Isn't Everything Better than Hell's Fire?

Richard Dawkins

“I’d go to church just to reduce the probability of spending eternity in Hell with Richard Dawkins.”

Fr. Z is absolutely right, that’s a great, attention-grabbing title. And as it was not enough, there are many other possible applications in addition to the one mentioned in the title: just substitute Richard Dawkins with some other guy’s/gal’s name/surname … there might turn out to be a lot of interesting alternatives, say Sean Penn, George Soros, Dan Savage, Jay Carney, Dan Brown…

P.S. Hey, I was just kidding! Everybody knows that Richard Dawkins is an honorable man, and so are all the above mentioned, all honorable men! However, apart from the title, the post itself is very good and well worth reading—a kind of a twenty-first century version of Pascal’s Wager!

There They Go Again

Rick Santorum has been under fire in recent days. The latest controversy surrounding the current Republican front-runner involves no more and no less than a speech he gave back in 2008 and which was posted on The Drudge Report on Tuesday. Well, it was no ordinary speech, since he dared to say that… Satan had “set his sights set on the United States of America.” “The Father of Lies,” he said, “is attacking the great institutions of America, using those great vices of pride, vanity, and sensuality as the root to attack all of the strong plants that has so deeply rooted in the American tradition.” Which, at the time, as everybody can easily understand, must have been an appalling revelation to the American people, who never ever imagined they could have found themselves in such an awkward situation, but even more so to the mainstream media folks, who are notoriously honorable men and women. And that’s why, once over the initial shock, and after a brief but thorough soul-searching exercise, those good guys and gals started speaking very badly about Rick Santorum. And now, to borrow from Ronald Reagan, there they go again.

Responding to questions last night about his 2008 speech, Santorum fairly argued that

these are questions that are not relevant to what's being discussed in America today. What we're talking about America today is trying to get America growing. That's what my speeches are about. That's what we're going to talk about in this campaign. If they want dig up old speeches, talking to a religious group, go right ahead and do so, but I'm going to stay on message. I'm going to talk about things that Americans want to talk about, which is creating jobs, getting our country safer and secure and yes, taking on the forces around this world who want to do harm to America. You bet I will take them on.
[…]
You know, I'm a person of faith. I believe in good and evil. I think if somehow or another because you're a person of faith you believe in good and evil is a disqualifier for president we're going to have a very small pool of candidates who can run for president.

Very clear and intellectually honest, but also politically appropriate. And quite “presidential.” But that is not the most important point here. The real point is that we now know—and we must thank The Drudge Report for this—that the current GOP front-runner, with his speech about good and evil at Ave Maria University in Florida in 2008, is the true spiritual heir of another much-maligned social conservative, Ronald Reagan, who delivered a similarly fiery speech in Florida in 1983: the famous “Evil Empire” statement (see the video below). That historic speech, says Paul Kengor in a must-read American Spectator piece [Thanks: Sandra Kennedy Schimmelpfennig], is remembered principally, and correctly, as a bold, long overdue utterance of unadulterated truth about the USSR, which Reagan aptly described as “the focus of evil in the modern world.” But the speech, Kengor continues, was much more: “It looked inward at the sins and evils at work in America—as did Santorum’s speech.”

“As I digested the speech,” he continues

I was struck at how so many of Santorum's themes and words -- which were right on the money -- echoed those expressed in Ronald Reagan's historic Evil Empire speech. Santorum ruminated on the "father of lies," spiritual warfare, truth, vanity, sensuality, temptation, pride, education, abortion. Like Reagan, he fears that the "great political conflict" at work in America "is not a political war at all, or a cultural war -- it is a spiritual war." In that war, "the father of lies has set his sights on none other than good, decent, powerful, influential United States of America."
And then, like Reagan, he finished with a message of faith-based optimism for the faithful gathered in the room: "My message to you today is that you will lose, you will lose battle after battle; you will become frustrated, but do not lose hope. God will be faithful, if you are."

