Author: Jacques René Zammit

Categories
Arts

Il-partiġjan

Hemm hu l-emblema tal-vojt. L-epitomija tan-non-sens. Il-partiġjan tipiku. Hip, hip, ħu go fik!

Hemm hu. Magna orwelljana ta’ non sequitur u ċapċip fieragħ, mass meeting solo ta slogans irrilevanti, baħar ta’ bnadar bħanan go moħħu jixxejru ghal logħba li lanqas midalja ma tagħtih.

Hemm hu. Ħsiebu bħal għama jdamdam bil-goff mal-parapetti u l-wesgħat ta’ din l-art ħelwa bil-vujtaġni tar-riflessjonijiet tiegħu “politiċi” jvenvnu vagament mal-kuriduri wesgħin tal-antikamera ta’ moħħu.

Hemm hu. Jispara kwalunkwiżmi inkoerenti mdellka b’kazzati immani bir-ritmu ossessiv u ossessjonat ta’ min għalih ir-rebħa fuq l-ieħor biss tgħodd u “xalazobbi mir-raġuni” għax it-tkaxkira hija ir-raġuni u x’jitnejjek jekk wara kollox r-raġuni ħadet l-ikbar tkaxkira.

Hemm hu. Jadula, jadura u jilgħaq qiegħ is-saqajn tal-mexxejja u rgħajja illi skontu se jindukraw merħlithom għall ikbar glorja, jimmasturba mentalment u jittama li jmiss talanqas il-vixxri interni tal-allat ta’ partitu u jdellikhom ma wiċċu għax ma jistħoqqlux li jidħlu taħt is-saqaf tiegħu iżda jlissnu biss kelma waħda u jaħlef li jiblagħha sa’ l-għoqda.

Hemm hu. Sikofanti psikotiku serf tal-bidla mwiegħda li se tkun tiegħu ukoll, lest li jissielet fuq quddiem għal ġieħ pajjiżu indipendenti, repubblikan u ħieles, lest li jarma barrikadi u jkun fuq nett fit-taqbida mal-għadu jilgħeġ bir-rgħawa f’ħalqu kontra kull tip ta’ korruzzjoni u klikkek (basta ma jkunux il-korruzzjoni u klikkek tagħna għax f’dak il-każ ma jgħoddx.. wara kollox biddilna).

Hemm hu. Jiddistingwi bejn “tajjeb” u “ħażin” bil-kejl tat-tfal fil-playground, bil-metru tas-sapporter ġewwa ta’ Qali (min hu Missierkom?), bil-użin tal-irrabbjat ikkonsmat bil-kilba għat-tpattija u biż-żerriegħa tad-diżilluż u tal-oppress u batut li xebgħu jgħidulu li missha inktibet ukoll fuq il-karta ta’ identita jew tnaqqxet bl-inka ittatwata qrib qalbu.

Hemm hu. Eternament insodisfatt. Eternament espert. Eternament ifittex dik il-Valhalla tal-carcade, dak l-Eliżju tal-mass meeting, dak l-estasi ta’ folla/merħla li għal mument titwaħħad bi ħsieb uniku ta’ “rebħa fuq l-għadu” anki fejn għadu mhux suppost hemm għax “tagħna lkoll”.

Hemm hu. Għal dak il-mument jitwaħħad mal-bqija u jemmen (għax irid jemmen) li din is-saga tiegħu ukoll u li dak li se jinkiseb se jinkiseb għalih u għal uliedu u għal ulied uliedu… din ir-rebħa tagħhom ukoll.

Imbagħad wara li jkun twaħħad bid-dagħdiha tal-gost, bil-ferħ tar-rebħa, bl-estasi tat-tkaxkira li tassolvi kull inkoerenza u taħfer kull għoxxata li tkun intqalet…

Imbagħad wara li l-ħoss tal-aħħar carcade ikun intefa’ u wara li tagħna lkoll ikun sar il-gvern, u l-bidla tibda (?)…

Imbagħad forsi fis-solitudni ta’ kamartu fejn ma hemmx bżonn iktar jilbes il-maskla tal-fanatiku diżilluż u ma hemmx bżonn jiggranfa fil-vojt biex jiġġustifika fidi fiergħa…

Imbagħad forsi… waħdu jistaqsi bejnu u bejn ruħu… Għaliex?

Sal-mass meeting li jmiss.

Categories
Values

Monkeys and salary caps

The first thing that you must know is that to a capuchin monkey a grape is much more valuable than a cucumber. It will work (perform a task) for the price of a cucumber but given the choice it would prefer working for a grape. Grapes, in capuchin monkey world, are more valuable than cucumber – a higher salary so to speak. So what do you think would happen if you had two capuchin monkeys in adjacent cages and you started off by rewarding each of them a morsel of cucumber when they performed the same task? Well, so long as you did so they would each happily perform and consume.

