I.M. Beck - quote unquote

No, it's not a misprint, just me succumbing to the temptation to pun as no man has punned before.

The great and good of the Malta Labour Party, last Sunday, saw fit to turn up at the investiture (is that what one does with Presidents in Malta or does one drag them kicking and screaming to the post? According to the interview granted to this very paper, it's more like the latter) of Dr Fenech Adami as President, dressed in full mourning. Doctor Alfred Sant had said that this was going to happen and, verily, so it transpired; a promise is a promise.

I have nothing against protests, symbolic or otherwise. If nothing else, they give people like me the chance to voice an opposite, or even contrary, opinion, which is all to the good.

And when the protests are as naff as some people in the MLP ranks made it last week, I can even get to poke some fun at them at the same time, which is even more to the good.

Thus, we had the sight of a couple of the MLP worthies turning up in a dark suit but not sporting a black tie, which in the circumstances tended to dilute the unanimity of the protest. What is the point of saying you are going to be in mourning and then failing to do the smallest thing to act as if you are, which is to wear a black (not a gray or a dark striped or any other colour, black is the colour) tie?

I very much doubt that the failure was prompted by any desire to detract from the Leader's omnipotence or any bout of lèse majesté but that was the impression that was given, such that even some of the papers saw fit to comment that Dr Michael Falzon and Dr John Attard Montalto didn't wear a black tie.

And then there were the two gentlemen who apparently think that the more black you wear, the more you are in mourning and, therefore, the more you are giving effect to the wishes of the leader, may his name be glorified and exalted forever.

Wrong. Wearing a black shirt, other than outside the confines of a club and in very proscribed circumstances, does nothing other than mark the wearer thereof as a spiv or wide-boy given to wanting to look like a Mafioso or other cheap hood. I know that neither Dr Angelo Farrugia nor Mr Joseph Cuschieri are spivs or Mafiosi and that their donning of a black shirt was nothing more than an excess of zeal (it certainly did not mean that they were sympathetic to the political theories espoused by other wearers of black shirts in the past) but sadly for them, their zeal made them look ridiculous.

In the circumstances, of course, looking ridiculous was, actually, quite fitting, being as the whole protest was pretty silly in the first place. I mean to say, the party that had appointed as President of the Republic such politically inclusive types as Dr Buttigieg and Miss Barbara (the latter in particular never pretended to be anything other than a staunchly militant Labourite) can hardly whine about Dr Fenech Adami being divisive and expect to be taken seriously by anyone, now can it?

You then get Doctor Alfred Sant, with a straight face, saying that Fenech Adami had been responsible for some of the more evil (yes, he was reported to have said evil) political campaigns of this country's history and you begin to shake your head with wonder.

Oh well, as long as the people supplying black ties are happy, I suppose.

Personally speaking

It trundles on and on, it does. The debate, if it can be called a debate when one side just carries on repeating itself ad nauseam, about public smoking, I mean. Last week saw a number of luminaries penning paeans of praise for Mr Alex Manchè and his previous epistle of shame (the shame, of course, being mine).

Just to show I've been paying attention, I propose to answer some of these luminaries, albeit with my tongue in my cheek, and this just to keep on teeing off the pompous ones who think I should bow my head in awe at their wisdom.

Mr Philip Incovaja, then, can take note that yes, just like most people, I have had people close to me die of smoking-related illnesses. This does not make me special, just as it does not make him special and nor does it disqualify me (or qualify him) from commenting on the badly written, badly inspired and badly promulgated piece of legislation purporting to regulate smoking in public. People like Mr Incorvaja seem to think that just because people die of smoking-related diseases, anything to do with banning smoking is beyond debate.

I fail to see the logic in this.

Another interlocutor was one Joseph A. Muscat (I believe he is entitled to medical honorifics of some description) of Ta' Xbiex, who perhaps inadvertently betrayed the glee that consumes people who are on the side of the angels in the Great Tobacco Debate when one of the devils is struck by illness of any sort. Dr (Prof.) (Mr) (whichever) Muscat saw some amusement to be had in the fact that Mother Nature had delivered some sort of warning to your humble scribe, described by the good medical gentleman as a bon vivant lawyer (or something like that).

Just for the record, even if I did describe my recent tribulations as being prompted by the ingestion of an excess of the good stuff, they were actually caused by pancreatitis (I think) caused by stones released from my gall-bladder (which is no more, thanks to surgical magic). A medical pundit of Dr/Mr Muscat's eminence, who is qualified enough to write in to the papers to stick up for a colleague, will no doubt confirm that Mother Nature, whatever else she was doing, wasn't actually warning me about anything.

But still, as long as we keep things objective, of course, that's all that's important.

And while we're on the subject of this particular debate, can we please forget all about the fact that some survey or other said that 80 per cent of people want smoking to be banned from all public areas? In the first place, all these people do not attend bars and restaurants, so the survey is not representative of the real market.

In the second place, 80 per cent of people no doubt would love to have taxes banned as well, so shall we do that at the same time?

In closing, a small salute to the standing committee on Public Health of the Malta Medical Students' Association, who intend to mark their disappointment at the postponement of the ban by organising the first-ever smoke-free students' party. This sounds like the social event of the year and no mistake.

Perhaps to ensure total success, they can promise to serve alcohol-free beer and fat-free food.

And play soft music.

Vietnam blues

Is President Bush thinking about retirement, do you think? Iraq is turning into his Vietnam and no mistake and I have a funny feeling that the Americans, this time round, are not in the mood to have more of their sons and daughters killed in defence of some spurious concept of democracy/oil revenue combination that interests no-one except President Bush and his good ole buddies.

The end result might be that we get rid of Tony Blair, as well, which would be a very good result.

Talking about good results, did you notice how over the last week, my predictions about Arsenal have started to come true? They tripped over Man. U. and got dumped out of the FA Cup and then they got walloped by Chelsea to leave the Champions League with their tails between their legs.

For all I know, by now, they will have lost to Liverpool (oh joy) and be preparing for a thumping by Newcastle, thereby proving me to be a prophet of no mean skill when it comes to soccer.

Printing loyalty

OK, I know the title means absolutely nothing but given the time available it was pretty professionally precocious of me to provide a title with an almost preciously precise "pr" in it, now wasn't it?

Doctor Alfred Sant, whose belief in himself is surpassed only by my lack of confidence in his ability to interpret the law of libel, seems to have managed to convince the good people at the Independent that the column he had originally written for this paper, parts of which were rejected because our lawyers thought they were libellous, was not, in fact, libellous. In this regard, being as I have often had occasion to shake my head in wonder at the way the legal beagles do their thing with the law of libel, I will forebear from commenting.

However, I have to raise an eyebrow (just about the only bit of the anatomy I can move without my side feeling like it's had someone mucking it out with a trowel) at the dear fellow's grasp of the manner in which things are done. No sooner was his little piece of inspiration to become the subject of editorial discretion (as is any piece submitted to any paper at any time) than he scuttled off to the competition, probably with a small stamp of the foot and a quick flounce to add impact to his offence (the taking rather than the giving thereof, of course).

Said competition, understandably, welcomed him with open arms (I'm morally convinced this side of the equation would have been tempted to do the same) getting itself something of an exclusive (well, sort of, anyway, even second-hand, an exclusive is an exclusive) and demonstrating to the world that Doctor Alfred Sant does not, in truth, care how he gets his message out, as long as it gets out.