We're lacking that proverbial pinch of salt.

In a country where freedom of speech is present on paper yet interpreted in various ways, it is no shocker that the Nationalist Party is pushing for Rachel Tua's resignation over a silly photo.

Prime Minister Dr Gonzi depicted as Muammar Gaddafi - shared on Facebook by Rachel Tua, Labour's Equal Opportunities Officer and Labour Councillor.

Is the photo ridiculous? Certainly. Is it unprofessional for a politician to make fun of the Prime Minister in such a tacky way? Probably. Is it insensitive? Maybe. Those coming up with this brilliant idea seem to forget that it was their beloved ex-leader who was all chummy-chummy with the ex-Libyan leader. However, that's beside the point.

Why should Ms Tua resign? Why was Joe Grima made to resign for speaking his mind in light of what was said regarding Dom Mintoff's death? As ridiculous or blasphemous as it may be, everyone should, or rather, HAS the right to utter what they like. What some people fail to realise is that everyone has the same opportunity to speak their mind nowadays... One has two options when faced with something they don't like: ignore or retaliate. It's as simple as that.

This picture isn't saying that Dr Gonzi has a penchant for Asian prostitutes - that might be deemed libellous and may call for action. This picture is mere satire, and God knows we need to lighten up on this uptight little pebble. You see politicians being made fun of ad nauseum abroad. It's high time that the Maltese learnt to take this kind of thing with a pinch of salt.

Seriously.

Cancer is a serious matter. Let's treat it as such, please.

Prof. Stephen Brincat was an esteemed and highly-thought-of professor. There were several reasons why people had to look up to him with reverence and utmost respect. First and foremost, needless to say, was the astounding reputation that preceded him.

Unfortunately, the use of the 'was' is imperative here. 

As he is certainly well aware of, the Oncology department is perhaps one of the most delicate ones and deserves to be handled sensibly. For that very reason, his latest tantrums neither befit a person of his calibre, nor do they the department.

When he alleged - so nonchalantly, to worsen matters - that some have died due to sheer negligence ("chemo toxicity") on part of the supposed experts, he should have known that he would hurt people. Not everyone is an expert, as he knows very well. Who will explain to those still mourning that their mother, brother, sister, or cousin wasn't supposed to have left them so prematurely?

In other words, how will people be sure that their dead ones really received the best treatment possible? Are we to start doubting doctors when some patients do not make it through an operation?

No, we should not, because Prof. Brincat has clearly stated that those deaths occurred due to the fact that the Gozo Hospital does not provide its patients with doctors who are proficient enough in the field. He has not, though, come forward with cast-iron facts. Nothing is yet tangible; people will merely discuss these allegations at length. And you know the Maltese, these allegations, with the passing of time, will be thought of as veracious facts.

However, the same professor fails to realise that he was the Head of Department when this wrongdoing was taking place. If he is as earnest as he wants this nation to believe, he must tell us why it is only now that he is acquainting the people with the disastrous service they are apparently being given.

Couldn't he have said such things before? Early enough, perhaps, to avoid the alleged deaths? One would not want to think that this venerated professor is only doing this because his words on certain matters were not deemed decisive, as he was expecting them to be.

The Minister of Health said he has already started looking into the matter. In all honesty, for the sake of this professor and all the progress in the Oncology department, one hopes the outcome of this investigation will bear him out. It would be pitiable to think of him as capricious 

When Humpty Dumpty had a great fall...

It's ever so refreshing to find people who can actually sit pretty at a desk and write interesting blogposts for others to read. 

However, since Dr Franco Debono is neither able to sit pretty nor manages to write anything of substance, it would be better for him to get his act together and stop being such a nuisance. He should have realised by now (or must people spell things out?) that even Labour have lost interest in him

(On another note, one hopes he won't ever need to resort to writing in his life. Or at least nothing in English... deciphering that is an arduous task.)

Acting all hissy, throwing diva-like tantrums, making mistakes and outrageous faux pas, putting your team in distress... each and every one of these is a very serious matter in its own right, indeed. Having all of them converging in one individual is merely a lethal concoction. 

Unfortunately, that's exactly what we have in Dr Debono. 

He doesn't know what to do now that he's committed political suicide. He's reluctant to make any decisions because he's too afraid of facing the repercussions. And if you really think he's scared of Malta going through a rough time, well, then it shows you haven't yet figured out the man. 

He's shattered and devastated. Not because he won't be able to help the Maltese and these islands, no. He's just flustered because he's worked hard to finish that Law course to be on a par with the others (but that's another story altogether) and fought hard to infiltrate in what he believes is some sort of elite circle (politics), and is now too panicked because the wind is blowing harder and harder and that castle of cards is about to collapse. 

You can't really blame him. He's been brought up that way. And you can't teach an old dog new tricks, can you?

He's been banned from the PN. He brought that onto himself. It's useless of him to threaten to sue and bla and bla. It's all gibberish talk. 

It's time for him to walk out. He's lost at his own game and there shouldn't be any picking up the pieces now. 

You know what they say... you can't sit on that fence for too long, or you risk falling on the wrong side.

ps. For those of you who want to have a good laugh, here's the link to his notorious blog:
http://www.francodebono.com

How can the pot call the kettle black?

They say people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones! 

Facebook, as expected, is brimming with eulogies... Eulogies to Dom Mintoff, in which people have claimed ALL the Maltese should be grieving as he's the one that made Malta a decent country to live in. 

Well, that "ALL" is too big a word. Many would cherish not to take part in that 'all'. 

But hey, many just won't accept it. It's inconceivable, right? Well, that's all bollocks! It's politics. You've your take and others have theirs. Dead or alive, people will always say stuff about you.

Not being very much the norm here, some people are simply appalled by Daphne's latest blogpost. 

She's happy the man died. She said he was a bastard. Now quite apart from the fact that in reality she speaks on behalf of many; Quite apart from the fact that she's the guts to say what others have silently admitted deep down... Well, that's all besides the point. It's her blog. 

Everybody, surely - OK, maybe Jason Micallef didn't know since he isn't yet aware of the fact that she's a journalist - knew Daphne would rejoice. 

Why did people have to rush to see what she would say? They are now in a bit of a funny hissy mood, throwing tantrums all over the place... They say it's crass to speak like that. They have totally forgotten their hero is dead; it's all about what Daphne said now. 

Meanwhile, however, in their comments they add their wishes, such as the following:

Call her 'hateful', that's all right. But you shouldn't be doing the same thing, should you? It sort of beats
the purpose...