What to say? Well, to put it as Rush Limbaugh does,

I'm not saying that Santorum is Reagan. I'm saying that is what is happening with Santorum, the fact that he believes what he believes, is not unique. Many presidents have believed, in fact, far more than not have believed what Santorum believes and have said so. And the media reaction to Santorum is also not unique. It's identical.

• Rick Santorum (the official Rick Santorum page)

And, Sure, Sean Is an Honorable Man

Sean Penn and Hugo Chavez

Not Just the Weekly Grind: Last Week’s Roundup

1. Sean Penn Calls Tea Party the ‘Get the N-Word Out of the White House Party’ Which Wants to ‘Lynch’ Obama
   According to left-wing actor Sean Penn the Tea Party is motivated by racism. On CNN’s Piers Morgan Tonight on Friday evening he said that an impediment to President Obama’s success is “what I call the ‘Get the N-word out of the White House party,’ the Tea Party.”  (Video and transcript included)
   
   This, of course, while Herman Cain tops polls of Republican primary voters. Yet Brutus Sean says—without citing any evidence, ça va sans dire—that “there’s a big bubble coming out of their heads saying, you know, ‘can we just lynch him?’” And, sure, he is an honourable man... 
2. Ann Coulter: Media ‘Will Lie About the Economy’ To Get Obama Reelected
   Conservative author Ann Coulter told Fox News’s Sean Hannity Friday evening that Obama, as bad as his numbers are right now, “will have the entire mainstream media bucking for him and they will lie about the economy. ‘Oh, it’s a turnaround, don’t stop him now.’” An easy prophecy? (Video and transcript included)
   
3. Why Herman Cain Can Win
   OK, Herman Cain isn’t the most likely person to be the Republican nominee for president in 2012. That’s Mitt Romney. But, a new NBC-Wall Street Journal poll released late Wednesday suggests that a path to victory does exist for him. How? Well, by singing! Er, no, just kidding of course (great video, though), read the above linked article to know exactly how. 
4. We Underestimate Occupy Wall Street to Our Own Peril
   
   

   By trying to minimize them we’re in fact doing exactly what these people did, and are still doing, when they try to portray us as Nazis, capitalist pigs, reactionaries, or assassins. If we try to portray them as something different, something un-American, I think we’ll lose every time because they have the media advantage. And gods forbid if the soldiers in that crowd make a showing, because it’s easy to criticize the hippies, but how do you criticize the soldiers as different? You can’t, really.
   What I think we need is a war of ideas, not one of belittlement. I think that’s the key to defeating Occupy Wall Street arguments, and we need to get started.

   
   What can I say? Very well said, indeed...
   

How About Taking a Break, Mr. Prime Minister?

Anna Wintour

Do you know what the editor-in-chief of Vogue America, Anna Wintour, and the head of the Italian Bishops Conference, Cardinal Angelo Bagnasco, have in common? Well, they both don’t like Silvio Berlusconi. Not even a little bit. At least not anymore (especially in the latter case). And they both take a great care to let the world know it. Of course there are also important differences between the two: one is that Mrs. Wintour hardly knows who this guy is and what he is like, whereas Cardinal Bagnasco—along with the rest of the Italian people—obviously knows Berlusconi all too well. Which is not a good sign for the Italian prime minister: you just don’t need to know him well to feel (Mrs. Wintour) “disgusted and embarrassed” by him, or “mortified” (Card. Bagnasco) by his “sad and hollow” behavior.

Add to this Pope Benedict XVI’ call—last Thursday, before he left for his third trip to Germany—for “an increasingly intense ethical renewal for the good of beloved Italy,” and you’re done!

Cardinal Bagnasco and Silvio Berlusconi

Well, it is true that Cardinal Bagnasco did not name explicitly the prime minister—nor, of course, did the pope—but there is little doubt about whom he was referring to when he denounced “licentious behavior and improper relations” or when he said that Italians had been left in a state of “dumbfounded astonishment” by their political class—not that the rest of the Italian political class are exactly saints…, er, au contraire, but, as the old Latin saying goes, “Est modus in rebus!”

