Tag: liberals

Categories
Campaign 2013 Politics

The charm offensive ?

So Simon Busuttil, il-wiċċ taz-zokkor, is now officially deputy leader of the nationalist party. The last person to really care so much about the post of deputy leader must have been Guido De Marco (bless his soul) and probably that was because the post meant so much to him in terms of the position that he never obtained – that of leader of the party and prime minister of a nation. De Marco was a giant figure in Maltese politics and his political career outshone whatever disappointments he may have felt with regard to the failure to become Prime Minister – if anything Guido gave added value to the post of deputy leader.

Let’s face it. How often have we even taken any notice of the nationalist party’s deputy leader and his role within the party? Before all the hullabaloo of the Busuttil vs Fenech contest can you really honestly say that anybody anywhere gave two hoots about who sat at the right hand of Lawrence Gonzi? Look at Labour, they had a sort of big deal about their triumvirate until the two deputies became too embarrassing to flaunt and they too were relegated to token appearances. But back to the PN. The post of deputy leader was as effective as that of receptionist at Dar Centrali. In the past the PN has been all about Leader, Secretary-General and a distant third would be the President of the Party. But deputy leader? Who?

But now we have Simon. And it behoves the nationalist party’s poll ratings that Simon’s ascendancy to the deputy leadership becomes the greatest deal this Christmas. If necessary, he’s got to be bigger than Santa Claus. Jesus even (with apologies to the Beatles).

Fresh Sweep

The election for the post had been billed, for good reason, as a battle between old and new. Simon banked on the idea of change while  Tonio backed by the old guard and all the cabinet but one was the symbol of “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”. The glossators of the PN school of thought tried to play down this dichotomy but no amount of dampening could hide the fact that this was just that – old guard vs fresh babyface.

Not that Busuttil did anything to hide this aspect of his election. Speaking to the press and at first meetings he has described his election as “renewal” and his mission as “regaining of trust”. There would be nothing to renew if there was not an element of mustiness and passé feeling around the current batch of PN exponents. You would not speak of “regaining trust” without implicitly acknowledging that this has been lost – and we all know where the fingers are being pointed. So yes, Simon’s election included the admission of the problems that the current strand of GonziPN is facing. They had to.

So far so good. Simon Busuttil, the champion of new and change trounced Fenech at the voting counter by garnering two-thirds of the vote of PN’s councillors. A message had been “sent” also to the cabinet old guard. What next though? What is this “charm offensive” all about?

What change?

Let us begin with the obvious. As we stated earlier the post of deputy leader is quite a cameo role. It has been for a long time and the first question to ask is “What clout does Simon Busuttil have as deputy leader?” On the one hand he has to fit in and “work with others”. There’s the party leader who cannot be seen as too weak himself – so Simon will speak about “working in tandem”. He speaks of combining Gonzi’s experience with his. His what exactly? Apart from the smiles and monotone affirmations of his will to change what does Simon bring to the PN? He has already been part of the “listening exercise” – having exalted the “MYChoice” and “MyVoice” experiences as being useful. Is that enough?

Simon has rebuffed Debono, Mugliette and JPO so thankfully his early entreaties to reconciliation have been banished to the bin. What will he do to win the trust of the voters? Will Simon only serve as a dilution of the GONZIPN trademark in order to save the PN from the negative connotations that the GonziPN brand has come to mean? Politically – policy wise – Simon does not seem to think that any form of change is necessary. His emphasis in the message to voters is simply that they cannot abandon a team that works: “if you do not want to put all our achievements in jeopardy – and that includes achievements in jobs, health and education – then please put your trust back in the Nationalist party“.