As a certain Adrian Cachia puts it: "They dragged Gaddafi in the streets, they hanged Mussolini. They rejoiced when Saddam died. They rejoiced when Tito died... It's normal for people to rejoice when someone they hate dies. What is new?"

Xi dwejjaq ta' nies, marelli

There isn't much need for a comment, is there?
Remember when we wrote this? ...well, add another one to those talking gibberish.

If that's what friends are for ...

However hard we try not to fall in that trap, we all, some day or another, make the wrong decision when faced with certain burdens. Infallibility, like many other things, has not yet been mastered.

Deny it not; we all make mistakes. Some may be smaller than others, but they're mistakes nonetheless. 

Some people are prone to making more mistakes than others, which is why when they make the umpteenth one we'd still be there, ready to deal with the repercussions, to help out and, at times, to forgive. 

Certain mistakes, however, cannot be forgotten or put on the side. With the privilege of hindsight, one must look back and say "how on earth didn't I see that coming?"

People might have tried warning you. Particular situations should have served as eye-openers. Yet, sometimes you've just got to put your finger in the fire to really comprehend the fact that it hurts. 

To help us when all seems gloomy and to share the good moments in life with, we pick some friends along the way. Needless to say, we all try to be as picky, finicky and choosy as possible so as to sort out the sheep from the goat. Some are more lenient, whereas others go to great lengths to avoid having undesirable ones around them.

Once your selection process is over, you will have your group of friends. Indeed, you will have some things in common, and many more upon which you will have to discuss. Bicker perhaps. That's normal, isn't it? It makes one's friendship grow stronger and healthier. 

That's if you have the right sort of friends. It may well happen that you don't. If this is the case, you will hardly realise - and once you do, it'll be a tad too late. 

You will all have friends - or at least you will have had friends at some point in time. You will therefore know how these friendships work. Among friends you will say what you really think; you will vent; you will say things about other people... and so on, and so forth. It's a question of trust after all. 

There comes a day, then, when you'd be in an uncomfortable situation. Your friends might want to do something which doesn't really tickle your fancy, so you decide to give it a miss. Coincidentally, another group of friends that usually do their utmost to avoid mingling with you, would also be interested in doing the same thing your friends are up to, so your friends decide to join them. 

You won't mind, for at least you know that your friends managed to do what they wanted to do nevertheless. Then you realise, however, that those same friends are mingling a bit too much with those people that never wanted to blend with your circle of friends. 

Your other friends and you would be quite taken aback, especially because those friends would have always mocked the other group. Your circle of friends and that of the others are wholly different in practically anything you did. 

Then some of these friends simply decide to start going out with the other group. These will come across as people with a lack of principles and values; hypocrites who are ready to backstab you if for once you say no to them. So much so that the new group they found solace in won't even bother trusting them much - and nor will the friends of their friends. 

Some others will pick a girlfriend (with particular pasts, to worsen mattes) from that group and, well, these friends would have no other choice but to abandon their original friends and join the others, even if deep down they know they don't belong. These will play the pious; they will keep a low profile, but will eventually be so absorbed by their girlfriends that will no longer be able to see the woods for the trees and will have to attack their original flock because, well, they wouldn't exactly know why. 

Then there would be the last category of your friends. They decide to stay on your side because they think your group is said to have certain standards, and well, they want everyone else to think that they too have standards. Secretly, however, they would have also joined the other group of friends. These are the worst ones. They would be totally hooked and decide to help the other group look better in the eyes of the people, just in case they will have to make that final step: join the other group officially.

With such friends around you, you surely don't need to have any enemies to hinder your progress. 

Much to the PN's dismay, these sort of friends have plagued the party's quarters. Unfortunately, eradicating such a disease always proved to be an arduous task in past times. Banning the "the fiere" (three beasts) - Dante's words, not ours, lest the silly ones take it personally, was surely the first step. 

In fact, you can't help laughing when you see Cyrus Engerer, for example, ridiculing the PN on Facebook - often in Maltese, of course, lest the people he has to appeal to now think he's snobbish. It'w equally funny to see Robert Musumeci sticking up for Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando. Oh well, they do say that birds of a feather... Franco Debono, of course, takes the biscuit - he's so openly shallow that he's become boring. Much like the Mugliet brat. 

Yes, we all make mistakes. The PN's was that of letting loonies contesting the election on their ticket. Looney Tunes would have been more appropriate. 

You are what you're made to wear, yeah?

Much is being (has been, perhaps, because in Malta something is mentioned then it duly disappears) said regarding changes in school uniforms. It's a story that never dies: who gets the supplying contract, the ridiculous expense, what accessories must be worn; the list goes on and on. It's an extra burden on frustrated parents and a very stressful inconvenience for children who have to report back to their parents every time the headmistress reprimands them about their socks being a shade too dark or their hair ribbon being too thick. We're not joking - our school days are not that far behind us and we remember these sad incidents very vividly.

What we can't really understand is not quite why they are thinking of opting for "a generic uniform" - that is really beside our point. What we hated back then and still can't get our heads round is: why do children have to wear uniforms? OK, we know the cliché reasons given by everyone - but to be quite honest, we think they're lame.

Reason 1: It is convenient for children not to have to worry about what to wear for school in the morning. Yeah, that's exactly what's stressing children out nowadays - choosing outfits everyday. And before you say that it's extra work for the parents - allowing children to select their daily outfits may strengthen their decision-making skills and give them a sense of responsibility. Sometimes parents, especially Maltese ones, tend to be over-bearing. Our advice to these parents (lest we're accused of complaining without suggesting anything) would be: Back Off! (Well, if you then see that the outfit they have picked is not adequate, you could easily teach them a thing or two about what's good and not - or is that too much of a burden, too?)

Reason 2: Uniforms protect the unwealthy who can't afford 'cool' or designer clothing. Firstly, 'cool' clothing can be found at a very cheap price nowadays - no, not necessarily at the market (even though we hear that it's terribly improved, and technically, let's-buy-cool-clothes-for-a-song has become the latest trend!). Secondly, if it were to arise, this problem wouldn't surface before secondary school - at which age, if used to wearing regular clothes to school, adolescents will have learnt that clothing isn't quite everything - yes, the earlier you get accustomed to something the earlier you start to disregard it. Moreover, clothes is certainly not the first thing that sets the 'wealthy' and the 'not-so-wealthy' apart. Smartphones, tablets, handheld 'video' games... the list goes on and on. You get our drift.
                    Besides, this kind of reasoning that unfortunately plagues the island holds no water, really. In reality the same people that you dearly want to protect in schools (that's the pretext many use anyway) will eventually also see each other outside that very safe environment. Yes, they will meet outside - and there too can be discriminated against... but then, you know, the next day at school all of that will be forgotten. That wouldn't happen, though, if such a fuss wasn't made about clothing.

