left wing bloggers using much harsher disparaging terms. Another sad fact is that while we are expected to exercise due cares in our choice of words when dealing with the subject of illegal migration, some people are allowed to demonstrate their obvious resentment to the other half of the Maltese population. That is class distinction and just as revolting as colour discrimination.
But to say that pro-MLP and/or anti-PN comments are subjected to greater scrutiny than others can only be, I repeat, rubbish, given the enormous volume of such comments that is present on the web-site.
Perhaps such comments are withheld because they're incomprehensible.
I don’t put forward my ideas and comment for personal interest or gain . ( like some bloggers do !!)
IT WAS AND WILL ALWAYS BE LIKE THAT, THERE ARE WHO ARE MASTERED IN CONTORTING THE REALITY AND FACTS .
I PITY THEM !!!
Now you can continue your comments on my grammar cause that is the best you can do !!
Ethelbert Schembri wrote “I really like the way the times vets the comments ; all comments in favour of the particular party are more than welcome but those that can be a bit against are censured”.( OK so he meant censored) Personally I have no serious problems with censorship although there have been some disappointments but there again too few to mention. My problem is that of being censured just because I’m an elf. In all fairness I do my bit of censure myself too when the going gets hard-hitting.
" The" is an adjective, applied to a noun, standing for a specific person or thing.
As in Peters example, to speak in "The Irish ".
Why all this nit-picking anyway?
Syntax should be respected at least to the extent of making comments easily comprehensible without equivocation and without the need of subsequent "clarifications".
Nit picking evident typographical errors is rather silly and useless. If one were to do so on a regular basis a limit of 200 words would scarcely be enough.
@P.Prictoe
Peter, surely the use of the adjective “The” in what you are referring to, has more to do with local dialect, than proper English usage. It may still be used in certain parts of the country (and only in certain localities) but as your daughter said, it’s not in customary use.
I honestly don’t know why many posters on this blog, are so fixated with English, that they start nit-picking where they see a mistake.
Everyone knows what the word’s “Famous” and “Notorious” mean in the written context, so why is it that certain people want to bisect the words? Is it a case of one-upmanship?
While we all try to remember to cross all the “t’s’ and dot all the “i’s”. Surely the most important thing is to concentrate on the subject matter, and in the best of our ability, agree or disagree accordingly,
Remember; To err is human. To forgive is divine.
I am amused , how can someone preach for liberty of speech and then do the opposite .
Well I can’t expect better !!!!!
Just all waste of time these blogs if they are censured like that !!
Yes I agree with you Dr A.B.C , I pity them !!!!
I googled your suggestion but it is about an island off Japan.
Thanks though
>Some fifty years ago I attended a London West End theatre where Wilfred Pickles played >the civilian governor of a Mediterranean island that was obviously Malta. There was Mintoff >and Vivian de Grey in slight disguise.
>I can find no reference to this play but I wish to incorporate in my autobiography.
Would that by any chance by "The Island" by Eisaku Matsura ...??
You are not using the OED properly. Adding the prefix in- to the word "famous" negates the meaning of the word "famous" and transforms it to an antonym having an opposite meaning. Whereas "famous" means well known and celebrated for quality etc "infamous" has the opposite meaning of being well known for bad quality.
I apologised for an evident typographical error IF IT WAS MY FAULT.
@ Dr.Francis Saliba. In a strange kind of way I admire your stamina and perseverance to drive home a good argument. It is indeed a little disappointing for me however that I find it hard to see your other good virtue to admit a mistake. You are probably blessed with that too but I have yet to see it.
It may be the case that your Oxford gives a different interpretation to my Oxford Dictionary. My Oxford defines ‘famous’ and ‘infamous’ as “known to very many” and “having or deserving a very bad reputation”respectively.Encarta, Collins as well as Thesaurus are all in harmony.
To me this once again proves a point; your joy comes from trying to put people down perhaps only those who oppose your political views. Adios. Enjoy yourself with somebody else.
I have a query
Some fifty years ago I attended a London West End theatre where Wilfred Pickles played the civilian governor of a Mediterranean island that was obviously Malta. There was Mintoff and Vivian de Grey in slight disguise.
I can find no reference to this play but I wish to incorporate in my autobiography.
Can anyone help?
Regarding brain drain; to change the subject (and use up my allocation of words) I would mention that I struggled to put our three children through university only to find our two sons in the USA.
It's not only in Malta!
