David and Goliath (Who the f**k is Goliath?)
Fellow blogger and regular guest-blogger David Friggieri has been caught in the crossfire in the war of Astrid “The People” versus Daphne “The Blue Cuschieri”. It seems that David is destined to have quotes from his fine articles pulled slightly out of context (though this time it was closer to the mark). This time round it was Astrid Vella quoting Friggieri in a comment she left on the Times. Out comes Daffers with guns a’blazing shooting left right and centre in the style we have gotten used to by now. Here is the sideshot to DF in one of a blogorrhea of Anti-Astrid posts called (very creatively) “More Bollocks from Astrid“:
Here’s Astrid Vella, talking bollocks again on timesofmalta.com, complete with island as a proper noun. I suppose her degree in English was as useful as her diploma in baroque studies. ‘Your party’? Thanks for confirming that you’re anti-Nationalist, Astrid. Not that we needed telling, given your antics.
And David Friggieri? Chi e?
Dear, dear. The same DF who engaged Daphne in myriad comments (even on her blog) becomes a victim of circumstance. Having been quoted by her latest arch-enemy he is expediently ditched into the bin of “Who the f**k is David?” Hardly classy and hardly engaging. But then what can you expect… the latest witchhunt seems to warrant this kind of cheap shot. Meanwhile most people read the posts on Running Commentary out of sick curiosity more than real interest… and the question that keeps reverberating in their mind is… “Who the f**k is Daphne?”
Fausto’s Conserve
One accolyte of Daphne’s did try to shoot a couple of parting shots of his own at J’accuse having been irredeemably irked by the association of those who now take jibes at Jeffrey with blue-eyed hypocrites. The archives further back than June 2008 at Thermidor have conveniently vanished so we cannot retrieve whatever hypotheses Majistral held with regard to Jeffrey’s blue eyed innocence and his promising career as a PN politician once the elections were over. Majistral is therefore more comfortable dressing up in the guise of a latter day Lorna Vassallo and speaks of “Kunserva tat-Three Hills” instead of Gozo Cheese. Little difference, not just in accusation but also in substance.
Here’s Fausto talking about J’accuse:
As anyone who has been following his blog for some time knows the man has only very few opinions about anything.
I’m sorry, I haven’t a clue what this guy is on about. Fausto comes up with a (feignedly) ignorant analysis of how I apply the “meme” to the JPO circumstance. Of course I never could have predicted JPO going out on a limb on immigration. What I did insist and still do insist is that our current form of politics forces the political parties to back horses they have absolutely nothing in common with. The only problem is that every vote counts and when you are desperate to achieve a relative majority of a thousand and a half vote every vote helps…. a bit like a contract with the devil. It’s not like Joe Saliba did not say it himself, but then again Fausto prefers the argumentum ad hominem than trying to wriggle out of the uncomfortable scenario of admitting that the meme fits perfectly well.
Conserve indeed. Of the blinkered kind.
6 replies on “Crossfire”
Political parties backing horses they have absolutely nothing in common with? Come off it Jacques. You mean to say you really knew last year that Pullicino-Orlando was a Lowellite in disguise?
And you did not get the “kunserva tat-three hills” thing. I was referring to the ad they ran on TV some time ago with the tag line “some things never change”. It was never intended to be offensive and I apologise if it was understood to be that way.
Nothing in common with… Vince Farrugia (could have been Labour… could have been PN but PN are in government – his words not mine) or Alan Deidun…
re Apology… understood and accepted.
Now don’t run off just because the thermostat has gone up by a degree: it’s Pullicino-Orlando and his recent outburst that we were talking about. When in March 2008 did Pullicino-Orlando express such opinions which would have clearly set him apart from his Party’s Leader, his post on the CoE’s Parliamentary Assembly and his Party’s electoral programme (which, by the way, pledged committment to international law)?
And Jacques, before you blogs becomes exclusively about MLPN, David, Daphne and me, why all this disinterest on the substantial issue that’s going on? What you blog about is your business but let me just remind you that ages ago your interest was such that you launched the “Le ghar-Razzizmu” and the “Lamp Post” campaign.
Bongu Jacques. To be honest it was a relatively weak salvo that was fired in my direction considering the blitzkrieg that has been launched on the Eff Aay Aay. I was tempted to respond to the salvo fired by Air Craft Carrier Daffers for two reasons: 1) I was wondering why Daffers chose to write her put-down line in Italian (deviating oddly from the usual spotless English and ‘pastazati’ Maltese) and 2) Why she limted herself to “And David Friggieri? Chi e’?” when she could have opted for “And David Friggieri? Chi cazzo e’ questo stronzo?” (which would have been more in line with her general attitude).
Bon, on a eu nos quinze minutes de gloire. Back to the slog of a lazy weekend in your favourite city.
Some jumbled thoughts about MLPN…
Every political movement needs a theme. AD’s has long-been that Malta needs to break the ‘MLPN’ duopoly. MLPN proved to be catchy, and people who think that Maltese politics needs shaken up have been eager to work those four letters, and their poor cousin, PLPN, into several critical pieces.
But the trouble with slogans is that they take on lives of their own. We soon forget to test the premise because the slogan is so catchy that it becomes incontrovertible in the minds of those who are taken by it. For example, is Labour a party of progressives? Unlikely. Its leader might (might!) be, but his policies are not the party’s policies.
MLPN – catchy. But this slogan must also be tested. The acronym has caught on because of the obscenities in Malta’s electoral system, besides that there is a ring to it. The virtual impossibility of electing small parties is seen as the result of a conspiracy between the two major parties to maintain a stranglehold on power. PN and MLP must agree if our Constitution is to be democratised further. They have failed to agree. A cynic would say that they have agreed to disagree.
What is certain is that there was not sufficient good faith, or partisan necessity to overcome differences. But let’s be clear that up to 1987, the priority was not repeating 1981. Between then and 1992, there was no small party that seemed significant enough to dispense Parliamentary time on accommodating. AD’s surprise result in ’92 changed things. Between then and now, PN conceded to Labour’s somewhat delusional, but justified, post-96-98 demand for perfect proportionality as between the two major parties. The agreement was obscene in that it addressed a relative non-issue, rather than what proponents of pluralism deem to be a major issue.
So does this smack of conspiracy? I think not. There is simply a lack of good faith because one or both the major parties fail to be parties of progressives or democrats – because several slogans fail to stand up to scrutiny and become hackneyed over time.
Perhaps Fausto is right and we need to move on. Let’s discuss the substance of the ‘MLPN’ electoral injustice because battles are best fought on the most favourable terrain.