Frans de Waal – a Dutch primatologist and ethologist – set up just such an experiment. For the next step though he decided to reward the monkeys unequally. While one monkey received a “promotion” in salary terms (a grape) the other was given a cucumber once again for the very same task. The moment the “underpaid” monkey noticed that it had received a salary of lesser quality for performing the same task it went berserk (see video).

This experiment goes toward demonstrating that even in the animal world there is a sense of justice and equality. In the words of Frans de Waal the angry monkey came up with his equivalent of “the Wall Street” protests – complete with angry rattling of cage and throwing of unwanted foodstuff. What I do not know is whether de Waal went on to experiment rewarding monkeys differently for different tasks and whether a capuchin monkey would still get angry if the other monkey being paid a better salary was performing a more difficult task.

The monkeys seem to get it though. Same task requires same pay. It’s only fair. Would they appreciate the fact that a technical job in which a monkey is specialised and successful merits a better salary and reward? In the human world the system of salaries generally observes that kind of rule and barring communist and socialist systems the more successful and capable you are or the more specialised your service the more is your salary reward. Unless of course, as I said, you are brought up with the chip-on-the-shoulder socialist mentality and the only solution you can see is the wielding of the all-equalling socialist scythe : equal pay for everyone no matter their competence. A sort of il-paga tagħna lkoll.

You only get monkeys if you pay peanuts and even the monkeys are learning fast that peanuts are not always the best pay around.

 

Check out The paradox of fairness on The New Statesman

Categories
Euroland

The Bruges Speech

Much is being said about Margaret Thatcher and her views on Europe but do you know what her views on Europe were? Here is the speech that the Iron Lady had delivered at my second alma mater – the College of Europe in Bruges. It gives more than idea on what Thatcher thought about Europe.

Categories
Euroland Politics

Maggie of Iron

It would be amiss to call Margaret Thatcher one of the world’s first stateswomen. She wasn’t. Elizabeth the First comes to mind – a monarch true but a stateswoman all the same. The shopkeeper’s daughter from Finchley was one hell of a stateswoman though and would not have been too bothered about the issue of primacy in time. The iconic figure has all the prerequisites to be become a giant in the history of politics – a sans pareil in many respects. Watching “The Road to Finchley” recently made me realise what tough material the iron lady was made of.

With Baroness Thatcher we do not only lose a huge piece of the jigsaw of political giants of the last century – we also witness the passing away of a dying breed. You may have disagreed with her politics, her aggressive militancy against communism, her tough approach with slack unionism (treating Britain with socialism is like treating leukaemia with leeches) and her ever so distant approach to the Common Market. You may not have appreciated her balls, her bull and her gall – tha lady who was not for turning might not have been your type yet she had one defining quality that appeared in a much more pronounced way than in most politicians of her time. With Margaret Thatcher you knew where you stood.

This was a politician who would call a spade a spade and who has been described as undiplomatic and whose rather direct ways were perhaps only pardoned because notwithstanding all outward appearance she was a lady playing the game in the men’s playground. Margaret and her politics had spine and backbone. This was not the kind of politician who could conjure up an ephemeral coalition or movement and hide behind a “politics for all” approach based on effortless compromise and pleasant policies. Rather, Margaret’s medicine did not go down well with most of the country to the point that her three-term election as Prime Minister was as surprising as it was effective.

This was not politician who would promise the moon to feed electors who swallow false promises recklessly. This was a responsible conservative with a clear idea of the Britain that she wanted and its role in the world with her beloved partners in the US. She would even shun the Commonwealth if she had to. For Margaret Thatcher’s world was one that was built on clear policies and positions – not compromises. Disagree if you will but you knew where you stood. There was no deceit. Ask the miners. Ask the workers of Britain who woke up to a brutally necessary dawn in the eighties while their cousins in the US were experiencing the Reagonomy revival.

To me, consensus seems to be the process of abandoning all beliefs, principles, values and policies. So it is something in which no one believes and to which no one objects.

A beautiful heritage from Baroness Thatcher. We should not forget it. It should be burnt into the manuals of political movements and onto the foreheads of the pseudo-politicians of today who are busy playing a game that is beyond their wit, their ken, hell their very conception.

Politics, she would have told them, is not about being popular but about being effective and clear. Politics is about leading not about prancing in public and bluffing about leaving the reins in the hands of the people.

… so popular to the point of being despised. As Frankie Boyle put it, she could very well become the first politician to have the 21 gun salute pointed at her coffin. You know, just to make sure that she’s dead.

Fare thee well Iron Lady.