Now this is a very artificial construction and I wish I had not supported Dr Saliba -and yet and yet-English is an extremely flexible language.
Yes I hear and read a certain "
Thanks for you effort but I prefer the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary and other similar authorities.
“Famous does not have a known antonym” that was my misinterpretation of Thesaurus which gives’ unknown’ as antonym. But ‘infamous’ is not its antonym. Unknown and infamous are not interchangeable.
To say that ‘famous’ means celebrated but only in a positive sense, that is well known for good qualities is incorrect.
‘Notorious’ also means well known but in a negative unfavourable sense implying condemnation. Correct.
‘Famous’ may be used in both positive and negative way. It means well known,famed,celebrated,renowned,eminent,prominent,illustrious,legendary,recognised,notorious,infamous.
Famous and infamous aren’t exactly the opposite. Both indicate the individual or whatever is a very well known .The opposite of famous is actually ‘unknown’. Mother Theresa and John Dellinger were both famous even though Dellinger was notorious and not virtuous. The great train robbery was ‘famous’ and also ‘notorious’
Even in their translation to Maltese ‘famous’ is positive as well as negative-famuz, imsemmi, maghruf; libelluz, tal-malafama. ‘Infamous’-infami, vili, bla gieh.
Any takers for inflammable and flammable? I say that they are interchangeable but please keep me out of it now.Lol.
You ignore history at your peril but then you are young
and youth is wasted on the young.
Brain drain now.
There is great ability in Malta but it is frustated by custom, nepotism and corruption.
Obviously somewhere between my drafting "use the English language with precision" and its posting on the blog the word "language" was misplaced. My apologies if it was my fault.
I hope you mean use English with precision and not as you have written 'the English'. Erm, idiomatically, people in glass houses and all that.....
Contrary to what you claim "famous" has several antonyms, among which the most common are "notorious", "infamous" and "unknown".
"Famous" means celebrated but only in a positive sense, that is well known for good qualities.
"Notorious" also means well known but in a negative unfavourable sense implying condemnation.
"Famous" and "notorious" are used interchangeably only out of ignorance or sarcastically.
Now would you please rephrase your last comment so that it would become intelligible to others who use the English with precision?
I’m not very well enjoying this ‘Splitting hair Monday’ however it does have its learning advantages.
‘Famous’ does not have a known antonym; it may also be used in lieu of ‘notorious.’ ‘Notorious’ however cannot be used instead of ‘famous’
Therefore our good old super patriotic Dom Mintoff is famous to one and all.lol
IT's not your blog it is owned by the Times of Malta. In fact they uploaded my comment whether you like it or not.....
Another point. In this blog "famous" and "notorious" are being used interchangeably when applied to politicians. That should not be.
KSC Grech - all very valid points, but why are you riding on my blog to argue them? Get your own!
Now you have the chance to change not just criticising !!!!!
But why don’t you mention also the situation in some schools here in Malta that little children are literally brain washed and terrorised of the MLP !!
Your stories are fascinating but there is a situation at the moment far more worst than you are writing about because as I said to brain wash and terrorise little children at school is a crime.
If everyone thinks and wishes for better politics here in Malta why don’t leave the people to choose by their own . That is not a good example of democracy !!
I think that you know what I am talking about .
About the dog part, I hope that after they upgraded it they gave it an extra meal for the disturbance ( I am referring to the least animal on the plane ... the dog )
@Peter Muscat. Just pity them Peter.
I see very little difference,if any, between 'ferro da stiro' and 'ferro da stirare'. Six of one half a dozen of the other.But I am not a nit-pricker.
I feel haunted by the memory of a schoolmaster whose "dry sarcasm" blighted the creativity of some students. A neatly written, well-spelt, grammatically correct essay, however dreary, would receive higher marks than one, however imaginative, which contained ... a split infinitive, a dangling present participle... and so on. Sadly some pedants feel justified in picking even the tiniest of nits - a missing apostrophe merely as revenge to their opponent. Few days before last Xmas I made a small PS on a card which I sent to a not so friendly friend, "stoked up on Jack Daniels whiskey". The nitwit responded with a note saying that should have been "Jack Daniel's whiskey". The 's is possessive. The man who founded the celebrated whiskey brand was Mr. Daniel, not Mr. Daniels. This Xmas I will have one less card to send.
Countries like the UK and Italy are researching whether they should shift away from oil power plants to gas or nuclear. Recent reports from the UK indicate that they are more in favour of additional nuclear plants to avoid long term negotiations with Russia; the largest supplier of gas reserves in the world. Political ties between UK and Russia have not always been well.
