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.