All this, of course, while not only Berlusconi but all of Italy itself is now under a kind of worldwide microscope, after having had its sovereign credit rating cut by Standard & Poor’s, with the ratings agency keeping the country’s outlook on negative in a major surprise that adds to contagion fears in the debt-stressed eurozone.

Hard times, no doubt about it. One could argue that the prime minister has earned a well-deserved (and long) vacation for all the hard work he has done for the country, to say nothing about the inevitable exhaustion following his legendary “athletics exploits.” But I’m afraid he is too damn stubborn to admit—because of his strong sense of duty toward the country, of course—that taking a break might be a very extremely good idea. For the good of his health, of course. But you may be sure that I, along with crowds of conservatives, no matter whether Catholic or not, both here in Italy and abroad, are praying for him and will keep him in our thoughts and prayers until he decides to take a break from his stressful job, or better still to put an end to it once and for all. As the Jennifer Hudson song goes, “If this isn't love, tell me what it is.”

Follow my blog with Bloglovin

The Guardian, the Pope and the “notables”

While crowds were gathering to welcome Benedict XVI to Edinburgh, first stop on the Pope’s UK visit, I must confess that I was still fairly confused about this letter, published by the Guardian and signed by some British notables, against the Pope and his state visit. What on earth? After all Britain is not so much anti-Catholic as quite rude, and unusually secular, and the Guardian, I was repeating to myself over and over again, is an honorable daily newspaper (without ifs and buts, that’s for sure!), why did they do that? …Until I came across this Fr. John Zuhlsdorf ‘s post—kind of an “evangelical synopsis,” if I may say so—thanks to which it all became clear to me: it was a joke, just a damned joke! Or, if you prefer, as a commentator to that very post brilliantly put it, are we sure Charles Dickens didn’t invent some of those notable people who signed the letter?

'We wanted to annihilate the Japanese because they were different'

Did you think that, back in World War II, the United States fought Japan because of Pearl Harbor, or because the Empire of the Rising Sun was trying to conquer the entire continent of Asia? Nah, if you think so, in the best case you are stupid and ignorant. The Truth is that the US “wanted to annihilate” the Japanese “because they were different,” and (as it was not enough) if that doesn’t sound familiar, by any chance, to “what’s going on today,” then, according to the Mouth of Truth, you must probably be even worse than stupid and ignorant, you are hypocrites and racists. And that’s also why—despite appearances to the contrary—the West is fighting in the Middle East nowadays, not because Islamists attacked us and want to destroy our way of living! Is the message clear enough, ye serpents, ye offspring of vipers?

PS: Ah, sorry, forgot to say the main thing: the Mind behind such inspiring Thoughts is that of Hollywood star—and “honourable man” par excellence—Tom Hanks. Let’s give to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to Brutus what is Brutus’s ... (Via Michael van der Galien)

Italy vs Google - 2 (Is it still Berlusconi's fault?)

Seattle Times editorial page editor Ryan Blethen on “the already puzzling case” of Google versus Italy (see my previous post for details):

The cynic in me wonders if Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi left fingerprints on the case. He owns nearly all of the country’s private media and as prime minister influences Italy’s public media. Berlusconi’s critics worry that he is pushing for greater control of the media by clamping down on the Internet.

In other words Mr Blethen suspects that Berlusconi put pressure on the Milan Public Prosecutor’s Office and judges in order to have the three Google execs convicted.

Well, the Good Samaritan in me wonders if Ryan Blethen needs to be taken care of, to be nurtured with good thoughts and fine feelings, and above all with accurate information, to acquire a better knowledge and understanding of what he is talking about. In fact, he seems to know very little about Italy (life, Institutions, politics, recent history, etc.). He seems to ignore that Milan prosecutors are as much in love with Silvio, and have as good an opinion of him, as the devil loves the holy water and the hanged the rope…

But then again, perhaps Mr Blethen is better informed than it seems at first glance. Perhaps the truth is that he is just doing his job, which may sometimes require some “flexibility” in dealing with facts, opinions and personal beliefs. Of course I am not saying that he is trying to “rig the game” (not at all!), because I am sure he is “an honourable man,” as well as Rachel Donadio of the New York Times and Tasha Kheiriddin of National Post are “honourable women”—if I may quote my favorite playwright.

