Library

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

abitudine.jpg

ANTI-INTER_Zanetti.jpg

intercettiamo.jpg

juventinove.jpg

ladrinter.jpg

ridiculi.png

spilla_anti_inter.jpg

striscione-anti-inte_74409.jpg

videocassette.jpg

y1pBGLqRVZTnYgfyNpgO9cSNCe5jwsuPnNQgVml-pGH8wk0QmZhxdgj9WqMMHHG_LQN3AqsUUCzD-YeCBO4vMJijEGk9Td5KRA1.jpgnostro.jpg

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

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]

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]

Gurnalizmu fuq Kollox – the Sunday quotes

Some time ago J’accuse commented on how Bondi’s programme Bondiplus represented the death of investigative journalism. Only last week we pointed out the incongruency of the next programme planned by Lou – with Norman Lowell as guest. So. Is it still Gurnalizmu fuq Kollox? Hardly. Here’s what was said in the press today:

The day after last Monday’s show, when people were aghast in that very ‘what was Bondi thinking’ sort of way, disturbed by the exposure he was given, seeing it as some sort of incitement to racial hatred, I on the other hand seemed unable to fathom what all the fuss was about. Lowell worries me as much as Mary Poppins does. The only worrying thing about last Monday’s programme was that we were hardly going to be in for any surprises and we certainly were not going to hear anything we hadn’t already heard before. – Mikela Spiteri (“Our very own inglorious basterd“, Times)

When you consider these factors, it’s not surprising to see why Bondi invited Lowell along during a period when the topic of immigration is not very topical. Put yourself in his shoes. You can root around for a relevant subject (preferably one that puts the Labour Party in a bad light and hasn’t already been done to death in previous editions), spend long hours carrying out tedious research, and then have a programme where people only wake up for the closing credits and Rod Stewart crooning away. Alternatively, you could invite Lowell, choose choice extracts from a book which has been published for years, make a quick photomontage of black icons, and let Lowell do the talking. You’d be guaranteed a much wider audience with minimal effort, and if it was audience survey week, you’d be in with a winner. Never mind the fact that you’re providing a visibility platform for someone who spouts obnoxious and criminal views. That’s just a tiny niggle to be ignored when you’re in the business of producing ‘Programmes People Watch’. I wonder if the earlier Bondiplus slogan ‘Ġurnaliżmu Fuq Kollox’ has been replaced. It would look like it. – Claire Bonello (“Chasing ratings, not respect“, Times)

This week, Lou Bondí decided to take a break from the sublime and descend to the ridiculous. This week’s Bondí+ treated us to a people-bashing session by Norman Lowell, wearing his cravat backwards. The arguments were as cohesive as a jigsaw puzzle with several bits missing. But it was unfair of Bondí to try to put words into Lowell’s mouth by dint of repetition. – Tanja Cilia (“Blank versus“, Times)

One wonders whether these assertions will be met with the usual wall of deafening silence. There were also reactions elsewhere. The Indy reports that the BA has issued a charge against PBS for the Bondiplus Norman Lowell programme:

The Bondiplus programme led to mixed reactions and many heated discussions online, particularly on Facebook, with some arguing that the right to free speech should also include Mr Lowell’s right to express his beliefs, while others pointed out that his racist views were tantamount to incitement to hatred of specific groups, and therefore illegal. Other viewers felt that the programme only served to ridicule Mr Lowell, thus neutralising any potential influence he may have on viewers. While there were those who admitted they merely watched the programme “for a laugh”, there is real concern that Lowell’s followers are increasing in number, especially among the younger age group. (Independent)

Meanwhile Lou has been providing his guru expertise to the MZPN. Here’s a link to a pre-UK election discussion where Lou and Refalo discuss the extreme dangers of unstable government. MZPN Vid on FacebookReblog this post [with Zemanta]

It’s another we told you so moment for J’accuse. As Chris would say: we’re doing the I told you so dance… all over again.

I.M. Jack (shorts)

A few comments here and there while we gear up for the usual article writing and news observing. There’s lots of titbits being thrown up in the news that deserve at least a fleeting bit of attention.

Exhausted Parliament
For those who missed the farce that calls itself parliamentary representation yesterday there was much to hear and see. On the PN side most members faffed on about how nothing had been proven and hence the administrative decision is sound. BWSC contract apart we are still left in limbo as to whether the administrative and procedural shortcomings will be seen to. Franco Debono yelled “transparency law and regulation of political party funding” to an audience too distracted (tired) to listen.

Joseph and Anglu tried hard to emulate the PN coup of 1998. They’ve been at it for some time now – instead of concentrating in building a strong and valid alternative to this tired and exhausted government they still pin their hopes on what? On a lapsus, a renegade MP or on their dramatising a problematic democracy in what they hope would be a reversal of 1981. He even got his walk out. Who knows? Maybe a long sabbatical out of parliament might do the Labour party good – enough time to get it’s ideas right.

Poster for a Russian circus show named "1...
Image via Wikipedia

Lawyers Without Restrictions

An Egyptian group calling itself “Lawyers without Restrictions” has called for the banning of “One Thousand and One Nights“. They are suing Egypt‘s very own General Authority of Culture (they might be twinned with our classification board) and they are suing under article 178 of the Egyptian Criminal Code which bans publication of material deemed “offensive to public decency” with violations of that code bringing a jail sentence of up to two years.

