As the French say, “Oh,well” …

You may even be interested to know the reason:

She said she believed firmly in her principles, of which the most important was love for her country. She genuinely believed she had a contribution to give to the country, but she was disappointed by comments made against her when the news emerged yesterday.

“I never knew there was so much hate towards those who were ready to offer their services for the good of the country,”  Ms Borg said in a statement.

“I have decided to withdraw my interest not out of weakness, but after having consulted those around me, particularly my family, whom I love and hold dear,” she said.

Where to begin?

She was disappointed by comments made against her when the news emerged yesterday? If you can’t stand the heat get out of the kitchen, they say … seems like she barely made it to the kitchen door

I never knew there was so much hate towards those who were ready to offer their services for the good of the country … um … yes. She’s not hard as nails then, is she? Nails again … get it?

I have decided to withdraw my interest not out of weakness, but after having consulted those around me, particularly my family, whom I love and hold dear. Ooooookay.

So why didn’t she ask those whom she loves and holds dear whether or not she should candidate herself for election in the first place? I’m sure that they would have told her there and then that she could be anything she wanted to be from sunbeam to theoretical physicist (OK, perhaps not, but you get my drift) except a politician.

In a way I was looking forward to this. Now it’s gone belly up. Better luck next time.

Toodle-oo.

A picture is worth a thousand words ...

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter, said Winston Churchill. (He also said that “It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations”)

I never write about politics in Malta because I don’t feel I have an objective or well-founded opinion; and it’s boring. I’m going to have to break my own rule today, however.

Yesterday’s Times of Malta told us that Grace Borg – that very reticent and unassuming paragon of womanhood – is standing for election on the Labour Party ticket. Now this isn’t a rant against or about the LP. I’d rather call it a rant against democracy.

How low can you go? Far be it for me to judge Grace Borg the person, but can anyone in his right mind think that she is suitable candidate material? To my mind she’s one of Malta’s more successful businesspersons – credit where it’s due – but that’s about all the pros there are to her public persona.

The public Grace Borg is brash, rude, ignorant, impulsive, self-serving … it’s the sort of attitude I’d include in a How not to be a politician pamphlet.

Election fever – which if truth be told – is misplaced as yet, has really gripped the nation. It’s been one-sided so far, though, with only one party trying to outdo itself on the outrageousness stakes. It has really raised the bar with Grace Borg.

She’ll be the first nail in Gonzi’s coffin … nail? Get it? Never mind …

Toodle – oo…

I don’t know whether this is photoshopped or not. It doesn’t look suspicious to me – which is why I decided to comment about it.

Whose idea was it?

Now I’m not saying that it is categorically false, but you know … it’s not 100% true, either. The Catechism itself mentions a few mitigating circumstances, so there you go.

My gripe isn’t with the veracity of the statement. It’s the statement per se. I mean, is it really possible that these people think that the absolute worst sin one can commit is masturbation? And while we’re at it, did they really have to present sins as a sort of Soup of the Day?

And there’s another thing. Catholicism is concerned with love. Love for God first and foremost, love for oneself and love for one’s neighbour. Couldn’t they think of something that should be done rather than something that shouldn’t? I don’t know … they could have written something like “Have you told your wife that you loved her today?” or “Did you really have your colleagues’ best interest at heart today?” I’m not good at slogans, but you get my drift.

It’s already bad that most people think that Catholicism is the Mafia in frocks… then something like this comes along. No wonder our rep is bad and worsening

Toodle-oo

Anthony Burgess had expressed sorrow that, like DH Lawrence’s Lady Chatterley’s lovers, his “worst” effort – “a jeu d’esprit knocked off in three weeks for money” - became his best known work and the work for which he became best known.