After all, we must bear in mind that journalists and newspapers have the right to pursue and advocate their political preferences (provided they don’t claim to be “objective,” ça va sans dire…). And Mr Blethen is no exception: being a left-winger—he is “a strong supporter of all of the finest liberal causes, including gay marriage, a larger and more powerful government and ending global warming and climate change immediately,” as one of his critics wrote in a comment here—he has the right to fight the right-wing Prime minister of Italy.

In any case, nothing to do with the truth. Freely paraphrasing another of my favorite playwrights, “Right you are if you say you are.”

Italy vs Google

Bad news, as you probably already know, from the front line of Italy’s contemporary fight for freedom: three Google executives, charged with defamation and invasion of privacy, were convicted by the court of Milan for failing to prevent publication on the search engine of a video that showed a boy with Down’s syndrome being bullied by four students at a Turin school. The video was posted in 2006 on Google Video, a now-defunct service that Google ran before it bought YouTube.

The news is very shocking. First of all in itself, and secondarily because this is the first criminal action taken in Italy or elsewhere against Google managers for the publication of content on the web.

The significance of judge Oscar Magi’s ruling, according to assistant public prosecutor Alfredo Robledo, who was acting for the prosecution with public prosecutor Francesco Cajani, is that “The right to conduct business cannot prevail over the dignity of the person.” “At last, a clear word has been spoken. At the heart of this trial was protection of the individual through protection of privacy. Everything else is beside the point. I am confident that this ruling will go out from the court of Milan and finally provoke discussion on an issue that is fundamental,” Robledo added.

So they seem to want to basically “educate” someone about something. “Strike one to educate one hundred,” as the old Leninist motto goes? Nah, even though many Italian judges and prosecutors, especially in Milan, are left-leaning and with a communist background, this is not the case—educating is one of the tasks of Justice, after all. But one might be tempted to argue that perhaps the ones who need to be educated are the prosecutors and the judges. Why? Let’s call Google’s spokesman to speak:

“It is an attack on the fundamental principles of freedom on which Internet is built”, said Google’s spokesman, Marco Pancini. He added that it would be appealing “against a decision that we view as surprising, to say the least, since our colleagues had nothing to do with the video in question. They did not film it, they did not upload it and they did not see it”. According to Mr Pancini, the three executives have been held “penally responsible for illegal activities committed by third parties”. He said that during the proceedings, the three executives “had shown courage and dignity, since the very fact that they were put on trial is excessive”. Throughout the trial, Google has maintained that responsibility lies with whoever uploads a video to the web. For Mr Pancini, “if this principle is abandoned, there is no possibility of offering services on internet.”

In fact, the concept is very simple and straightforward: if we don’t accept the principle that responsibility lies with those who upload a video “there is no possibility of offering services on internet.” Therefore, the ruling by the judge, Oscar Magi, means that YouTube—along with the many websites and hosting platforms which offer user-generated content—cannot continue to do what it has always done. It’s totally, absolutely absurd. Imagine if every Facebook user, as well as every blog owner, could be hauled before a judge for comments, videos and pics left on their pages/blogs by other users! We had better give up blogging, facebooking and twittering as soon as possible…—Ok, comments here are moderated and need my approval before posting, but I can afford it because of the size of my blog, but what about if I were to face 500 to 1,000 comments per posts?

Needless to say, the video was disgusting. But, the criminals here were the ones who committed the assault and filmed and posted it, and they have been brought to justice already, not Google. Google, in turn, had taken the clip down within hours of being notified of it by Italian police, and that’s why it has nothing to be blamed for, unless you think that a failure of clairvoyance and an inability to time-travel have to be included in the category of crimes.