So what change exactly? Apparently Simon puts his finger on the issue of arrogance. It would seem that the polls within the Dar Centrali are pointing to arrogance as the number one problem within the PN. It goes like this… the policies are ok, the system is working (no matter how much Labour depicts a failing economy and country)… all we need to change are the arrogant bunch of bastards who have been there for too long. Enter Simon, il-wiċċ taz-zokkor, and he will give the machine a new wrapping. Do you think I am hallucinating? Really? How about this gem from the horse’s mouth (speaking at Tarxien PN Club on Sunday):

“People say they want change, but of faces, not of policies or results. People are happy with those. And we’re giving them exactly that,” he said.

Provare per credere – as the Italians would say. Unless Simon was misquoted by Bertrand Borg of the Times we have quite an “admission” on our hands. On the other hand you cannot fault him for thinking that way. Tonio Fenech’s budget was so good that even Labour want to adopt it. The Labour alternative insofar as economic planning is concerned is an absolute mess – just look at the abysmal performance of the Vella-Scicluna-Mangion triumvirate at the press conference. So the people want change because they are bored with the current batch? Let’s give them change – we’ll give them new faces.

Only that Simon is banking on a new army of what he calls “high-calibre” candidates that are the product of the same system of vetting that gave the nationalist party Franco Debono, Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando and Jesmond Mugliette. You just have to look at the posturing of Austin Gatt’s minion Manuel Delia (last seen speaking about “intelligent transport systems” as though Arriva was a nightmare that happened to others) to see that Simon’s “new faces” are not all that tip-top as he is gearing them up to be.

In buona sostanza

And finally substance. There’s the whole business of the liberal democrat orphans that might need to be addressed. The last in a series of budgets might have been criticised for being too gracious with the haves and too little for the have nots but there is an uncanny consistency in the PN economic model that is far from being negative. Notwithstanding the political rollercoaster caused by the one-seat majority, Gonzi’s PN has managed to steer in a clear direction economic crisis notwithstanding. Budget measures and incentives remain strongly family-centred (as always) and the business model is based on give and take (to qualify for incentives you are expected to invest) which is not all that bad given the scenario. Apart from the energy fiasco you could also find it in yourself to accept a graduated approach to the utility bills.

Having said all that the social rights issues remain GonziPN’s weak point. Their association with the conservative agenda (or opting for it) means that they risk abandoning a part of what hitherto has been an important contribution to bulking up their mass of vote. They may still be lucky that such voters as give priority to their social issues (censorship, gay rights, lay model society, criminal law reform) are unable to put their vote where their mouth is. GonziPN + Simon will still bank on the endgame played out on the eve of an election – It’s either us or them (them being Labour – AD don’t count).

What with all the talk about change and European Values, Simon has failed to hint whether his “change” will also include a rapprochement with the liberal elements that have until now served to beef up that crucial vote. I doubt very much this will happen this time round because Simon probably believes that between changing faces, a bumbling opposition and a few overtures of trust and openness (known colloquially as bżar fl-għajnejn) PN might once again snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

Sadly, the charm offensive might prove just right and the PN will have forfeit an opportunity for real change.

Se vogliamo che tutto rimanga come è, bisogna che tutto cambi.

Categories
Campaign 2013 Uncategorized

The Hidden Hand, Fundamentalist Liberals and other tales

Something strange happened in parliament yesterday. George Vella meant to congratulate Tonio Borg for his appointment to the post of Commissioner and apparently did so. In doing so though he came up with some weird theory about a “hidden hand” that could have been behind John Dalli’s resignation (so he did resign?) and the opposition to Tonio Borg. I have developed a pavlovian reaction to any kind of conspiracy theory that involves “hidden hands” or “evil cliques” or “axis of terror” so George Vella does not kick off to a good start with me on this point.

It gets worse though. I am not about to speculate on whether or not the “hidden hand” really exists and what the purpose of this veiled limb might really be because I’d rather concentrate on the metamessages that filtered through before and after Tonio’s victorious vote in the EP.

