If it’s in the game… it’s in the album. (with apologies to Nicola Legrottaglie, Ronaldinho, Cambiasso and Zanetti). Thank you Dunga.
Categories
Category: Library
Categories
Exclusive MP Footage
Always at the forefront of investigative journalism J’accuse is proud to present an exclusive walk-umentary as we shadow a Maltese member of parliament from the PLPN grouping in order to understand what goes on through their mind at voting time. In order to preserve anonimity, the MP has been heavily disguised and is being filmed and interviewed under a pseudonym: Ms Vicky Pollard.
spread the word:
Categories
Hard to Stomach
After spending five days of demonising the Liberal Democrats, the Daily Mail is finding it hard to stomach the idea of a coalition government. The Mail’s reaction to the share of the LibDems in Cameron’s new government is symptomatic of the “traditional” reaction to power sharing deals that result from coalitions.
It is hard for the politics of the personal to adapt to this new reality where your political adversary before the election could be sharing the corridors of power with you the next. That too is a not so often cited advantage of proportional representation. Smear mongering is potentially reduced because unless it is really justified and unless it is definitely part of the political reasoning (as in exposing criminal links or something of the sort that provides a service to the voter), every participant has to remember that his interlocutor might be part of the government forming majority come post-election day.
The Mail – caricature that it is – still contains articles calling the LibDems “harlots” and hardly manages to hide its disdain at the share of the cabinet won by the LibDems (and don’t forget that Nick Clegg is deputy PM). You’d expect a pro-Tory paper like the Mail to avoid jabs at coalition partners so early in the day. It shows an inability to adapt to the new realities of sophisticated politics where the much maligned “compromise” is really a result of complex dealing and thrashing out based on reason and not presumptious one party rule by constitutionally guaranteed (or electoral law engineered) parliamentary majorities.
A coalition partner is, in a way, an opposition party in power – an additional check and balance to the prudent use of legislative authority by the administrative branch of government. The Mail may view the LibDems as a harlot – quite an expensive one to maintain – but my guess is that they will get used to this harlot much more quickly than they like to think (especially if the fixed-term parliament proposal is included in the Queen’s speech).
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=65b4cd73-1050-4dee-817a-ab7e43acf3c1)
spread the word:
Categories
Inter-cettati (contd)
Juventus have officially presented a request for the revocation of the league title that was awarded off the pitch to Inter-cettati. The 29th league title won by Juventus on the pitch had been assigned to Inter-cettati after Juventus were found guilty of violating the principles of loyalty and propriety and correctness for having nurtured links with the refereeing class.
Following the emergence of evidence previously kept in the dark it transpires that Inter-cettati (non abbiamo mai chiesto lo scudetto) were just as thickly involved in the refereeing mess. While many could argue that Moggi’s Juventus were champions in the parallel league of dark practices off the pitch there is no denying that Inter were also losing participants in that category too. Such participation should automatically disqualify them from claiming the scudetto di carta of 2006.
There’s more. The victories of Mourinho’s Corazzata di Intercettati celebrated over the past four years will remain tainted forever by the way Inter-cettati first acted with disdain as though it was a victim and then proceeded to enjoy the fruits of having handicapped the only team that had kept its murky hands off the silverware for so long. The hypocrtical vultures had already fed off Juventus’ sinking ship in 2006 – Ibrahimovic and Viera – and then continued to build a (relatively) strong team while Juventus had to cope with the setback of being the capro espiatorio of the sick system that is Italian football.
2010. Inter-cettati win the scudetto (Siena permitting) and still cannot garner any respect from their adversaries. Like the sick King they can only be happy with the yes-men milanese press and their delusional ideas of grandeur defeating real football by reviving the catenaccio. Yes, we do remember that it takes the pretenders to the throne of football’s greats an hour of ugly catenaccio football to get to the final.
Throughout the eighties and nineties Inter-cettati had the sweet tag of “simpatici perdenti” almost loved by all except their Milanese cousins. Now under Moratti and Facchetti (God rest his soul) they have become an imposing symbol of all that is sick in Italian football.
“Nell’esposto presentato oggi si fa esplicito riferimento alle novità emerse nel procedimento penale in corso presso il Tribunale di Napoli, che rivelano l’esistenza di una fitta rete di contatti tra esponenti della società beneficiata dell’assegnazione a tavolino dello scudetto 2005-2006 e tesserati del settore arbitrale. Tali contatti rappresentano, secondo i criteri adottati dalla Procura Federale nel giudizio a carico della Juventus, la violazione dei principi di lealtà, probità e correttezza sanciti dall’articolo 1 del Codice di Giustizia Sportiva. È convinzione della Juventus, pertanto, che venga meno il presupposto della decisione assunta dal Commissario Straordinario della Federcalcio nel 2006: l’inesistenza, cioè, di “comportamenti poco limpidi” addebitabili alla squadra che risultò prima classificata dopo la penalizzazione delle altre” – Juventus FC
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=e484e83f-8080-462f-84da-90027fe5762c)
spread the word:
Categories
The Right to think Racist
Lou Bondi has been forced to justify his choice of interviewing Norman Lowell after the BA Authority accused Bondiplus of violating the Broadcasting Act and subsidiary legislation aimed at ensuring the promotion of racial equality.
