Ms. Coleiro Preca was preceded by Mr. (or Dr.?) Evarist Bartolo. I couldn’t believe how irresponsibly he acted in the EU issue when he blatantly admitted that he felt that the EU could be “good thing” (sic) for Malta and yet, to toe the party line, he had to join in the “no” campaign.

If that’s not irresponsibility, I don’t know what is. He risked our country’s future just for the sake of the Party line.

Give me Dr. George Abela any day! He’s definitely worthy of ruling the opposition and we all know that in five years time, we won’t be worried sick if there’s a risk, even the slightest, of MLP being elected.At least, we know we’d have a level-headed PM who put his money where his mouth is and resigned when he saw that his party’s ideals and his own no longer tallied.

It is amazing how easily people forget nagging details. I remember following quite avidly the electoral campaign of both parties in 1996 (I never considered AD as a party. The closest definition I can give it is ‘sect’, but that is beside my point here).
Anyway, after some intelligent (but, alas, VERY rash) newspaper designer at Stamperija Indipendenza decided to print a countdown (“x jum ghar-rebha”) from day 1 of the campaign, it kind of made me take a further interest in elections, you know….
After the shock of the results (we were all prepared to go carcading, blue face-paint, flags and all) I kind of HAD to keep an eye on the newspapers to see what this new unexpected government would be up to. And I remember as well that Dr Sant dragged Malta out of PfP within days of becoming the PM (not to mention the number of para-statal organisations which he decided to grab under his claws, but anyway).
Now I am no BRAIN, but I have no recollection Dr Sant ever said anything about leaving PfP. Since the Maltese never clearly expressed they wanted to quit PfP, then Dr Gonzi simply put things back to normal – a step he should have taken in 2003! How do you answer that Mr Farrugia?

PfP is a non-issue; that is, it is a pseudo-issue for those who are trying to make it one. Dr. Sant is the one who unilaterally pulled Malta out with his faulty logic [the matter does not violate “neutrality” and it expressly is for those who do not join NATO].

It seems that restoration of Malta’s status in PfP is well-founded upon the original discussions when such membership was achieved years ago. The move by the PN seems to be to remove the anomaly that co-existed when Sant unilaterally also “froze” our EU application for membership. Now, with PfP restroed, Malta’s full EU participation, especially in matters of national security, have been reinstated. The PfP chink was a remaining obsticle from Sant’s anti-Malta-in-the-EU legacy. It also seems to be unfortunate that the expediency of its recent timing [European NATO meetings wait for no one except those who wish to be left out in the cold]provides the appearance of a unilateral action. People forget, the matter had been already extensively discussed, and rational consensus had already been achieved in the original rational discussions[the emotional and political arguments are another matter; there will always be disagreements, even if there is consensus].

As for Sant, it seems that he never was an individual to be trusted with the helm of government, and his many unilateral and inflexible actions were part of his problem. It seems that this is no personal opinion or philosophy of mine–but rather, it is a firm poltical consensus endorsed by the voting public.

I don’t teach “spinning and weaving.” However, as a public observer, I do offer an analytical opinion. As a social psychlogist I am very much aware of actual “spinning and weaving.” It is true, among other things, that I have taught Political Psychology, and my specialization is in the areas of Language Use and Performance and Mass Communications. However, as an empiricist, I always hold to the reference of opinions by the facts; and well-formed opinions are justified by their facts. I am always open to alternative and objective views, provided that they are justified with facts, if anyone holds a different perspective from mine.

While I maintain a personal opinion [as does everyone], my standard is “objective” truth, and it always has been. [I do not maintain that truth is arbitrarily a “social construction,” but our social reality and conceptions of “truth” are culturally biased and multi-faceted.] On the other hand, if we may clash on personal values and beliefs, as a social psychologist, I also understand how impervious some political beliefs may be to rational analysis. At heart, I am an empiricist: I’ll show you my truth, and I let you show me your’s, provided it also is well-founded. I am always subject to a change of view based upon the facts. Are you?

re MLCP

I am sure you meant ‘wholesale’ – cos she sells the MLP very cheaply…

Btw, your taste in women leaves much to be desired

(Ha npattihielek talli qbadt mieghi. Hekk.)

I must admit I prefer the wholesome look she dons nowadays.