Labour’s National Interest

George Vella’s “hidden hand” theory was wrapped in the sweet progressive packaging of a collective Labour message dubbed “Fl-Interess Nazzjonali” (in the national interest). There was some interesting reading to be had there. Leader Joseph had committed the pack to backing Tonio while explaining that it would not be an easy affair – presumably because he had some insider info as to what would be happening to Tonio Borg’s CV in the run up to the vote. Which can only mean one thing – that Labour’s men knew of the ideological baggage problematics that would surface during the grilling and in the run up to the vote.

So what did progressive labour do? It is not a given fact that Labour should have joined the wolves baying for Tonio’s blood simply because it is supposed to be “progressive”. That definition of progressive plays into the hands of the “liberals are intolerant bigots” crowd in any case. There had to be a reason though why Labour actually wanted to back Tonio Borg’s nomination. It could have been easier after all joining the sceptic wing of the socialist grouping who kept requesting commitment after commitment from the nominee. Instead Labour joined the Borg Backers. They claimed to be ashamed of the belittling of Malta and its portrayal as a backward nation – not too clear whether they were disappointed because this was the stark reality or simply because calling Malta names is just not done.

So when it came to saying why they backed Tonio they came up with what Wilfred Owen called “The Old Lie” – national interest. Mintoff must be applauding in his tomb. In other words Labour does not have a principled position on Tonio Borg. Labour just wanted Tonio Borg’s vote to go through “għax Malti”. A bit like the rush to get likes for some obscure international competition simply because we should back people who are  Maltese you know.In the end Labour just showed that it has absolutely no clout within its europarliament grouping and that once again it is a party that is unable to stand up for a principle whenever necessary.

Free votes. Thank God they don’t cost money.

The Nationalists and Fundamentalist Liberals

While the Labour party hid behind the “babaw barrani” or as he is to be known henceforth “the hidden hand” to hide their spineless antics, the nationalist party upped the ante in an area in which it is an expert. We witnessed over a few weeks the demonisation and character assassination of anything remotely liberal. By grouping the bungling idiots who upstaged Tonio Borg’s “grilling” with misinformed questions with those who are genuinely concerned with Tonio Borg’s suitability the nationalists adapted their “zokk u l-fergha” campaign to the present set of circumstances.

Suddenly requesting a commitment from Tonio Borg with regards to certain points which remained open to doubt after his grilling made someone “a liberal bigot”. Rubbish. They were entitled to request whatever commitments they deemed necessary. Once Tonio signed them they should have also got on with it and voted him in. They had his written word after all. That Tonio still has to deal with his conscience in those particular circumstances where he will be working on programmes that are not compatible with his beliefs is neither here nor there. So long as he does the job it’s fine. At most he can hold his nose while dealing with the shit. Or resign. Either that or he should have done as Eddie Fenech Adami advised him and never signed that list.

But back to the nationalist’s new chimera. They are fast transforming the image into one reminiscent of the baby-eating communists of the early post-war. Liberals, they’ll rape your children and sleep with your pet cat if you’re not too careful. Liberals, they’re intolerant and don’t know where they left their manners. We know it’s a load of rubbish but the PN machine is in full swing to shoot down these upstarts who might differ from them on more than one point of principle.

The funny thing is that ideally many of these liberals who are in a silent minority potentially form part of the critical mass of swing votes. Even funnier is the fact that no matter how much of a battering they will get from the PN, come election day they will be faced with the usual “wasted vote” dilemma and before you know it it’s a nice number 1 next to Manuel Delia et al.

Middle Fingers

You’ve got to admit. It’s a weird political world that we inhabit. Our progressives are busy warning us about the foreign hidden hands that militate against our national interest. Our conservatives are busy accusing those of a mildly more liberal opinion of being intolerant and fundamentalist. As all this goes on the parties agree to bury the hatchet to pass a very conservative IVF law, still have not got anywhere on the question of same-sex marriages and will be darned before they admit that their house is not open to the normal sort of liberal democrats.