Reason 3: Wearing a uniform makes children more disciplined. We hate to burst your bubble, but forcing children and teens into a uniform won't make them more disciplined. That uniform isn't helping much against, say, bullying, is it? And that's merely to give an example. The reasons are two-fold:

A. It is education (and parenthood) that will instill a sense of discipline in children. Also, enforcing a dress-code may nudge children into being disciplined while they maintain their individuality. Forcing them into a uniform will only make them resent any type of conformity, which leads us to our next point;

B: Chances are that the more children are forced into doing things, the more rebellious they will turn out to be. Cases in point are Maltese children. Ever noticed their euphoric use of the trashiest clothes they can get their hands on when they get the chance to wear what they want? How about the Christmas parties that schools hold ever year? Or the so-called "Casual days"? You will probably have noticed that on such days children try to impress one another (usually with their parents' blessing), hence their dressing up to the nines for a 'casual' day. This, albeit you may laugh at it, is indicative of what will happen in the years to come. If you still think this is baloney, then we suggest you pay Paceville a visit. The more you ban something, the more they'll want it; crave it. The sooner people realise this, the better. Really.

So please, save everyone the hassle and do away with these awful uniforms. They're not helping in any way and making uniforms 'generic' across the board might - (we don't think so) - solve a couple of problems but will give rise to an array of new ones, too.

Better put some glasses on...

Having a quick coffee at Café Cuba turned out to be quite a nightmare. And it's not even because of the not-so-good coffee they served us.

No, a driver decided to park his truck right in front of the café, next to the patrons, to unload (so far so good - they haven't got any other way to do it.) However, the stupid driver (for want of a better word) deemed fit to leave the truck's engine on - and this wasn't exactly the most eco-friendly truck, really.

As a consequence, everyone enjoying their drinks had to breathe and take in all those lovely fumes - for more than 10 minutes, please note.

Oh well, thank goodness they have an eye for detail...

How irritatingly inconsiderate! It can't be that difficult to switch the engine off for some minutes, or can it?

The Lecturer fires back

Try as we might, we can't quite comprehend how a seemingly esteemed University lecturer can allow himself to resort to playground name-calling to defend his position. 


These are the comments Dr Vella left beneath our previous post:

After explaining to him that he was judging us on a post which we hadn't written - (and redirecting him to the post we wrote as a response to the many articles written by others) - and that no name-calling was necessary, he decided to apologise...

Now, while we appreciate the fact that he has actually apologised for calling us 'twerps' (we don't mind that bit - many had already done that), we think it is hardly appropriate for a lecturer to publicly call his student 'cretin' and 'intellectually-challenged'. Well done, very mature. 


In fact, we would like to ask Ms Claire Bonello (and Tanja Cilia, as she seems to agree with the former), who in her patronising tone decided to hector the students and us, whether this would also qualify as rude; she seems to be very acquainted with what is and what is not. 

No laptops during lectures - the congregation agrees! But We Don't.

We couldn't have possibly foreseen what a stir the post one of our readers wrote would have caused. Firstly, The Times picked up on it and painted it as a much bigger picture than it actually is. Then, of course, other bloggers decided it was their turn to add the proverbial two cents' worth.

The story was therefore twisted in such a way (by everyone) that the gist of the student's post was lost before it could actually see the light of day.

So much so that no sooner had The Times published the story than a myriad of people felt the urge to chime in and make their concern public - irrespective of how irritatingly distorted that was.

Those who are not new to this blog know very well that if there's one view that we endorse, that would certainly be the fact that everybody has the right to air their views. Having said that, we do believe that some ideas being promulgated are pointless and, more often than not, totally extraneous to the real point.

What was the student thinking when he wrote that post? How very dare he claim the right to having the possibility of using a laptop during a lecture?

He might not have been in the cold light of day when he wrote it - possibly, with the privilege of hindsight, he might be regretting it now. That's for him to ponder on.

That notwithstanding, one can't help but notice that the "twerp" raised a valid point. Whether you agree that this is newsworthy or not is beside the point. That's why we approved of it and uploaded it - which, yes, translates in our support for his opinion.

In this post we would like to redirect you to the real essence of that blessed post. To those who clearly got the wrong end of the stick we say: this was NOT an attack on lecturers. Why and how some people thought it was is really beyond us. Saying that it was rude of us to publish that post is nonsensical. Really. We appreciate how tough a lecturer's job can be - as a matter of fact, back when the lecturing body had put forward a plea for a salary increase, we were two of the very few to support them publicly, sending a letter to The Times.

That said, as students we too have had our share of exceptionally erudite lecturers who, possibly, are second to none in their respective fields, yet are clueless when it comes to delivering a lecture. Alas, some of them believe that all you need is a thorough knowledge of the subject they are lecturing in. Little do they know that that's only half of the equation.

Many individuals stated that students should merely stay at home if they find a particular lecture uninteresting. Fair enough. Clearly, these people have never been University students. They cannot be blamed for not being acquainted with the fact that many faculties endorse the policy that a student must attend lectures in order to be able to sit for the respective exams. Therefore, no, they cannot just sit at home.

By no means are we saying that students should attend lectures only for that little signature next to their name. At times, however, you cannot totally blame students for preferring to skive lectures.

Why? Many lectures are known for leaving massive packs of notes at selected stationeries for students to buy; others simply send endless powerpoint presentations via e-mail for students to peruse (to those who do attend as well as those who choose not to). Consequently, students who are compelled to go to lectures feel they are wasting time in doing so, as often, nothing new is learnt during said lectures.

Is this the case with all lectures and lecturers? Certainly not.

Which leads us to our next point - Generalisation. This is something we utterly loathe. Words such as 'everyone' and 'body' end to rank rather high in our list of pet peeves. Hence, it is only natural that when we read utterances such as 'the typical student' or 'today's generation of students', our blood boils, quite literally. Because students nowadays "think[ing] that everything revolves around them and their needs." Yes we're sure that's quite the case, Ms Depares. Even though she introduced her blogpost by voicing her disapproval of generalisation, this blogger persisted in falling in the same trap - tarring everyone with the same brush. Indeed, she wasn't the only person doing this. Many people commenting randomly about this subject painted a rather disappointing picture of the students.