Yet, Luca Sofri, the author of one of Italy’s most popular blogs (no comments allowed …), says that Google and other Web-sharing platforms have a responsibility for what’s posted on their sites: “As Spider-Man says, ‘With great power comes great responsibility.’ Allowing freedom of opinion does not mean you can be a platform for people to defame others or violate their privacy.” Well, it must be said that Luca is almost as lefty as the judges and prosecutors of Milan. But he partially redeems himself by adding that he suspects that the sentence may also be seen as an example of how out of touch Italian political leaders and magistrates are with the massive changes in the way information circulates online: “They are judging the Internet with the same instruments of the past. The Web creates situations that are completely new and don’t have paragons with the world before. If these incidents are happening all over the world and Italy is the only country to condemn Google for it, maybe there’s something we haven’t understood.”

To be free or not to be free, that is the question (for Tibetans)

To be free or not to be free, that is the question for Tibetans. Well, no, actually: perhaps the real question, for them, is “How to enjoy the freedom of being not free?” At least, that’s what I think one has to look at the whole Tibetan thing after reading this. Or, better still, just don’t free Tibet (great post!). To free or not to free, that’s the real question! Sometimes you have to laugh not to cry...

Changing how we view Islam

How sad! The civilized world is exposed to the truth of the brutality of Islam. Meanwhile many Muslim converts in the West are finding it more and more difficult to find excuses for the actions of their fellow Muslims. Well, never say die! Here is a handy reference for our Western Muslim readers to help them deflect the charges leveled against Muslims and to help convince others that Islam is the religion of peace.

(From the series “And Brutus is an honourable man,” which is much in the spirit of this blog… though I have lost some friends along the way because of my passion for William Shakespeare’s play Julius Caesar—my great admiration for the bifurcated tongue of Marc Antony included. But then again, if you don’t want to take any risks, just don’t blog about Islam and other sensible phenomena, such as Climategate, Obama, Berlusconi, etc...)

All books are equal!

Librarians are being told to move the Bible to the top shelf to avoid giving offence to followers of Islam.
Muslims have complained of finding the Koran on lower shelves, saying it should be put above commonplace things.
So officials have responded with guidance, backed by ministers, that all holy books should be treated equally and go on the top shelf together.
This means that Christian works, which also have immense historical and literary value, will be kept out of the reach and sight of many readers.
The guidance was published by the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council, a quango answering to Culture Secretary Andy Burnham.

I must confess that, while reading through this news story—and thinking to myself that each and every one of those “honourable men” who had such a brilliant idea should be graciously thanked by every one that takes an interest and pride in the history of Europe—, I couldn’t help but wonder, ‘How about transferring Westminster cathedral, Duomo di Milano and Notre-Dame de Paris from their respective center cities to the suburbs to avoid giving offence to followers of Islam, or, alternatively, placing new shining mosques just in front of those old-fashioned buildings, nothing more than an embarrassing legacy of the days of Crusades and knights in bloody armor?’
(Thanks: Sandra K. S.)

And Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an honourable man

I heard what he said, but I cannot repeat it to you. The words of a powerful oppressor pierce the heart and fly away. He can rage at you for showing suspicion of him, and at the same moment make it clear that what you suspect is true; and he can insult you and claim that you have insulted him, mock you and demand satisfaction, threaten and complain at the same time. He can be both shameless and irreproachable. Do not ask me to repeat what he said.

A couple of recent events reminded me of the above quote by Alessandro Manzoni (The Bethroted, Chapter 7). Both of them deal with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. It’s up to the reader to judge whether or not the reminiscence was appropriate.