This week various local economic observes raised these questions (Anthony Manduca, Business urges caution over inflation, eurozone contraction, TOM, Thursday, 21st August 2008). Price shocks will only erode our standard of living and medium to long term investment. How would Malta be if inflation persists? Local economists are suggesting that we need to adjust our consumption patterns to remain competitive? Hard times lie ahead.
Taking scale of country into account, Mintoff figures as large in Maltese history as Churchill does in British.
Both men had certain virtues as well as failings but it would be tedious to list them.
Churchill is regarded in general with respect; derided by some, revered by others but on the whole regarded as a great man.
Mintoff is condemned by the Maltese Right, air-brushed out of the picture by most of the Maltese Left. There remains of course many on the Left who still hold him in high respect but it would be difficult to find someone on the Right who has a good word to say for him.
Could it be that this condition reflects upon the nature of the Maltese though I consider it is due more to the size of Malta. I put this to an MLP official who terminated the interview with eyes blazing anger.
It is not easy to understand the Maltese-no matter with what affection such as myself might regard them.
I end by reiterating my gratitude for the civilised response from gentle readers (on this blog at least) to my sometimes impertinent comments.
I look around and most points you mention as "evil incarnate under Mintoff's era ", that happened in the 'dark ages' etc ....I see them actually happening right now in a most alarming way.... albeit in a psychological/legal manner rather than pure brute force.... it's 'the modern way" of doing things I guess!!
BTW I speak to many decent Nationalists who think the same by the way. And yes they also speak in hushed tones lest Big Brother gets to hear…
d) The cherry on the cake is of course your insistence that you are right whilst others of a different opinion are all wrong... "detractors, those so the easily-riled" etc etc.
Dear, oh dear, oh dear... talking about reaching the peak!!
Conclusion?
When comparing myself to the "hearty" frame of mind (who seem to be either clearly out of touch with today’s reality or are trying to convince us otherwise)
... I just thank God for being a lil'Elve.....!!
What IS actually irritating is more:
b) Your continual painting of: mlp=dark ages = evil incarnate = suppression etc etc.
Are you seriously expecting people to take you seriously when you do that? We also lived those times too, as well as the present and recent past, you know! There's plenty to compare and decide upon! Or are you just doing that for dramatic effect in order to hide the weakness in your argument?
The fact that you cannot seem to bring yourself round to say that SOME good came out of those times - good that you are PERSONALLY enjoying your very self this very day! - kind of puts an absolute damper on any argument that you try to put forward.
c) your incessant desire, (nay obsession!) to rewrite history to farcical levels, (without any historical context of course!) and your desire live in (some of) the past (only) rather than tackle equally - if not far more - important issues in the present.
@ Il-Bocca
Zooom!!! (regrettably, that was the sound of yet another point put to you, passing right over your head, unrecognised.... well you do have a sense of humour right?!)
In simple mono-syllabic words, the points that many (perhaps uselessly) are putting forward most eloquently are:
a) It is not that the "lil'Elves" are shocked that anyone should insult the 'Saviour', the 'party machine' or any other such idiotic comment (perhaps you're trying to be 'funny' in your own way?)
You’ll actually find that most posters here left that kind of behaviour right back in the kindergarten yard many moons ago.
Clearly, that does not irritate the many who post here and indeed some posters have repeatedly pointed out that they are not standard bearers for anyone/ any party but they are individuals who use there mind to work out the lay of the land... and the way you paint the landscape is clearly wrong to them. That's all!
Have we now, therefore, reached a point in this democratic country (sic!) that a lil'Elve cannot - indeed DARE not - disagree with the chosen ones? (Or in British Public School sense of humour contradict the "Hearties"themselves....?)
peterprictoe@googlemail.com
Your reference to my contribution to this blog needs further dialogue, particularly regarding my experiences in being brought up in England. However, this is not the subject of this blog and I therefore invite you to contact me personally on my e-mail (salina46@onvol.net) for a further exchange of views.
It's not my intention to rubbish British rule or the Brits here, I was just trying to express my opinion, that it is important to look at Mintoff in the political context of the time. Labour outstayed their welcome, the majority wanted a different way of doing politics but Mintoff did a great job in the seventies, then the bully boy tactics took over. A mistake commited by many a male important leader historically, big egos find it hard to let go of power. Winston Churchill lost the 1945 election months after V.E. day because people wanted a change there too. He was voted greatest Briton recently.