Now, back to the original issue - the banning of laptops and tablets in the lecture room. Why assume that all students making use of technology are doing so for reasons other than note-taking? Wouldn't that be as fallacious as chucking all lecturers in one basket and claiming they're all incapable of lecturing? Although it might come as a surprise to some, the literate students (as opposed to the plethora of illiterate ones that make it out of University with a degree, as Ms Depares generously pointed out) go beyond using the internet merely for Facebook and games (among others). While professors/lecturers would be explaining certain matters, many a student looks up keywords and any other related material on the net, and merely pastes the link next to their notes. This, we vouch, comes in really handy when one is revising. Much as we love our pens and notepads, the same cannot be done when using them.

In spite of this, one must take account of those people whose attention span is little longer than that of a - yeah, you guessed it - buzzing fly. (Thanks to J'accuse for the clever little illustration, by the way!) We're not saying that if you have a short attention span you can do whatever you please, lest we're misinterpreted again. Yet, why stop a student who doesn't want to pay attention from doing whatever they like, as long as they don't disrupt the lecture or distract other students?


Moreover, people out there can't possibly think that it is only now that students have started to be distracted. Having a laptop or an iPad is irrelevant, really. If it's not a laptop it will be scribbling on your notepad or chit-chatting to your neighbour. What do we do next? We ask our students not to bring pen and paper because students might end up doodling hearts with arrows running through them? No. We shall do nothing. It's the students' problem if they miss out. Full-stop.

Finally, the most irritating of recurring comments comes from those upset tax payers who seem to have one too many chips on their shoulders. They probably feel free education is unnecessary, or at best, that students benefitting from their tax-paying generosity should shut their gob and lump what they are given without so much as uttering a word. Beggars can't be choosers after all, can they?

The day students will be told not to complain because they get their education for free will be the day our education will fail. We are far from baffled when we see certain commentators say such things - but when it's the students themselves who claim this, well, you just can't help banging your head against the wall.

Laptops no longer allowed in lecture rooms, lecturer says.

We get many comments from followers, some send us messages on our Facebook page, others via email. Some send messages to insult us, whereas others send messages with substance. One particular follower sent in a very intriguing comment, and we asked him whether he was interested in elaborating a little further. We liked the end result and who knows? You might be seeing more of his writing in posts to come.

------------------------------------------------------------------

 The UOM

           Our university. Our beloved University of Malta.

The long corridors, the lecture halls, the laboratories, the quad, the library, Student House. That establishment where most of us spend long days. Long days listening to lecturers speak about all the books they've written; all the research they've carried out and all the dragons they've battled. Of course, if you're a bit luckier (like I am) you will also get lecturers who mention their love for Dolly Parton, play Gloria Gaynor's music during their lectures or send e-mails such as this one:

                                                                    Dear students, 

I am convinced that 90% of those who had a laptop in the lecture-room this afternoon were paying no attention to what I was saying. It is clear the laptops are not helping you focus on the lecture but quite the contrary and they will therefore not be allowed for next Monday's lecture. 

You may take notes in any old-fashioned way: write on paper, cardboard or anything else you want - parchment, papyrus... even clay tablets if you wish. But not on computer. 

You might also want to note that the lecture-room is also not the right place for napping, flirting, snacking, gossiping and catching  up with the latest news. 

                                                                   Regards,

                                                                  (Lecturer's Name)

NB - I copied and pasted this e-mail straight from my university inbox. (No tampering with it, I shall promise!)

This e-mail was sent after an excruciatingly boring two-hour lecture, where the lecturer in question just sat at a desk and read the power-point presentation from his laptop.

              #nowonder

The problem with this lecturer is that they cannot understand how incredibly boring it is to just sit there and look at someone poorly presenting something they know (or something they read in some old book.) In my opinion, it is irrelevant how interesting the information is. The aim of a lecturer is to keep the students engaged by being dynamic and active. A good lecturer would get you interested in the most boring of subjects. Yes, been there, done that.

             A lecturer like the one who sent such an e-mail simply can't blame their students. The presentation of this particular lecture made a buzzing fly look more interesting. And Facebook, Tumblr, Miniclip.com also were. Even though many don't seem to grasp this fact, students are human beings. And you and I both know that these come with a baggage. If you're totally boring and lost in your own little bubble, you just can't ask the students to be there with you. It's logical.

            That's why this e-mail is beyond pathetic. You get to realise what sort of person this lecturer actually is. You get to realise how dedicated this person is. Yes, a mind-numbing lecture allows you to ponder on many things. And what really stands out is the fact s/he really doesn't seem to be keen on  improving their lecturing skills. I'm sorry, but if you see that your audience are bored out of their wits and are finding every other excuse to distract themselves, despite the fact that they know they might be examined on what you are blabbing away about, then it must hit you that you must be doing something wrong, very wrong.

Then there's that other issue. Allow me to lay it out please.

           It is not the era of clay tablets and papyrus anymore. If you don't get that, then you shouldn't be lecturing... In this modern day and age, most of us use some sort of portable device at university, namely iPads and laptops.

           Now I don't know about yours, but my laptop needs its battery charged regularly and even if didn't, at some point throughout the day a laptop needs to be re-charged. That's exactly why I want the UOM to explain why there are only 1 or 2 electricity outlets in several classrooms. And if I have to be brutally honest, with all the millions of Euros being spent, something like this should be thoroughly looked into. I mean, putting some more electricity outlets in the lecture rooms wouldn't cost that much, would it?

I don't want to say that everything's wrong. That's not the idea I want to convey. In fact I simply love the new IT services building, to name one. I think it's awesome and it really has enough electricity outlets. But that's not enough, is it? ...unless professors started lecturing via Skype and we could all stay there, comfortably, that is.

         

The worms in us.

Among many other things, we love reading. We read voraciously.

All sorts of books - we've our favourite ones; but that won't stop us from laying our hands on others only because they're not really our cup of tea. Which respectable reader would not?

We've piles and piles of books. It's actually astonishing that we manage to find enough room where to stash them.

It's not that we're hoarders, really. It's just that throwing books away would probably feel terrible. And, in all honesty, giving books to people who won't truly appreciate them just doesn't feel right... If it were up to us, people who don't appreciate books would be put behind bars. Yeah, that's how much we like those little wonders.

Leafing through those pages is yet another experience a good reader cherishes deeply. And if they're those older books it's even better - the musty smell just drives you insane (pretty much in the same way as some of you out there are in ecstasy when they smell fuel at petrol stations (we like that one too!) Quite an uncanny comparison we know, but you see, it renders the idea well.)

By now you all know that we're also in love with all the latests gadgets. (Really, that doesn't translate in "we're very tech savvy" - we unfortunately aren't!)

Logically you'll tell us: "why on earth don't you just buy ebooks? It'd save you money and space."

Technically you'd be right. Actually we know that you're right.

