I do believe that the environmental challenges listed with such commitment by UN based scientiests are as urgent as they claim.

I agree with measures that are being proposed to counter the distress that could affect future generations, though it is already being experienced as of now.

I guess that many of the steps that are being taken.. not least by the EU... are necessary and are greatly needed.

However I doubt whether enough is being done to fully explain without any circumlocutions the need for such measures and all their impacts. For at least some of these measures cannot be undertaken easily and without generating disruptions... if not worse... in how people live their lives. Which is why we need honest explanations that are laid out simply and with no fudges.

A problem is that the competition between the political parties increasingly pivots around the claim that nothing could be better than the future. The effort that would need to be made to explain how in order to reach this better future, we will need to carry more burdens – at least initially – is considered to be too risky.

*** 

THE DEVALUATION OF LITERATURE

I understood what he meant but remained unconvinced he is right. A friend continues to complain that literature has been devalued. Not just in Malta, he insistenly claims, but everywhere. Other forms of artistic and cultural expression are being... according to him ... given greater salience.

Like which? I asked him.

So, on he went to describe how all the time art exhibitions are being launched with the assistance of private interests. Theatrical presentations and variety shows are given full coverage by the media. By contrast, the literature of today and of yesterday is ignored.

Better make things clear: this friend of mine is mostly drawn to literature. Other artistic forms leave him cold. And then, his claim that the media has turned its back on literature is incorrect: one just has to consult the major newspapers in Italy, Germany, the UK. The pages and supplements they devote to writing are quite extensive.

***

DOES STRASBOURG MAKE SENSE?

As the place where the Euuropean Parliament and other institutitons of the EU should assemble, no it does not. The city is beautiful and interesting but its connections with major European zones are still very deficient, which prevents it from functioning well as the site for the headquarters of leading institutions. Admittedly, when the EU consisted of only six members from Western Europe, its location could have been logistically and symbolically appropriate. Not today.

This is the view of a great majority in the Parliament.

Now European Parliament President Roberta Metsola had stated that she would be the voice of the Parliament. In the company of French President Macron, she declared that abortion should be considered a human right. That is what a big majority of the European Parliament believes in. However, and this is strange, regarding Strasbourg, President Metsola stated that the city should remain as the seat of the Parliament. On this one too, I guess that President Macron approved what she had to say.

The Parliament has no competence over abortion matters. About where it meets though, it is clear that it should have a voice. So, what could have happened...?