Onasagoras
Many eyebrows were raised recently when it became known that Mr. Paschalidis had been appointed by the president for a third consecutive term at Cyprus' Independent Authority Against Corruption, with his term ending when he will be approaching 80 years old. May he live long, of course.
And, by what some might call a devilishly convenient coincidence, this same person happened to be investigating the case that will no longer be known as Videogate but will go down in history as Faflatogate.
Holy cow!
Naturally, such an unprecedented case required an equally unprecedented conclusion. Those of us waiting to see just how creatively excuses would be found for the inexcusable were not disappointed. Not at all.
In fact, we stood up and applauded non-stop.
The accused did not do anything wrong, Mr. Paschalidis explained. They are simply a little faflades*—people who talk a lot without saying much—and full of empty words. And besides, what we saw and heard was not authentic but the product of editing.
Perhaps even the product of our own sick imagination, I would add.
We have surpassed Hollywood in imagination, ladies and gentlemen. I would even say we have surpassed Bollywood.
I believe the least we can do is nominate the creators for an Oscar in editing and special effects. They produced something far more impressive than artificial intelligence, even before AI-generated videos existed.
Respect.
But if the video is not authentic, then why are we accusing these people of being faflades* and empty talkers?
How exactly did we reach such an arbitrary and unfair conclusion based on a fake video?
On the other hand, if we accept that they really are people who talk nonsense and make empty promises, what does that say about the president's judgment?
He had such “great talkers” as close associates and friends, not to mention the many questionable appointments made by his government, yet he asks us to trust him to solve the Cyprus problem?
However we look at it, either the shore is crooked or we are sailing in the wrong direction.
And both possibilities are deeply worrying.
There is, of course, another very serious issue.
The attempt to exercise influence, by claiming access to the president, with the aim of financial gain constitutes, according to the recent findings of the Independent Authority Against Corruption, a very serious offense known as 'Trading in Influence'.
Someone needs to explain why the same foul in one case is punished with a penalty kick and a red card, while in another it receives nothing more than a friendly pat on the back.
Unless, of course, our investigation reports are like the tomb of Saint Neophytos....magically adjusted whenever needed to fit the circumstances.
Our national prince once again performed his patriotic duty by posting about the pain of the grieving mothers of 1974.
Unfortunately, his noble intention was marked by yet another… mistake, similar to the mistakes we have become accustomed to seeing from the government coalition.
He posted a photograph showing grieving mothers, but by accident the picture actually showed Turkish Cypriot mothers mourning in 1964...ten years earlier.
A little later, he realized his mistake and removed the photograph, which resulted in him receiving a truly spectacular public backlash.
In any case, dear prince, the pain of every grieving mother is the same.
Having become so wise, with so much experience behind you, you must have already understood what Ithacas truly mean.
*“Faflatogate” is a play on the Greek word “φαφλατάς”: someone who talks excessively, makes grand statements, or speaks empty words.