Meanwhile the spin machines will easily oblige with a few articles here and there balancing the need to shoot at Labour with the need to emphasise at how useless the bunch of wishy washy liberals is. All the while they fail to get the joke.

And the joke is on them.

note: attached image is an early one from the notorious shtf collection that has suddenly become topical again

Categories
Mediawatch Values

Conscience, liberally speaking

François Hollande has found himself in quite a fix. His government is currently pushing the kind of law that is very easily labelled as ‘liberal’ (and consequently carries all the baggage that you might identify with the word these days). It’s France – the epitome of laïcité – and you’d expect the citizens of the republic to be either enthousiastes or at the most nonchalantes about the adoption of a law that has been dubbed “Marriage pour tous” (marriage for everyone). Yep. The biggie in France right now (apart from the herd of elephants in the corner called Angela Merkel, the Economist and the failing economy) is the new law that finally legalises same-sex marriages.

The debate is not so simple. Protests this weekend led to up to 100,000 catholics hitting the streets. In some cases we had violent scenes against the French version of FEMEN who had bullied the protesters in their usual topless garb with the words “IN GAY WE TRUST” writ all over their angry boobies (like angry birds but sexier) and spraying “Holy Sperm” out of cannisters. The religious organisations – still unable to get to grips with the very basis of laïcité are vociferous in their criticism. It’s not just the Malta of Tonio Borg that has obvious trouble coming to terms with certain concepts.

What was really intriguing were François Hollande’s declarations yesterday. Faced with a backlash from the mayors of many municipalities who found the idea of having to bind two persons of the same sex in marriage appalling he came up with a controversial solution. We still have freedom of conscience. He said. They are free to step back and nominate a delegate in their stead. He said. The possibilities of delegation can even be widened. He said. (In the likely scenario of a whole commune of representatives – from deputy mayor to cleaner of the Hotel de ville – refusing to preside over a lay marriage he is suggesting that they nominate “a valid outsider”).

Really François? How bloody socialist of you. Seems to me that the socialists of the 21st century are all bla and no substance. The proverbial men without balls (and women without…. oh you know… balls). What is the bloody point of asserting a right within a lay constitution only to say that there is a freedom of conscience involved and that the official person appointed by government to sanction that right might step out because he does not like it? Is the socialist movement asserting that it is a right or is it not? I’d love to see the gay mayor of Juan-les-Pins (disclaimer I don’t know whether he really is gay) refusing to sanction a heterosexual marriage… claiming that his conscience dictates otherwise. Where does this stop? What civic rights and duties could we thenceforth forego on the basis that we are conscientious objectors.

You know Monsieur Hollande, my conscience does not see paying exorbitant taxes in too good a light. I think I’ll take a pass and leave the tax form empty…. In today’s jargon messy Hollande deserves to have one big WTF? tattooed across his chest and paraded all along the Champs Elysées.

***

So while Hollande was busy crafting an escape vehicle for all the officials in his country whose conscience barred them from performing certain duties within their “portofoglio”, his colleagues within the European Socialist Party were taking a vote with regards to whether or not back that great Conscientious Politician Tonio Borg. In the end the Nays had it. Sure, socialist leader Swoboda seems to have quite a fancy for Tonio (not that kind Mr Borg) but for two-thirds of the grouping, Tonio had not provided enough guarantees. What guarantees I hear you ask? Well, the socialists in Europe expect Tonio Borg to never raise a conscientious objection to whatever projects the Commission embarks upon based on the laws of the treaties.

At the end of the session Maltese Labour MEP Edward Scicluna had this to say on facebook (where else?):

“An hour long humiliating experience I, as a Maltese, could have done without in group meeting today. Irreparable damage to our reputation. […] Condescendingly Malta pigeon-holed as the most backward and intolerant in Europe. This as a positive reason why EP should approve Borg.”

