The predictable and the nonsensical

Some things I understand. Some I don’t. Some things, I think, make a lot of sense. Some things make no sense at all. It could be that this is due to my poor sense of making sense of things. Could be.

Let me share with you one example of each category.

Makes sense: attacking PBS

I can easily understand the onslaught of the Partit Laburista on PBS newsroom. Such a thing makes sense.

There is a time for every thing, the Bible says. A time for love and a time for war. A time for kissing and a time for punching. A time for wooing and a time for spurning.

Machiavellian would explain it differently. One can woo by pretending to spurn. Or one can get someone to kiss by threatening to punch. Wouldn’t it be better to kiss someone than let him/her punch you? Got that?

We are nearing an electoral campaign i.e. that for the European Parliament. So what, many would say. But the Partit Laburista who has soundly won the first set of these election wishes to register a more resounding victory this time round. These elections have been billed as the first step in the journey towards Castille.

In this scenario attacking the newsroom of PBS is predictable and makes perfect sense. The following strategy is generally adopted.

i. Play the victim in the run up to an election. It always helps. Mobilising supporters becomes easier when you put on the mantle of the victim. Besides, the same mantle can get you the sympathies of those in the middle of the road.

ii. Remember that journalists, like others, can be conditioned. If you harass them enough it could be that next time round they will be tempted to give you extra coverage as probably no one will protest at that.

iii. If journalists do not give in to your pressure, then pressure the non-journalists. A hysterical phone call higher up never hurt anybody, has it? While doing all this get on the high horse of editorial independence and pretend to champion its cause.

iv. The Broadcasting Authority, faced by many protests, will have the temptation to go the extra mile and split hairs to find something when you are right. In that case you are a winner. If they always say you are wrong you are a bigger winner. The coat of the persecuted will look nicer now.

Things will get hotter the nearer the climax of the hunting season (read: elections) becomes. Once it is over things would return to normal. That would be the season for peace. It will, in due time, be followed by another season of war.

Let’s take a drink for that one.

Does not make sense: attacking the Archbishop

The Hon. Helena Dalli’s rabid attack on the Archbishop, on the other hand, was both nonsensical and unpredictable (vide The Times, Monday, 23^rd February, 2009). She was white-hot under a red collar because the Archbishop agreed with the Prime Minister to halt the St John’s Co-Cathedral project due to its causing division among the people.

She seems to be between two minds whether to accuse the Archbishop of political naïveté or being blinded by political partisanship. At one point she wrote that the “Archbishop was dragged into this situation by the Prime Minister” implying that he was forced to do what he did. The image of a weak Archbishop is projected here. Not a nice characteristic for an Archbishop to have!

At another point she gives credence to the other possibility. “Archbishop Paul Cremona chose to buttress the Prime Minister’s statement …” “Chose” implies free will. She says more. “The Archbishop was happy to oblige.” This is a different story now as these statements of the Hon Dalli make the Archbishop guilty of blind political partisanship.

This point was hammered in. Read these three quotes.

· “This was an obvious political move by the Archbishop, of the type we have not seen for some time.”

· “The Archbishop accepted to put his name to the damage-limitation statement concocted by the government ...”

· “.. colluding with the Prime Minister with regard to the infamous joint statement …”

I don’t think that there is any need to waste my time and yours trying to show that none of these wild allegations come close to describing the Archbishop or his behaviour. Archbishop Cremona is neither a puppet nor a political fanatic.

There is, though, one part of Ms Dalli’s article which is very predictable. She accused the Archbishop of opening – from the contest quite capriciously too – the old wound of the politico-religious controversy. What an awful and unjust accusation!

Why is it predictable? Whenever you do something not very nice accuse your opponent that he or she is doing. That way you go on the attack and people will not accuse you of what you did but will accuse your opponent instead.

This is a very old trick and one so common that many pick it up.

I will not drink to this one.

Till next time I wish you all good bye and good luck.