It’s set in the not too distant future as it was imagined in the 50s, when the cold war was still “rampant”. Following is a list of things I didn’t like in the book  (in no particular order)

The (IMO) extremely contrived way they govoreet

They still use a typewriter some time in the future

They’re still burgling and looting non electronic stuff

They don’t use guns

The drugs they use – drunk in milk at milk bars – don’t seem particularly addictive

Gang warfare reads a bit like 70s B movie scripts – even Necromunda is more futuristic

15 year old Alex is taken to an adult jail – and he’s got to share a cell with older men

the cold war is assumed to still be going on

listens to music on discs (haha  :D)

Father Christmas, obligingly, brought me the film (on DVD, in case you were wondering).

I can’t for the life of me begin to imagine what the fuss was all about when the film was released. We would have been better off had they  released it into the wild .  Had I watched the film before I read the book I wouldn’t have bothered.

Toodle-oo

Christmas is an extremely important milestone in the mystery of Incarnation. I thought I’d just mention it, so while sorting the gifts received we may just remember the greatest gift of all.

May you have a peaceful Christmas and 2012.

Christopher, ironically, means “bearer of Christ”. Hitchens may have helped reawaken lukewarm Christians to God; he may even have kindled a flicker of interest in non-believers as to who this God may be. Personally, I have found some of his “assertions” intriguing and I have had to delve deeper into the rationale buttressing my beliefs. For that I am grateful.

Bottom line is that he may have lived up to his name more than he would have wished.

Recquiescat in Pace, Christopher Hitchens.

Former prison inmate Josette Bickle has been convicted by a jury of drug possession and trafficking at the prisons between 2006 and 2008.

The jury returned an 8-1 verdict after some three hours of deliberation.

The trial started on Monday, with the court hearing how Bickle lived ‘like a queen’ and had practically free rein at the prisons. Fellow inmates claimed they were treated as her ‘slaves’ and warders were afraid of her.

The court was also told that Bickle amassed a quantity of items as payment for drugs, including four televisions sets and a sound surround system. Money given to the prisoners for their work was also diverted to her.

Sentence is expected tomorrow.

Click here if you want to see a picture of the palace.

Sometimes you just wonder whether Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland were based on real life happenings. From what I gathered, sending this dame to gaol is doing her a favour. I’d bet that her quality of life is better on the inside than outside.

Now I don’t want to appear judgemental, but what will this woman learn by being released back into her habitat? I don’t think she’s an endangered species in her own right, is she?

Everybody has an opinion about the justice system blah, blah, blah. But are we really doing such people a good turn by sending them to prison? What will society benefit from her imprisonment? And this is – IMO, always – particularly valid in the case of drug dealers. Remove one and two others pop out of the concrete to take his/her place.

Talk about making her see the error of her ways will always sound a tad far fetched. Besides you’ll have to forgive me, because I’ve just finished A clockwork orange (more about that soon) and my mind’s abuzz with all that cal Seasoned criminals and what have you …

Excuse the gibberish but I was really impressed with the whole idea. They can’t not send her to gaol, yet they know that sending her back in will make no difference at all – except that she’ll terrorise a few of her loyal subjects.  Perhaps they’re using her as a disincentive for new customers to become habitués… What do you know?

Toodle-oo.

This Christmas display consists of a skeleton dressed up as Santa Claus nailed to a cross. You can see it and read about it here. I think it’s Satanic rather than atheist, but never mind.

It shows that such people haven’t the foggiest what Christmas really is. It doesn’t even make sense to say atheist Christmas, let alone “celebrate” it.

Such displays fill me with sadness. It’s not because the thing is offensive. Frankly, I don’t think it is. It’s the fundamental and thorough misunderstanding of why Christmas is important. I doubt such people even understand the value and meaning of life.

Toodle-oo (half-hearted)

Let me clarify. I can’t control when puberty sets in. I can’t control what thoughts run through my sons’ heads. But I can control what my sons see, what they hear and I can teach them how to sift and analyse information. When they begin to feel the first stirrings, then, I will make sure that they would have heard at least that this is a phase, that it’s one of the strongest instincts they’ll experience and that it should be taken with a “pinch of salt”. They’ll know that the last thing they’d want to do would be to act indiscriminately on any impulse they may be feeling at the moment.