Apart from the fact that we have yet another example of garbled nonsense from yet another politician it is hard to decipher whether Scicluna is angrier at the fact that the Socialists were being condescending to Malta or whether he is angry at the fact that they seem to be intent on rejecting Borg’s nomination. Scicluna is a socialist himself so it would not be too big a deal were he trying to give the impression of both. They’re a strange breed these socialists – and they’re about to do another of their “free conscience” moves by allowing their europarliamentarians a “free vote” : which basically translates into “we cannot make head or tail about what we really want so best leave it to the disparate group to send a garbled message”.

***

Finally yesterday was also the day when the Church of England’s synod session continued. Hot on the agenda was the introduction of female bishops in a church that has already embraced the concept of lady priests (that’s not a cross-dressing father but an honest-to-god female with a dog collar). The “House of Laity” (The synod is tricameral, consisting of the House of Bishops, the House of Clergy and the House of Laity) fell 6 votes short of approving the motion that would allow women to be appointed Bishops. Both the House of Bishops and the House of Clergy had obtained the 2/3 majority necessary for the motion to pass but this fell at the final house – the one where the lay members of the church are represented.

The vote against women bishops included some women’s votes and this was a huge disappointment for the outgoing Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams. The new Archbishop Justin Welby has also described the vote as a disappointment. Interestingly, the Bishop of Christchurch (New Zealand – where female bishops have been ordained for decades) Victoria Matthews described the result of this vote as “the product of fear”.

***

21st century Europe might be afflicted with economic problems. Beneath these problems lies a deeper moment of crises that is shaking the foundations of our moral and political compasses. Much of what happens around us today is a result of this struggle that is afflicting or effecting the collective conscience of the Old World.

 

Categories
Politics

So it shall be written

It’s a juicy time for pundits out there. Try as they might to feign boredom and blame it on the infantile tactics that were manifested via the billboard wars commentators cannot ignore that the pre-election has entered an interesting phase thanks in no small amount to the sudden injection of life caused by Dalligate.

Of pigs and men

Tonio Borg’s grill-non-grill allowed us to revisit the debate about liberalism, progressivism and values. The fact that we are on the cusp of a national election does not help most of the political parties (I say most because AD are quite at ease with calling a spade a spade). The final judgement seems to be unanimous – Malta’s political scene is not, and will not be in the foreseeable future, divided  along progressive vs conservative lines. The conclusion can be reached primarily because of the fact that party fidelity has proven time and again strong enough to trump any need to remove the cobwebs of value-ambiguity that the PLPN seem to be quite happy to nurture.

That your average voter does not think in terms of progressive vs conservative is an issue that is further complicated by the current battle raging about the true meaning of being liberal. It is as though the “real liberals” and the “faux liberals” cannot co-exist because of what are being described as the “wrong motives” of the “faux liberals”. A case in point is the issue of Tonio Borg where the “faux liberals” where accused of imposing their opinions on the Commissioner designate. In our view both sides are “sinning” of excessive zeal. On the one hand the “faux liberals” did fail to fact-check and went for the jugular without any chance of success.

On the other hand the criticism that I have just mentioned fails to consider that the main test for Tonio Borg is whether he is capable of not letting his personal opinions (those of Dr Borg) interfere with his work (that of Commissioner Borg). It’s not an irrelevant question and the seven extra commitments that have been asked of him only go to show how important it is.

They had to get them in writing, the commitments, because as the old latin adage goes .. verba volant, scripta manent….

 

 

Categories
Euroland Politics

Tonio’s Non-Metamorphoses

Was it a case of “Veni Vidi Vici”? Did the Commissioner designate “sail-through” the grilling that never was last Tuesday? Has the dinosaur really convinced the trough-addicted pigs of his inveterate submission to the constitutional bible of this “sui generis” system of state collaboration? There was a telling moment during the marathon session when Tonio Borg addressed his interlocutors and reminded them that in politics “perception is important”. Indeed. Perception nowadays is a huge part of the pie and politicians are as much made or broken by the creation of a hash tag (that’s twitter talk for a subject such as #BorgEU) than by anything else.