Presenter Lou Bondì insisted yesterday he chose to interview Mr Lowell in order to delve beyond his thoughts on illegal immigration and help the Maltese understand the full force of the horrors of racism. “I am convinced that the best way of dealing with objectionable ideas is to discuss them, investigate them and expose them…,” he said. (Times)
Well. If the best way of dealing with objectionable ideas is to discuss them, investigate them and expose them I guess we should expect many more discussions on a large number of PLPN policies in the coming weeks. Of course we did not expect Lou to inform the BA that Norman was the only subject he could think of and that the investigative minefield (administrative law, tendering procedures, interested party amnesia, party interests etc) posed by the awarding of the BWSC contract was too complicated a task when compared to just putting a man with objectionable ideas on prime time national TV and letting him talk.
This nonsense of fining, shutting up and gagging people who have different ideas must stop. If our only way of countering their arguments is by obliterating them from view then we have reached a sad point in our society. Let him speak I say. The day we elect a crazed right winger to parliament then only one thought comes to mind: we deserve it.
I cannot fathom how we can talk of representative democracy on one hand and then engineer the rules to twist the representation to obliterate ugly elements. By that standard I’d like to see less and less of PLPN in the current format: how about defining them as objectionable too?
Lou is guilty of contributing heavily to the mediocrity of national discourse and engagement. He should not pay for this via some ridiculous assault on the freedom of expression. He cannot use this as his defence but frankly I think it is much stronger than his objectionable nonsense.
***
ADDENDUM
I had almost missed this one since I stopped checking on this column some time back but hey, curiosity pays. Another opinion on the Bondiplus Lowell farce.
This time it’s a friend of Lou’s doing the run down – and you can tell the extreme difficulty Joe had in constructing a critical argument to blame PBS, the producers (not Lou?) or anyone but Lou (you just have to love the “presenters of lesser stature than Lou” (does he mean shorter?))….
Anyways here is what Media Expert (Fr) Joe Borg had to say about the programme. Do note – PBS must publicly apologise for the mistake. Lou, the poor man, is just a cog of certain stature in the big wheels of the machinery.
What irked me most about the programme was its lack of context which could have perhaps justified the hurt caused because of some overriding public interest. A friend of mine smsed me with the question: is there a survey going on now? His is a very cynic position. Many people will accuse Lou of selling himself for ratings. I do not share this position. I am sure that the reasons Lou had for producing the programme were good and praiseworthy. I think he did it believing the programme would discredit Lowell. I do not doubt his intention but I also believe that he was totally off the mark.
I fear that now presenters of lesser stature than Lou would invite Lowell to their programme as this is how the media circus works. They would not be as prepared as Lou was and consequently Lowell would fare better in such programmes. This would give Lowell more publicity.
Lowell is a nobody. Election result after election result showed that he has not succeeded in riding the xenophobic attitude of many Maltese. He has been given his fair share of exposure which could have then been justified by the argument that people had to be informed about the monstrosity of his ideas. To-day, I think, that argument is no longer valid. He is just a fringe politician spouting hate. There is no place for the propagation of hate on public service TV.
PBS should take an editorial decision that Lowell would not be given coverage on the station barring exceptional circumstances due to some overriding public interest.
Would I be asking too much if I urge PBS to publicly apologise for this mistake?
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=73ccfac5-85f9-42bc-9e2f-dfdeeffd8b13)
spread the word:
Categories
Constitutional Nonsense
A Monday morning email from the PL Communications Office lands straight in my work outlook. How did they get my email address? Yes, there is a Whoiswho directory for EU fonctionnaires but somehow I don’t recall granting permission to the Malta Labour Party to make use of my date for its propaganda – or any other political party for that matter. No worries, I shall flag their spamming address with the IT people this side of the great firewall.
Meanwhile back at Dar it-Trasparenza the charade continues. Malta‘s Labour Party wants you to believe that the reason democracy has been undermined is because a member of parliament was allowed to rectify his vote. There is no way in hell that this tantrum will go down well with the intelligent voters. Erskine May or no Erskine May the constitutional understanding behind a members’ vote is related to the expression of his intention. If his expression was hindered in any way as to cause error then surely Joseph would know that his intention counts more important than his tired slip.
The charade is hopeless. It borrows on heavy words “undermining of democracy” because it is desperate for a marketing, PR ploy that can be sold without too much logic and reasoning. PL believes that there is a weaker democracy so what will it do? It resigns from the “kummitat” (double-m for J) for the strengthening of democracy. Labour is strong on the cliché adjectives … “assolutament, bl-iktar mod possibbli…” then comes the pause… because when you try to reach a climax with a bubble you risk it bursting in your face (see video at 53 seconds).
Mario Galea would never have voted in favour of Labour’s motion. Joseph can cry till his tear ducts are dry. The Labour benches may swell with yells that will serve as an easy reminder of thuggery in parliaments past but this is no constitutional crisis. It is a charade.
Tonio Borg‘s “solution” to the Mario Galea gaffe is just as despicably pitiful. It is not exactly an “attakk oxxen/fahxi” that Labour would like it to sound like but you can understand why Justyne Caruana is pretty miffed at being thrown into the business like Pilate in the creed and why she is suddenly being projected as Labour’s answer to Aun San Suu Kyi.
I would say that there is an undermining of a democratic principle. One that has been in the process of rapid deterioration for quite some time now. It is that of representation. For a moment you would say that the people are being unfairly and wrongly represented by a class of buffons hitherto unequalled. Then, after a moment of reflection, you correct yourself by remembering that it was “the people” who put them there in the first place.
Reap. Sow. Reap. Sow. Reap. Sow.
Mick Jagger notwithstanding sometimes you get just exactly what you wanted.
Video Section
first the stone wall:
then the Stones
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=7ca52e4f-da53-4539-a8d7-de2bf5d35332)