Ludicrous isn’t it? Arabian Nights, Ali Baba and all being banned because they are offensive to public decency. Thank deities of choice that we live in a Western community where such lawsuits are relegated to our medieval past. *ahem*

Language Lessons

Tonio Fenech did not spare a few tirades at the level of English on the Labour side of parliament. Ironically though whenever he read from the Auditor General’s report he did not exactly strike us as the champion of the English Speaking board. We just loved “hundsajt” – a rendering of the word “hindsight” that is right up there with “majtezwell”.

Euro Crash

Having planned a trip to the Big Apple in the near future I am somewhat demoralised by the rapid decline of the buying power of the Euro in the US of A. A few months ago a euro would have bought you a dollar and a half. It is now down to a bit more than a dollar twenty-five. Thank you Greece, thank you UK, thank you Freddie bloody Mac and Fanny bloody Mae. Greece is still not out of the merde and we’ll just have to see what the European Economic Summit will bring us before wondering whether our purchasing power in New York will have gone up in the angry flames of Athens. How some idiots can still claim not to feel “involved” by the politics in other countries (let alone being “bored to tears” by relevant developments in their own) is beyond any reasonable persons ken.

More to come.

Related articles by Zemanta
Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Frankly it's Franco

The debate in parliament has begun in earnest and the Times of Malta reports Franco Debono’s intervention. The young (no longer youngest) nationalist parliamentarian is busy calling a spade a spade and exploring possibilities of what could have been done and what can be done. Here’s Franco’s (reported) words:

The auditor also spoke about Enemalta having been placed at risk because prototype equipment had been selected. He had pointed to administrative shortcomings, rather than irregularities. He also said he found no hard evidence of corruption. Suspicion, however strong, remained just that unless it was proved, Dr Debono said. The auditor had not found any violation of the laws which would annul the contract. But he said that some things could have been handled differently.

Quite so. If you feel “involved” with Maltese politics – a bit more involved than, let’s say, the UK election would grip you – then you would find this Auditor’s report business quite interesting. The governmental reaction has raised more than a few eyebrows: the bulldozering trademark arrogance of Austin Gatt, the enigmatic responses of PM Gonzi and the foot-in-mouth syndrome that seems to have afflicted Tonio Fenech do nothing to reassure the voter about its capability of handling such situations.

A tender process is about administration. A power plant is about future costs, future environment and future quality of life. Brushing the ugly incosistensies highlighted by the Auditor’s report under the carpet is surely not the way forward. The government’s reaction gives the impression of being as knee-jerk as it is opaque. You do not have to be an energy expert like Profs Mallia to smell that not all is well with the particular options that would be purchased by this tainted contract. The Times editorial had some harsh words for the government on the 5th May:

It would seem that often enough the government is acting rashly as in its enthusiasm to defend itself at all costs it fails to adequately assess the implications of assessments made by those whom it asks to investigate. This has glaringly been the case in the Fairmount ship conversion contracts and, even more so, in that of the award of the contract for new power generation plant at Delimara. It is all very well for the government to say now that it would seriously look into the recommendations made by the Auditor General in the case of the Delimara contract. But the investigation is as yet inconclusive. The mind simply boggles at the number of serious shortcomings listed by the Auditor General. (…) Good governance, propriety and accountability demand that the tale in both cases does not end before the whole truth is found.

Franco Debono’s intervention in parliament tonight is commendable and encouraging. His is the first voice from the government seats to move beyond the hide and seek played over the past week. He may yet vote with the government when push comes to shove but he has now gone on record indicating the necessary remedies for the shortcomings that we have witnessed until now.

Much as Joseph Muscat would like it to seem so, the BWSC contract is not the be all and end all of this government’s term. His grandstanding on the issue – calling for government MPs to vote against the contract, requesting live broadcast on PBS for the parliamentary debate and threatening future “action” risks making a mockery of a valid political point.

The political point is that certain administrative practices must change. The political point is that considerations to be made when administering for the public – tendering contracts for roads, power stations and the like – must no longer be the pocket of entrepreneurs and cliques – they must be the real interests of the people.

Franco Debono makes an interesting step in parliament today. It is not enough. It will not be enough. Nevertheless it is commendable and needs support and encouragement.

Renegade yes, but for a reason.

Meanwhile:

Labour MP Evarist Bartolo concluded his speech saying:

The Labour MP said he agreed with Nationalist MP Franco Debono on the need for a law to regulate political party funding and transparency in this area, so that one would not have corrupt gangs who controlled how decisions were taken.

UPDATE

Listening to audio transmission from Parliament. Minister Tonio Fenech reads from the audiotr’s report “With the benefit of handsight (sic)”… not the best pronunciation. A few seconds later he addresses the opposition “Nispera li tifhmu ghax bl-Ingliz”. We hope so to… between deliverer and recipient there’s not much hope for the Queen’s English is there?

UPDATE II

Just listening to Joseph Muscat makes you sit down and weep. This is not a politician. It is a quasi-journalist living a dream. How can you be “involved” in local politics and not despair at the sad, sad choice that is available to voters. Where are our LibDems???

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]