I am in favour of Brits living here taking a more active role in local goverment, a lot of them care for Malta, far more than the Maltese. I have yet to hear of a British person throw a washing machine in a field or poison a dog. They decided to move to Malta because they like the place, something which cannot be said about a lot of local people, also in favour of us keeping the George Cross on our flag and taking much better care of British historical buildings.
Did not mean to step on your Prictoe, Malta lost a lot of it's strategic importance the day the bomb fell on Hiroshima. The way men waged war would never be the same again, and British changed it's way of defending it's borders and playing war. We are talking about about a small island controlling the biggest Empire in the history of the world here.
The British were well aware of the tensions beneath the surface of Indian society; partition became imperative to avoid civil war and anarchy. I am sure that you are aware of the Raj system and the the situation of the Congress party and the Muslim League. There are loads of other examples such as the way Brits used the escaped slaves in Jamaica to police the other enslaved imported Africans to the Balfour Declaration which explains a lot of the mess the middle east is in. Promises and lies that people are still paying for.
I agree with you that in Africa, Britian was not the worst offender, the concentration camps in South Africa and the white goverment of Rhodesia, Amin etc were nothing to be proud off though
For the record it's 'ferro da stiro' not 'ferro da stirare'.
What's next, quoting from Reader's Digest or Women's Weekly, maybe?
Re il-Bully?
I am puzzled for is that not the way they do things in Malta?
You say that the "British walked out of a country"
Were we not invited to leave Malta?
You say that we "left a divided land" and quoted India and Pakistan besdes Malta.
The British wished to leave a united India but Mohammed Jinnah insisted on partition.
Regarding Malta it is often alleged that we divided and ruled but did we do that . How?
British workers in the Dockyard encouraged their Maltese colleagues to unionise and that was the start of the presemt MLP it is true.
You refer to Africa and there you have substance but was Africa ever united?
We cannot look at the past with eyes of the present-zeitgeist and all that.
I deplore colonialism but wasn't around at the time.
Wrong again, Mr Muscat. The past tense does not always have to follow a past tense. Let me give you an example:
Last week I went to a shop and told the shop owner that I am married - Correct sentence.
Last week I went to a shop and told the shop owner that I was married - Incorrect, since I am still married.
I am no advocate of Dr Borg Cardona, and I do not always agree with all he says, but in this case, he certainly made no mistake. So I don't really think he's swearing at me. Its more like it that he's laughing his heart out at your silly mistake.
The fourth "attempt" on Mintoff's life mentioned by my contribution two days ago has been solved. . Undoubted information supplied by an ex-police officer proves, to my complete satisfaction, that this was not yet another "attempt" on Mintoff's life and that it was not a contemptible attempt to signal in by morse flashes an Allende type aerial bombardment of "The Olives". It was only a DIY householder trying to loosen the stiff hinges of a rooftop door by the light of his staircase bulbs.
That leaves only three "attempts" to be considered.
I have been looking back at a couple of postings
by you and have mixed feelings in response.
In broad terms I agree with your assessment of Dom Mintoff.
Some of the other points that you make in relation to Malta and the UK
I am somewhat uncomfortable with-not for the allegations against us-for which you have some justification (though I might differ in detail) but because it demonstrates in my opinion some facets of the inferiority complex displayed by many Maltese which I do not believe
is justified. You do not do yourself a favour in this respect..
On Mintoff though I am generally with you in terms of what you write though there may be some other aspects on which we might differ.
I have my own views on this incident but will not get involved beyond observing that ABC did not make an English error but rather an error in English-though even that could be argued.
We all make slips and typos and I have been in trouble on Maltese groups with my own views on language in Malta.
Yes we should all strive to use correct English in the interest of clarity but when I first read ABC's opus I did not even notice his error-if undeed it was an error in terms of colloquial English.
I trust you do not peruse my own words too closely because of my age and vision as well as failing brain cells.
No, Kenneth, you are wrong too. If you start "I went to point out", you continue with the past "that I was", NOT with the present "that I'm". You are ABC's weak advocate and you stuck your foot in the, er, smelly omelette!! He must be silently swearing at you for interferingt!!
Re your "There will NEVER be another Mintoff - may I add "and so say all of us" not forgetting fellow Lbourite Dr Alfred Sant and his MLP entourage.
It used to be said that "Good wine needs no bush" so why are you breaking your back planting all these vineyards in his honour if all that they are likely to produce is sour grapes?