The speed with which media will deal with a story – compounded by technological Chinese whispers – not only means that a media avatar of a politician can be created with uncanny expeditiousness but also that such avatar might morph in accordance to the predominant push of whoever is throwing the most information into the system. Tonio Borg was contemporaneously both a victim and a victor of this kind of phenomenon. The time it took Borg to study the files and dossiers relating to his new “portofolio” (sic) the liberals-in-hiding got working with their European counterparts in order to  fill them in on the “true nature” of Tonio.

What “true nature”? Well they referred to Borg’s handling of immigration affairs, to his position on IVF and on divorce, to his consorting with the Gift of Life movement and to his previous stances on homosexual rights. The spiel essentially that Borg was an uncompromising imposer of conservative values and that his political activity clearly reflected this stance. The link to the Health and Consumer portfolio was not exactly tenuous and to put it mildly there WAS a point to be made. The point though was meant to be and should have been limited to the capacity of Tonio Borg to perform his duty as a Commissioner independently of his views – unlike his performance in Maltese politics where he had no problem mixing the two.

It’s the EU Law, Stupid

And this is where Tonio Borg built his defence. It was obvious from the start who had been involved in prepping the Commissioner designate. For all his protests that he was not “thinking as a lawyer” I’m prepared to safely bet that many a night was spent in the company of Simon Busuttil and a former EU Ambassador. Nothing wrong there either. The most telling moment was Tonio’s slight hesitation in reformulating the classic description of the European Law system – many a law student would have recognised that brief moment of panic when the explanation that was just at the tip of your tongue has rushed away only to return in the form of a rehash of the original definition “in your own words”. Hence Tonio and his version of “a sui generis system of international law and an agreement between sovereign states”. (He could also have quipped a happy 50th birthday to the Van Gend & Loos case while he was at it – much more important than the International Day of Courtesy in this part of the world).

The prepping was necessary because Tonio had to use every trick in the book (better known as “the treaties”) in order to justify his speedy metamorphoses from Maltese politician to European Commissioner. In doing so he highlighted the most difficult barrier that Europe faces with regards to social harmony. For while economic barriers have come crumbling down at a faster rate than the Visigoth invasion of Rome, social mores have found the borders of old to be less permeable. Subsidiarity that great concept first brought to the world in a Papal Encyclical came to the rescue and suddenly Tonio was raising the Commissioner’s equivalent of “taking the sixth”.

You’ve seen it all so no need to dwell on it. Dr Borg could get away with packaging his national performance in a tight corner by stating that he can not and will not be able to act similarly at an EU level because the rules that apply there are different. So for the sake of argument Tonio Borg’s catholic values will have to be put in abeyance whenever he is dealing with the Commission programs to promote the use of contraceptives. He claims not to have a problem with that and I guess that his conscience will deal with the “superior orders” dilemma in its own time.

Those Shoddy Liberals

Tonio Borg did not metamorphose. He remains the same man committed to the same principles (save maybe the gaffe regarding the gender quota ) a sudden rush of arse-licking could be a most simple explanation. Or even euphoria experienced with the sudden rush of endorphins at the realisation that the Liberal Inquisition was really conducted by a bunch of pussy-footed, ill-informed bungling radicals. That last point actually really got to me. For here we were – as my friend David Friggieri puts it – with a representative of the conservative parties (yes plural) in Malta in the dock and with no real prosecutor asking the real questions.

I’d have asked a simple question to Dr Borg. What does he think of the fact that a person who is a doctor in an EU country where abortion is legal and who performs a legal abortion on a Maltese woman (who has willingly travelled to his country and consented to such an operation) is criminally liable in Malta? Simple really. In case you are wondering it’s Article 5(1)(d) of the Criminal Code in combination with article 241(1). Incidentally once said doctor is condemned to a term of imprisonment for a term of eighteen months to three years, the willing patient also becomes liable to the same punishment. But I guess that’s OK because she’s Maltese anyway.