That withstanding, reading is all about sitting there, detaching yourself from the real world and building a completely new one - one that you cherish better and have complete power over.

And however hard we try, we just can't manage to do that when reading a book on an iPad or an iPhone. It's alright to read an article or an email, but that's a different thing altogether, isn't it?

You may say we're a chip off the old block, but the sheer pleasure you get when grabbing that book and devouring it in a day or two, reading all through the night unaware that so much time would have passed, is something these very cool gadgets cannot ever quite match.

So yeah, we won't be giving up our scores of books anytime soon. Our moaning and squeaking shelves over-laden with those yellowed paperbacks won't be relieved of their burden. Ever.

Time to go Plastic.

We are not drivers yet. Shameful, we know. However, for a series of reasons that we won't bore you with here, we have not, thus far, got down to it. (And also because we have, in reality, mastered the art of procrastination!) Yet, we do ride in cars, of course, and we know that cars need fuel. Yeah, we get that much. Something we can't quite understand, though, is why when one goes to fill up their tank at the petrol station; they have to pay by cash. Cards are not accepted. Yeah, in 2012.

We believe cash is a highly inconvenient commodity. Of course, it's ludicrous when someone requests to pay for, say, a packet of chewing gum, by card. However, we cannot quite fathom why one cannot pay by card at a petrol station. If one can pay by cash through an automatic machine for their fuel, why can't they pay by card, as people do abroad? What if you're driving and you're running low on fuel and, for instance, you've no cash in your wallet (that normally happens to us), what do you do? (It's not a rhetorical question, really!)

However, petrol stations aren't the only place where using plastic money may be a problematic task. We've been to loads of places where they either don't take cards, or only take cards issued by a particular bank. We can't quite comprehend the reason for this - wouldn't it be more convenient for everyone if we were to use 'real' money less? Think about it - less complications for cashiers, fewer mistakes and discrepancies. And how about the shop managers who have to go to the bank, every blessed morning, to get lots of coins for the day ahead? (Albeit not their fault, these people queuing at the bank and taking others' precious time become quite an unnecessary nuisance. So much so that they now usually have a bank teller for their private use, while other people have to, well, lump it.) Ultimately, making further use of those plastic cards would only be a win-win, we say.

Moreover, not offering such a service to clients and customers might be counterproductive. Let's say we don't have much cash but we come across something we like. We go to the cashier to pay, only to be told that our card isn't accepted at the store, or that they don't accept cards altogether. We will, most probably, just leave the store and forget about the item; unless it's imperative that we buy it, of course.

It would be farcical to ask everyone to have a VISA or MasterCard because, hey, those are the only ones that are universally accepted. Some people just don't want them and the reasoning behind that is nobody's business in reality - it is, however, many people's business that they cannot purchase something merely because the shop owner has a fancy for one bank and not the other.

It happened to us the other day. We were having lunch at The Plaza and once we were done one of us went to the cash till to pay the bill. "I'm sorry, madam, we don't take that particular card. Would you have ****'s?" What, exactly, would have happened if someone else sitting at the table didn't have another card? Would we have been offered lunch on the house?

Because News Bulletins aren't just about news, are they?

Given that we can't always rely on what we hear at cafes, we feel compelled to methodically follow the news. You know, when you're teaching people coming from all over the world, you truly need to stay au courant, because the slightest slip will make you look like an alien in that classroom.

Anyhow, it's easy you'll tell us. Just grab your iPads and have a look through The Guardian.

Technically you're right. True.

Yet, nothing beats the fun of actually tuning in to the local news broadcasts.

We've got Super One, which give Dan Brown a run for his money when it comes to intricate plots.

Then we've got Net TV, which tries to push forward the idea that Malta is in reality the equivalent to Heaven on Earth.

Finally we've got TVM. The latter is arguably (read: indisputably) the best, even though it sometimes concentrates on unimportant stories, thus dedicating less time to other more newsworthy stories.


We know there are others - but we don't bother with Romina's channel. Quite frankly, the amount of hairspray holding her humungous buns together deserves a news bulletin in its own right - yes, Romina, thanks to you the poles are suffering.

What superb reportage - (Kurt Farrugia [PL's Director of Communication] live reporting from France the other day was anything but) - these channels can take pride in isn't really the gist of this blogpost. That deserves some serious research - the professors at the Communications' centre at UoM can't be ecstatic.

Have you ever really looked at the newscasters while watching the news? They're fascinating, aren't they? Many of those (as opposed to 'everyone', because these days you've got to explain even the tiniest of nuances) reading out the news on Net TV seem to be really wretched - as if next to the camera they had a gun pointed at them. Smile more, come on! Besides, what's with the attire? All in all, the impression you get is that things are really dull - and that's certainly not what you want your audience to think. Get some color going on - newscasters mustn't (only) wear boring colours and suits which are at least 3 sizes bigger.

Super One's? Oh, the requisite here is something very different. The newscasters are to announce the news as if that were the last thing they'll say before that blessed meteorite hits planet earth. So yes, they have to sound as melodramatic as possible - and at times, girls and boys alike, must come across as ferocious tigers. (In fact, Qormi's mayor Rosianne excels at this.) Also, we know that red is the colour for the political party they are representing - but really, do they have to wear something red whenever they're on?

TVM... There isn't - thankfully - much to say here. The newscasters are, more often than not, adequately dressed and pretty eloquent in their speech. That's unless it's a certain Daphne Cassar's shift. If that happens, alas, there's no other solution but to switch your goggle-box off. However, yes, standards on the national broadcaster are indeed higher - and it couldn't be any other way.

Oh well, after a long day of work you do need your fair share of entertainment, so that may be the reason why they have it that way.

Despicable us - our true colours come out!

You'll probably think we are two despicable beings who simply relish lambasting everyone and everything. Well, we think it's high time we came clean. In reality, we do like some people (saying we like everyone would sound too presumptuous, huh?) and we like many, many things (this bit is very true!)

It's hilarious, though, that many find it so wacky that people like us actually complain about certain things; that we actually pan what's gone wrong. Then let us let you in on a little secret here: just as many of you out there think we are odious and abhorrent because we criticise, we shall inform you that we think the really wacky ones are those who always nod and never dare say that something was really appalling.

No wait - they would, but not in your face.

Yes, because the crude reality that many of you seem to prefer ignoring is that these islands are brimming with hypocrites. Many won't tell you that something's ugly, stupid or astoundingly boring. And if you think they do it merely to be nice to you and because they are afraid of hurting your feelings, well, you couldn't have got it more wrong. The Maltese - yes, wait for it - are just afraid of airing their opinion because of the 'consequences'. (The many comments coming in under the 'anonymous' nickname sort of says a million things!)