Friends, the internet, media and who knows what else will be available when I’ll  have to cross this bridge (my wife too, if she’ll bear with me ) will definitely make for an interesting obstacle race. Discipline – as in self control – is the name of the game. We can’t produce strong children if we’re going to give in to their every whim. How can they learn to say “no” if we don’t? We have to instill some sort of “thought” quality control system. (OK, this has to be done across the board, but at the moment I’m only discussing sex education).

I don’t have any statistics at hand, so what I’m going to say next may make people in the know chuckle. I think that undiscriminating  sex education does nothing to decrease unplanned pregnancies; and to really drive my point home, I think that sex education plays a significant part in the apparent increase of teenage pregnancies. Pubescent boys and girls – do you still call them boys and girls? – tend to be experimentative. Sex education is egging them on in this direction. Their first experiments will be embarrassing, fun and, I would imagine, not necessarily heterosexual. A great percentage will want to have a second go of whatever it was they did the first time round. It is only a matter of time before boredom sets in and a new set of tests takes centre stage and so on and so forth. The motivation here is fun. Sex is fun. It’s meant to be. And there you have it.

(Incidentally, I think that this sudden increase in the incidence of homosexual people is directly related to unconsidered sex education. When young adolescents start experimenting, it’s fun they’re after. My idea (one of them, i.e.) is that when they derive sexual pleasure from homosexual sex – i don’t necessarily mean penetration – they won’t need to venture further. This will produce the weird situation where one may not be homosexual “all the way”, but still think that one is homosexual. Obviously this happens because fun has become the goal of sex, not an encouragement.)

Whatever.

The early “sexification” of our children cannot be good news. I don’t think that the current “moral climate” of relativism and solipsism is a phenomenon that is independent of too much sex on the brain . How can it be, when the goal of our most fundamental biological instinct has been skew(er)ed? Our view has become “fun only and at all costs”. What is more personal than fun?

Toodle-oo.

On a different level, sex has also achieved “individual” status. Where money, or the economy, has become the framework of our “public” lives, sex is the  backdrop of our private, or “inner” lives. When I say “sex” I mean sexual activity and thoughts, not maleness and femaleness. Humans are animals that reproduce sexually, i.e. sex is a sine qua non for the initiation and continuation of human life on this planet. Which is why it is exceedingly pleasurable; the idea behind making sex fun is that you’d want to have more and more of it with the obvious outcome that you’ll have more and more children thus ensuring continuation of the species. Nothing revolutionary so far. All activities that are necessary for our survival as individuals are pleasurable or bring about a profound sense of relief. By extrapolation, any activity that enhances the survival of the species is pleasurable for the individuals, to aid propagation and ensure continuation.

Now comes the jaw-dropping, insightful and beautifully excogitated bit

The inherent and necessary pleasure that is part of sex has become its raison d’etre. The thing that encourages – perhaps even rewards – sex has become the goal of sex. Many may say that it’s six of one and half a dozen of the other, but I beg to differ. It’s a bit like buying a car because it has beautiful upholstery. The upholstery may very well be an enticement to choose that particular car, but nobody would buy a car just for the seats. This is obviously an aberration.

Sex has a purpose and a consequence – which is its purpose. What we’re seeing is the replacement of this purpose. Sex is being had by many just for fun, without a basic understanding of what it’s all about (let’s keep the bonobos out of this, shall we?). We’ve even reached a point where precautions are taken to defy the actual purpose; procreation is perceived as an undesirable consequence of sex - an occupational hazard, if you will.

(I am not saying that people should have sex only for procreative purposes, but, given the objective of sex, it is not an activity that can – or should – be considered as a viable alternative to an afternoon playing with the PS3. In this day and age – especially in this day and age –  where family breakdowns and “alternate” families are no longer newsworthy, sex should be the preserve of married heterosexual people in a stable relationship.)

Our “fun” attitude towards sex will rub off on our children. Which is why we get these teenyboppers gyrating their nonexistent hips and showing us what good child bearers they can be. A person who does not have paedophiliac tendencies will find it all very “confusing” on a biological level and thoroughly inappropriate on a rational level.

Toodle-oo (for now; one more to go)