We did not get these questions. We got questions that were obviously fed to MEPs by the type of shoddy activists who base their accusations on hearsay and conspiracy theories rather than facts. How else do you explain that Dutch liberal’s question about contraceptives in Malta that was an invitation to Tonio Borg to eat her alive (which he did with the usual classy rhetoric of a PN politician who knows he has the upper hand).

A Metamorphoses?

In the end we have what the French call a “match nul” – which means a draw but the word “nul” also means “useless”. At an EU level Borg might not really “sail through” when the voting time comes. The ALDE (liberals) and European Greens have unsurprisingly called themselves out of any support vote – they’ll be voting against. The Popular Party will back him (and also heap lauds and praise that will be hyped in the relevant media). The socialists might dilly-dally for a while and make Tonio Borg (and Tonio Fenech and Simon Busuttil) sweat a little bit more but in the end they might just give in and vote him in after having asked for more “written commitments” from his part.

Tonio Borg did not really metamorphose in the end. His was no apostasy before the baying house of atheists and agnostics. This was more of a modern Give Unto Ceasar kind of business that left many of us Maltese questioning the use of a two-tier Europe when it comes to social rights. Yes the liberals – particularly the Maltese liberals – were bitten and if you are really fond of the term then they were “defeated”. Their defeat lies in the lack of organisation and lack of clarity. It lies in the lack of identifiable leaders who could take the battle to the next level. It lies in the fact that Maltese politics rarely translates into conservative vs liberal when push comes to shove.

That is why Joseph Muscat feels comfortable standing up in parliament without any hint of irony on his face and saying “I’m a liberal” while at the same time sanctioning the PN position on embryo freezing. Joseph will continue to woo the liberal fold that have elsewhere been described as the “ex-stricklandjani” so long as his credentials are not questioned and so long as he can be contrasted to the dinosaurs that have long camped in the mainstream parties.

Unfortunately for the silent liberal movement in Malta change will never come from within any of the two parties. So long as we continue putting our eggs in their basket they’ll be happy doing what they do best – fuck all. Because as we know so well : “if we want everything to change, then everything must remain the same”. And long life to our next EU Commissioner !

Pictor has scarcely set foot in paradise when he found himself standing before a tree that had two crowns. In the leaves of one was the face of a man.; in the leaves of the other, the face of a woman. Pictor stood in awe of the tree and timidly asked, “Are you the Tree of Life?”

Read also today’s article in the Times by Ranier Fsadni.

Categories
Mediawatch

J’accuse goes MOMA

A comment about pigs is all it takes for the inevitable viral. I wonder whether once the pc is turned off, the mobile is lost and the tablet is misplaced the main talking point still remains Adrian Vassallo (MD)’s porcine jibe. This is all part of the general conspiratorial plan to bore us to death with pre-pre-electoral exchanges. Virals and billboard campaigns are the new opiates for the people… in the end when push comes to shove they will forget their feigned boredom and vote – ostensibly for what in their minds is the lesser evil.

So in the meantime let us enjoy the ride. In the UK they had the Whigs and the Tories for quite a while. In the US we are used to the imagery of the Elephant and the Donkey for the two main formations. Our parties are as fertile as Abraham at 30 when it comes to values so the “Pig vs Dinosaur” dichotomy does not really fall cleanly along party lines. You should rather imagine the two parties sitting on the fence wondering how best to milk the two. If pig or dinosaur milk were worth milking that is.

Thank you Adrian Vassallo and anonimous Swede Lutheran MEP for the very appropriate imagery that you have provided. Nothing better than a badge under which to rally the forces. So what are you? A dinosaur or a pig? We present you with SHTF’s latest creation: DINOPIG… loves divorce but is absolutely against same-sex marriages.