Not all of them, mind you. But the majority is.

As a matter of fact, it all boils down to the people's upbringing. Many parents teach their offspring that saying something negative is simply not doable. Or, to be more precise, that saying it in public shan't ever be done - because you know, one day you might need that person. That, and, of course, the fact that "hey be careful, they may be relatives!"

What are the repercussions of this?
It's easy to suss out, really.

Simply switch the TV on. You will be bombarded with many boring shows and programmes. Then, there would be the ads, which are equally horrifying and ridiculous. Why can't they be better? Well, because it's much easier to put up easy, mind-numbing programmes which take little (if any) planning rather than other ones that demand a great deal of effort. Besides, the audience won't bother complaining - they will watch it as that's what we have and moaning is useless. Therefore hits will still be up and producers will actually think they're doing a good job. It's a horrible vicious circle we must do our best to get out of!

In simple, plain English, standards are hard to find in Malta, because hey:

Many people born on these islands seem to have this inborn idea that things in Malta can't be as good as they are abroad because we haven't got enough funds or some other strange reason. Unfortunately, that's not the way to go about these things. We desperately need to up our game if we really want to improve our product.

"And how?" you will probably ask us. Well, we've got to have higher expectations for starters.

Let's have a look at a particular situation that truly accentuates our problems. It's April. In about a week or two the hype surrounding the Eurovision will kick in, again... Then the show comes and the Maltese contestant doesn't make it to the finals, or if he (miraculously) does, he'll do poorly. Then the show goes. And then, like every other year, we'll have to deal with the aftermath.

"As always, the neighbouring countries voted for their neighbours and we've no neighbours so we couldn't have done well." How many times have you heard this? Yes, many. And how many times have you heard people say: "we chose a pathetic song, with disgusting (to be nice) lyrics, of course we fail"? Oh, few will do. Though the former may be true to some extent, we never seem to make an effort to come up with a TRULY good show, we merely hide behind the "we have no neighbours, nobody loves us" excuse.

Same will happen once Ms Daniela Darmanin (aka Miss World Malta 2012) will fail to make it to the top. But hey, why worry? Many people commenting on our previous posts told us that in reality Miss World Malta shan't be beautiful - the important thing is that she feels so. Now, please, what kind of reasoning is that?

You see, those are two tiny examples there, but they succinctly describe how many truly think. It's never our fault - the others have it in for Malta; Malta is too small; Malta has no money: Malta this and Malta that.

Oh, let's all cut the crap, shall we? instead of coming up with boring excuses we should realise that it doesn't take all that much to have something done properly rather than having something just for the sake of organising it.

Yes, we do complain. But everyone should - especially when you live on an island, thus detached from the rest of the world. OK, that's metaphorical, but it renders the idea well. We mustn't be lazy and complacent, for that will mean getting stuck in a rut. And we don't want that, do we?

The Maltese really ought to shrug this 'small island mentality' once and for all. We're no longer a colonial island suffering post-war repercussions. Times have changed, industries have bloomed, and with them, opportunities. Yet, sadly, one thing the Maltese seem to make sure they pass on from generation to generation is a complacent attitude and the ability to feel sorry for themselves at every given opportunity.

MWM... where mediocracy prevails, and people fight for it to remain.

Following our previous post regarding this year's Miss World Malta, we thought it appropriate to dedicate a post to answering some of the comments left by readers. We were seriously appalled at the sheer mediocracy people are comfortable with and at how a good chunk of the Maltese seem to be unable to digest criticism.

It's incredible how complacent people are. Why are these people so happy with what is merely semi-decent at best? Also, dear Val, just because "the setup was the best in years", doesn't mean that it was good, or "beautiful", to use the adjective you chose to endow the show with. Oh, and what does the fact that "fashion is really improving" have to do with a beauty pageant, exactly? Please, do enlighten us.

We are being cruel because we're expressing an opinion? Really? What is this, a kindergarten talent show? Yeah, we might sit back and "think of the effort put in to set the show up" in that case. Have a look at the hard work involved in this kind of thing abroad, then review MWM - spot the difference, darling!

This is our absolute favourite. We'll translate, for the benefit of our non-Maltese readers (since some people don't have the decency to comment in English on a blog that is, very evidently, in English) - "You're semen. Let them participate. The important thing is that they feel good about themselves, even if they're not particularly pretty." Yes, semen, really! The sheer ignorance and baseness that some people dare exhibit is beyond us.

Of course, there were more. The above are simply our top picks. One of the things that utterly amaze us is the fact that many people seem to be highly opinionated, yet chose to remain anonymous. What is the point of throwing mud at our faces when they don't even have the guts to put a name under their comments? Alas, will the Maltese ever learn?

Beauty queens and tiaras...

Many of you know that yesterday we were dragged to the Miss World Malta - sometimes you've got to do it to please your dear ones. Anyway, some dared to call it the event of the year. And let's say we sort of looked forward to that.

Well, we did go. And well, we were rather let down - and that's being kind.
Let's say it was our mistake, as we should have bought the VIP tickets. But you know how these things work; you only regret not looking into it until you actually get there and you realise that there aren't enough chairs for the people attending. How ridiculous is that?

Oh yes, because that was one of the many problems. We wrote it on Facebook - like Jeffrey Pullicino Orlando would've done - and some people who know nothing of standards, of course, wrote back saying that that's the best show indeed when it comes to beauty pageants.

Really? And why should we give a rat's ass about that? Why are these islands plagued with the "come on, it wasn't bad, actually it was the best beauty show of the year" mentality? How on earth do these people expect standards to improve if the people are content with the not-extremely-mediocre?

Seating wasn't the only problem. The show then kicked off and hey, what a show! The people not in the VIP area could barely see anything - you could see the elder ladies trying to stretch up to get to see something... Why? They had hanging TVs on the sides for the unfortunate ones at the back. That's good enough. Well, not. The TVs were only showing ads of those jewellery companies that sponsored the show. Thankfully, it then occurred to them that showing the audience what was actually happening on that blessed catwalk was perhaps a better idea than the ads.

Enough with the organisation of it all though.
We then had the contestants... what incredible contestants.

We were under a perverse impression that we were at a beauty pageant. At times that really seemed not to be the case.

Some of them did manage to hide the flaws when wearing those evening gowns. But then came the moment they had to bear it all in a bikini... And hey, there the flaws reverberated with the awe of the public.