Albert Fenech wrote
“However, being a well-adjusted lad I took this as par for the course and never went around boo-hooing and spluttering into my mother's milk that I was hard done by, or that my education was stunted by a fascist headmaster.”
ABC reacted “Aren't we lucky to have returned prodigals like Albert Fenech, who admits that it wasn't his headmaster who ruined his education, instructing us on the way history is written? Or re-written, if you take the adulation for Mintoff by the Lil'Elves as an example”. No comments.
LOL.
I must thank the Times and ABC for their hospitality . ABC has always been a nice person though a mature friend of DCG. No doubt he will tell her about her bad English in her sentence today "Tonio Borg must be a hell of a lot more comfortable with the values of Poland then he is with those of Denmark." Please Andrew tell her it should be THAN not then.
And why all this antipathy against the Poles? Are we racist only when we criticise the Africans who come here illegally?
Finally why do some Nats dislike Tonio Borg because he is a staunch Catholic? He makes mistakes but is doing his best. I only see ABC as an alternative Foreign Minister without portfolio. One does not have to be tall for this job.
Goodbye
Inviting ‘Maltese-Influence’ to a ball, Alexander never experienced such congregation of ugly women.
Hair-bun conservatism produced uglification.
Fashion-change could mean loss-of-power for ‘Maltese-Influence’ who survived centuries of Knights-rule.
This conservative characteristic of ‘Maltese-influence’ surfaces constantly. The first NP mass-meeting saw ‘Matese Influence’ even oppose the introduction by the British of the drainage system.
Mintoff is the only Maltese politician to date to implement large-scale progressive measures despite fanatical opposition by the ‘Maltese Influence’.
Mintoff built extensive international bridges that reaped for Malta significant returns (egWilly Brandt/German investment) China and transformation of our ship-repair capabilities that Government is now seeking to cash-in). ST came to Malta in 1981 and remains the single major contributor of on-going investment.
Mintoff managed brilliantly the transformation of Malta from Military to tourist destination as Britain is a reliable and welcome market that enabled Mintoff to boost tourism by 300%.
This surge of economic activity permitted social reforms: gender-equality, a robust pension culture, home-ownership etc.
Mediterranean islands who lacked their Mintoffs’ and Macarios’ today languish in the back-waters of European civilization.
‘Maltese Influence’ remains as influential as ever and their conservatism threatens to suck us into backwaters unless progressive Maltese rescue Malta from its state-of-the-art-mediocrity.
Yes, fits perfectly there as well.
Regarding Mintoff, his problem was the same as that of Soviet Russia. He was an utopian who believed that the end justifies any means. Even with the best intentions, such a belief is always dangerous and almost always culminates in violence and the victimisation of innocents.
Half a century later, India and Pakistan are still in a state of war. Afganistan still lies in tatters. The promised land is constantly in strife, Africa is still tryng to find it's roots that were destroyed by centuries of colonial exploitation - cont
1. the attempt on Mintoff's life by an admirer seeking access to him in Castille and who was shot and confined for many years in a mental diseases hospital for his pains,
2. The "barbarian" incident when an Israeli gunboat dared to take refuge from a storm in our waters and just below il-Gharix,
3. The mysterious attempt to assassinate Mintoff using a foerign sharpshooter details of which have just been promised in a previous ABC blog,
4. The mysterious incident of flashing morse signals at night in the neighbourhood of "The Olives" when Mintoff was in residence.
removed the blinkers they have been wearing for all these years? He should accept that he is a Political has- been and just fade away in to retirement, hoping that he does not get too much of a mention in the History books of the future!
I think that says enough. Perhaps it was George W Bush's gran-pappy who was plotting to have Mintoff assasinated. Honestly, the inflated view of Mintoff's importance some people have is really wondrous to behold.
According to Mr Wayne Madsen, there was a plot to overthrow and possibly kill Mintoff, Salvador Allende-style, which was being crafted by US Navy intelligence in conjunction with the neo-fascist and renegade Italian intelligence elements in Rome.
The US Navy wanted to overthrow Mintoff to gain access to its former NATO base in Malta off the Libyan coast. Bourguiba was not popular with the neoconservatives because he allowed Yasser Arafat’s Palestine Liberation Organisation to maintain its headquarters-in-exile in Tunis. Wayne Madsen is a Washington, DC based investigative journalist, author and a syndicate columnist. True or false? I don’t know ask Wayne.