Categories
Campaign 2013

Għid Banana

Biċċa xogħol ħelwa ta’ Cedric Vella. Qed intellagħha hawn fuq pjattaforma li qalgħet daqqa sew minħabba l-popolarita u populiżmu popolari ta’ facebook. Iva konna kwieti. Saħansitra nirċievu posta mingħand facebook u wordpress jistaqsuna għala ma tellajna xejn f’din l-aħħar ġimgħa. Tinkwetawx – mhux li inkwetati. Għadna hawn. Qed nagħmlu ftit reset kemm personali kif ukoll ‘professjonali’ fil-qasam tal-blogs.

Cedric għamel pastiche. Samples ħelwin li ma huma mużikali xejn pero xorta jirnexxilhom idewwquna t-togħma qarsa tal-massa politika maltija. Dik li għandna u dik li se nkomplu nitwekkew biha. Kif qed jitkellem dwar politika J’accuse? Tafu intom. Il-kazz mhux opinjoni u riflessjoni soċjali mhux neċessarjament politika. Issa li wara biss ġimaghtejn gvern effettiv u mingħajr ebda miżura ġdida sparixxew il-kjujiet fil-Casualty Mater Dei ikollok tibda taħseb li soċjalment kollox qed isir possibli. Jekk il-ħalba xita li jmiss ma jfurx il-wied tafu lill min għandkom tirringrazzjaw. U jekk ma tafux ifakkrukom b’xi press release.

Sadattant is-Sebħ ta’ Malta ġdida qed ngħixuh b’forom ġodda ta’ attentati ta’ ċensura mentali. Issa jekk tikkritika ifisser li inti frustrat, għajjur u ma fhimtx il-messaġġ. Ifisser li Malta ma hix tiegħek ukoll u ħaqqek l-għadab ta’ dawk li għadhom qed jistħu biss minn ġewwa ta’ kemm belgħuha sal-gerżuma.

Din ma hix politika sieħbi. Dan post dwar il-ħajja. Ceci n’est pas une pipe. 

Mela ħudu dan il-memento vivi tal-politika maltija bi pjaċir. U ippermettuli infakkarkom li s-satira vera li ma tbiegħx ruħha għada ħajja fir-Repubblika tal-Banana (paġna facebook) u li sakemm jasal żmien iktar bnazzi J’accuse qiegħed jirrikmandalkom blog politiku mniedi minn fatat f-kemmuna (Comino Republic / ukoll fuq facebook). Moreh nebhukin… u ifmuh.

U fejn ma tafux u ma tifhmux… għidu banana.

Categories
Mediawatch

The United Kingdom’s Fourth Estate

The UK Parliament is under huge pressure (including a looming deadline) to enact new measures that would regulate the behaviour of newspapers. The highly controversial measures have seen an increase in cross-party negotiations as the Lib-Dems (Tory partner in government) seem to prefer an alignment with Miliband’s Labour on this one. Labour, on its own part is not too keen to be seen working comfortably with Clegg’s party for the simple reason that it would prefer to send out the image of a party that could govern alone.

It is not just our “fledgling” 50 year old parliamentary democracy that has trouble working out the difference between legislative representation and governance. Coalitions and possible difficulties they carry have nothing to do with the real problem here. Only the short-sighted would pin the trouble on the existence of the coalition. Cameron, in fact, is having to also deal with 20 rebel MPs (at least) and that surely proves that the controversial subject is one of those that causes rifts and alliances beyond the lines of government vs opposition in any case.

What is more interesting  in fact is the nature of the ongoing debate – whether or not the press should be controlled by statute or by charter. The repercussions of statutory control are enormous since the chances that MPs become the ultimate guardians of the free press would be higher in such a case. The problem of such a scenario is that this would put serious limits on the freedom of the press itself – the risks of the abuse of the power by MPs would end up creating an unnecessary muzzle of imaginary censorship.

A Royal Charter setting up an independent body could be the most amenable solution in the circumstances. It would ensure that one of the entities that must be scrutinised by the press does not suddenly have control over their freedom of expression. By way of example, the British Broadcasting Corporation was set up by Royal Charter.

The danger of having parliamentary control over the press can never be sufficiently highlighted. Dealing with this in a Westminster-style parliamentary democracy is all the more important – and the danger of having a relativist idea of fairness dominate true principles of justice and rights is a clear and present danger. Not just on the embankment in London.

There can be absolutely no doubt that this rise to commercial greatness was partly made possible by those freedoms won in the 18th century – an independent judiciary; habeas corpus; freedom of assembly; the right of voters to choose their representatives; and above all the freedom of the press to speak truth to power: to ridicule, to satirise – even to vilify – and to expose wrongdoing. – Boris Johnson on the rise to greatness of London.