OK, OK, not to that extent. Yet, seeing them competing, aiming at taking that tiara back home, one cannot not say "what the heck?" It's not that they were flabby, really. It was the whole 'package' (to use a term pertaining to another event) that was wrong. The walk, the facial expressions and, wait for it, the 'hamallagni' (sorry guys, Maltese renders the idea better there) merely highlights that some people are terribly deluded.

The best bit for freaks like ourselves was when the host, Keith Demicoli - yes, the journalist - asked a question to the 7 finalists in English. Oh, this bit was hilarious. This was done to test the fluency of the contestants, because when they go abroad they must speak good English, Keith told us. Fine. Indeed they must ...also because they would have a similar interview:

Hopefully this year the winner won't think that her cooking sushi could help the ones hit by the Tsunami.

Anyhow, guess what. Oh yes, good guess. They could barely string a sentence together, bar 2 of them. You'd say that their beauty will compensate - but when that's also missing, what do we do?

In any case, this is this year's Miss World Malta:

Miss World Malta, with Sue Rossi on her right and Claudia Calleja on the left

Stephanie Portelli, first runner up 

Alison Galea Valleta, second runner up

All we can say is that the audience seemed to be sorely disappointed. We were, too. We believe others deserved the title more. Alas, that's how beauty pageants work - your faces never win.

1565 all over? We hear Jeffrey's polishing his gladiator's armour...

You'd think the Maltese's hatred towards the Turks would have ended with the Great Siege, and that the Maltese would have moved on by now.

Apparently it hasn't and they did not. Typical Maltese - once I have it in for you, I shall never like you again or everyone else will think I'm weak!

Jeffrey Pulcino Orlando is one such man.

Following deputy prime minister Tonio Borg's words - (There is no reason why Turkey should be excluded from the EU as long as the membership criteria were fulfilled and has been Malta's stand from the outset, Foreign Minister Tonio Borg said yesterday.) - he decided to throw one of his infamous tantrums. On Facebook, of course, because that's how he does politics nowadays - halli jurina kemm hu modern!

According to him, in fact:

Yes, Dr Tonio Borg (the mentioned foreign minister) is right in saying that. And lest it crossed your mind, we're not writing this to defend the latter - he really isn't our favourite politician.

Nevertheless, if Turkey does manage to fulfill the prerequisites, why shouldn't it be allowed to join the EU?

Why are you, Jeffrey, so afraid of "Turkey is too big, and will therefore exercise too much power within the EU?"

We'll tell why, even though we're quite sure you got that already.

Coolio Jeffrey is in reality showing outrageous signs of racism. Ironic, don't you think? "Accession would result in a big wave of Turkish immigrants", he tells us. Oh would it, Jeffrey? And why would that be so catastrophic? (Technically, we already have Turkish immigrants around...) Is it because they are, wait for it, Muslim? We think yes!

Don't worry, Jeffrey, some will back you. Like these very bright ones here:

And don't give us that political consolidation crap. Were you one of those who actually practiced what they preach, then you would have resigned your seat a while ago.

As a matter of fact, these words are very indicative of what sort of man we're dealing with here. He's one of those ready to jump on the most convenient of bandwagons. He did that with Divorce, now he's feeling all gay and saying Malta is lagging behind in legalizing gay marriage ( in reality it's at par with most of the European countries and USA states) so he's pondering on whether to propose another bill or not, and now, of course, he's trying to appeal to the xenophobic ones inhabiting these islands.

Rather antithetical, isn't it, Mr Pullicino Orlando? If you are in for liberalism, then you must shake off that one big cobweb that's adversely affecting your senses.

You know our stance when it comes to any form of discrimination - well, in reality you can't blame the people for being so myopic given that some of the people ruling the country are not any better.

It's good to see people are sussing him out...

Isolate gays, says Carmel.

So this was a letter sent in to The Times, penned by what seems to be a very clever Carmel Attard... 

Naturally, The Times, which seems to be running out of ideas to fill in those pages, decided to publish it. 

We wholeheartedly disagree with those who on Facebook and other social networks are ridiculously claiming that The Times shouldn't have published this. That's being as close-minded as this moronic Carmel Attard himself. And you don't want that, do you?

Freedom of speech can't only come in handy to fight in favour of equal rights. No, it also means that people can air their opposing opinion. It's actually really annoying that so many can't seem to grasp this. 

Anyhow, let's get down to business... What was this Carmel thinking? If he believes he's educated enough to voice these thoughts in public, then he should be ready for some panning. Seems like the fresh air in Australia hasn't yet gone down his nostrils, which are still clogged with the hatred he breathed in Malta. 

Is he one of those who flew in to vote against divorce because that's against God's law too? We reckon. 

Since children who are brought up in gay families lack a father or a mother, and are thus "robbed", what exactly should we do with orphans? And how about those single-parent families? Are these children to be done away with? Would Carmel be happy then? Is this what he learnt at those duttrina lessons? Well, this man's twisted ideology holds little water, if any. 

We don't really want to look much into this. You know what's our stance so we shan't put too much of a fine point there. 

Yet, if we want to call a spade a spade, we must concede that ignorant people are still around. It's only a question of educating them... or wait till they kick that blessed bucket. In hoping for the better though, we wish the latter won't be necessary. 

They're coming, they're coming!

We've got used to them now. They're a nuisance we've got to put up with on a daily basis in the months of summer. No, we're not alluding to mosquitos.

Come April, those very grumpy ones start gearing up to bombard us with 'strongly-worded' letters in the newspapers. They usually complain about the horrendous time they go through: each and every summer.

Trying to picture them while they're at it is somewhat fascinating. A group of older ladies, smartly dressed up with a fancy scarf to protect their necks, meet up on a Sunday at one of their Sliema flats, for the 5pm tea... And while the lady of the house pours the tea (tat-Tetley, cause tal-Lion isn't good like), their blessed bee in the bonnet manages to free itself after months of seclusion.

And the poor students are in for some good spanking... Not that the latter would mind the spanking bit, mind you - it's not us saying this; the ladies somehow know it so they duly report it in the papers!

Not to let us down, there they start. This is a letter to the editor published in The Times, today:

First of all, dear Ms Camilleri, the students you are panning wouldn't ever say "loudy". But hey, they're not as proficient as you are... they actually come here because they expect (this last word is what probably in your dictionary features as 'pretend') people like you to teach them.

Secondly, would you please be so kind as to acquaint us with what is so abhorrent about playing football? Would you like them better if they played Polo or chess perhaps?

What's more irritating, however, is the fact that these ladies don't seem to understand that in reality these same students are a blessing for Malta. (Other people living on other islands sort of get that, but the Maltese merely disregard this fact!) They bring, much to the moaners' dismay, a great deal of money to these islands... They choose Malta over other places, and that is quite an achievement. Besides, these students come all around the year - not just in summer - so this industry deserves better than just being lambasted by people who don't know the ins and outs.

True, they might be a bit rowdy when they are in big groups. They might sing while they walk it back from Paceville. Yet, dear Ms Camilleri, it's not only the foreign ones that do that. If you seriously think that, then that tea you're drinking is irreparably diluting your senses.

This is not to say that they shouldn't be taken to task when they make mistakes or disrupt the public's tranquility. However, tarring all the students with the same brush is horribly unjust.

It's really annoying when these people just blow things out of proportion. We've had some bad experiences with some of them, fine, but that shouldn't translate in: "Ooh, they're coming, they're coming. Police, do something. Now."

Something about humans

Before introducing this post, we would like to apologise for our absence - we hate to let weeks pass without writing a post. However we've been insanely busy since we tend to leave everything to the very last minute! Yet, we did try our best to keep you entertained through our Facebook page (if you haven't done it yet, you should hit like there!)

We are avid film watchers and we try to watch a film at the cinema once a week - it's like our little ritual. One of the films we've watched recently was Carnage - a Roman Polanski film. Well, if we were to describe the film in a word, that word would be: claustrophobic. Why, you might ask? We don't want to let on too much about it, as we really think you ought to check it out yourselves. Yet, let's just say that the film is almost entirely set in one room.

Carnage stars John C Reilly as Michael, Jodie Foster as Penelope, Christopher Waltz as Alan and Kate Winslet as Nancy - and that's practically all the cast there is. Michael and Penelope Longstreet are Ethan's parents whereas Alan and Nancy Cowan are Zachary's. At the basis of the film we have this row that took place between the ten-year-old boys where the Cowan's son knocked a couple of Ethan's teeth out. So the parents meet at the Longstreet's to deal with the issue, talk it out in a civilised way. To cut a long story short, the tight-lipped politeness that we see at the beginning of the discussion, turns sour in a comical yet tragic way. It moves away from the subject of the children's quibble and turns into a ramble about everything and nothing with occasional intervals where they would revert back to the original subject.

So, at this point, you might be wondering what the aim of this film is. If you watch the film superficially, that's a question that'll remain unanswered - for sure. It's an excellent insight on human behaviour - the layers of 'civilisation' that peel away as the film progresses to reveal man's innate aggression.

Playing 'Happy Families'...

... showing their true colours.

For this reason, this isn't a film that we suggest you watch at bedtime while dozing off - that would make you hate the film and leave you perplexed. Guaranteed. Yet if you're looking for a film that sets your mind ticking, then this is, undoubtedly, one to watch.

@ McDaddy's

Ah, you see... Only ladies are allowed to change those stinky nappies at McDonald's. Men? Oh well, they have no babies!

Once you go black...

If you've watched, or read 'The Help', you were probably, like us, appalled by the way 'black' people were treated back then. Or rather, to be more honest there, you were annoyed to be reminded of how cruel we can get (oblivion is so much more comfortable when it comes to these things, isn't it?) Black house-helpers were even forced to use a 'special' bathroom because they were believed to carry diseases. It was OK for them to bring up white people's children, though. They weren't scared their children would contract this mysterious disease black people carried.

And that's simply the tip of the iceberg. Racial segregation in the US meant that 'blacks' and 'whites' were required to use separate facilities - those for African-Americans generally being of lesser quality. There were special schools, buses, universities - you name it and they had it. All to ensure that white and coloured people didn't mix. All this was covered up by the 'Separate but Equal' slogan. Thank goodness, however, this 'practice' was outlawed in 1964, while the apartheid was still going on in full swing in South Africa.

Seperate Drinking Fountains for Whites and Coloured people in the USA.

White-Area beach sign in South Africa

A few weeks ago we were sitting on a bus on our way to Valletta. We were lucky to grab a free seat as the bus got beyond packed in an instant. The aisle was absolutely jammed with people and of course, all the seats were taken. Bar one.

Yeah, you might ask "and why didn't anyone take the seat?" Well, a coloured man was sitting on the seat next to it. Coincidence? We think not. (Don't worry - it was then taken up... But that's not the point, is it? The problem is that for some minutes there, people preferred to stand! And if you say this has never happened when you were on a bus, then we know you're lying.)

Isn't racial discrimination a thing of the past? Didn't the emancipation of coloured people bring racial discrimination to its death?

What is it about people that makes them so judgemental? Why do we (yes, we do, like anyone else on this planet) discriminate, so ready to point fingers? What's in a colour, anyway? What makes pale skin superior to a dark one? If you've got answers, do please forward them to us, cause we don't.

We're in 2012, 21st Century, the century of progress - or is it? We've had technological advancement; we've had medical advancement; science advancement... BUT, our mindsets are just as rotten as they used to be! People might claim they're open-minded and tolerant and what not - otherwise they're not deemed cool enough. Yet, when push comes to shove, many choose to stand rather than sit next to that coloured man. Because hey, we'd be deadly plagued if we did!

Granted, we've seen giant steps made forward - just look at the USA, coloured president, how's that for change? We can also see coloured people at the helm of important businesses and industries - men and women - in many parts of the globe. Having said that, many people remain hostile towards people of colour. Case in point is Malta.

As a tiny island bridging Europe and Africa, we get the primary impact that comes with the influx of African refugees into Europe. Of course, Malta isn't the only country 'suffering' this influx, Italy and Spain are inundated with illegal immigrants, too, for instance. However, given our tiny stature, it's bound to affect us more. Add to that the small island mentality that plagues the narrow minds of  many Maltese and of course, you have a lethal concoction of xenophobia in its purest form.

Yes, because you are completely wrong if you think the Maltese don't like coloured ones only because they come and take our jobs - and what jobs do they take anyway? No, the reason is still the same - some (a good percentage that is, but when writing, euphemism is very handy) Maltese suffer from this serious case of inborn phobia for anything/anyone different. Reason for which, many in here seem to believe this is a blessed island ...and don't you dare say there's better. (In all honesty, southern Italy is just as bad as us,  but that's no consolation, is it?)

Of course, all races are equal by law. Yet, the law can never change mentality and society's point of view. It is the people that have to learn how to be more tolerant, how to treat everyone equally, regardless of the colour of their skin. And with that, we don't mean the government should do more with the education system. In reality, those hours at school during which we are told to respect everyone (ghax hi, ahna kollha brothers u sisters) are just pointless! If the same children have a certain upbringing, some lessons simply won't change what they would have acquired at home...