Yesterday, in his blistering speech before the United Nations General Assembly, the little man of Teheran remained faithful to himself, as four prestigious personalities of American diplomacy and intelligence had easily foreseen in an open (and worried) letter to the Wall Street Journal published a couple of days ago. As expected, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad insisted Iran's nuclear activities are for peaceful uses only, but these claims clearly exceed the boundaries of credibility and science, as the four authors of the above mentioned article recall:

Iran's enrichment program is far larger than reasonably necessary for an energy program. In past inspections of Iranian nuclear sites, U.N. inspectors found rare elements that only have utility in nuclear weapons and not in a peaceful nuclear energy program.
[…]
Tehran's continual refusal to answer questions from the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) about this troublesome part of its nuclear program suggests that it has something to hide.

At the same time Ahmadinejad blamed “a few bullying powers” for creating the world’s problems, and said—in a vaguely threatening way—the “American empire in the world is reaching the end of its road.” As for the Palestinian issue, even though he stopped short of calling for Israel to be “wiped off the map,” as he has in the past (2005), he said Zionists in Israel “have forged a regime through collecting people from various parts of the world and bringing them to other people's land, by displacing, detaining and killing the true owners of that land,” while the Security Council “cannot do anything, and sometimes under pressure from a few bullying powers, even paves the way for supporting these Zionist murders.”

Almost a Buddhist philosopher, a true peacemaker/peacebuilder, n’est pas? Yet, apparently not everybody agrees. Last week, for instance, Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi told a Jewish organisation in Paris, in reference to President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, that “we must pay the utmost attention to the lunacy of someone who says, perhaps for internal reasons, that Israel must be wiped off the map. […] We don't believe such things are real, but there has already been a certain gentleman who started off as a democrat but who went on to do what he did.”

Berlusconi is likely to remember that Ahmadinejad, visiting Rome earlier this year for a UN summit, also said Israel would vanish with or without the involvement of Tehran. Besides, he must have heard that just last Friday, in a telephone conversation with Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, Ahmadinejad expressed his hope for a victory celebration “after the disappearance of Zionists from Palestine and from the world.” He also added that “the Palestinian nation is fighting against the most despicable people on the face of this earth.” A propos of Buddhist philosophers & true peacemakers/peacebuilders.

But, since Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is an honourable man, Silvio Berlusconi’s accusation against the Iranian president caused serious protest in Tehran, which sent official note to the Italian Foreign Ministry protesting against the comparison of Iranian President and Adolf Hitler. Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Hassan Qashqavi described the Italian premier's comments as “absurd,” and “lacking of any logic and the high values of the Italian people and culture.” Of course he also criticised Berlusconi for “defending the Zionist criminals whose hands bear the blood of thousands of Palestinian children, women and people.”

I guess the reader thus is enabled to judge whether or not the quote has something to deal with the little man of Teheran.

Justice was done

One of the most important inquiries done by Milan’s preliminary judge—roughly equivalent to a District Attorney in the U.S.—Clementina Forleo was that involving the purchase of Banca Antoniana Popolare Veneta (known as Antonveneta) in the so-called Bancopoli scandal. She discovered the existence of audio tapes of telephone calls between Democratic Party luminaries such as Massimo D'Alema and Piero Fassino and two businessmen (Stefano Ricucci and Gianpiero Fiorani) who had become extremely rich in about only 10 years buying and selling very expensive and extravagant luxury real estate properties, with earnings around 100% to 300% over a reasonable market price.

With her ordinance of July 20 2007, namely by requesting the authorisation of Italy's Lower House to use wire-taps and by defining the politicians in question as “knowing accomplices of a criminal plot of great scope,” she made exactly what any competent and honest judge would have done in her place. But according to General Cassation Prosecutor Federico Sorrentino, which last Friday—before the disciplinary section of the Csm (Superior Council of Judiciary)—called for Forleo to be censured, and as a supplementary punishment, her transfer to another office, the Milanese investigating magistrate had violated “the obligation of impartiality, correctness and balance” by using in her ordinance “disparaging and suggestive accentuations” in an “unusual and unsolicited pre-emptive ruling.”

Why such an “official” hatred towards Clementina, while the crowd of magistrates who had done the same—and even worse—towards Berlusconi and other center-right politicians have never been prosecuted by any Cassation Court? Well, perhaps because “the obligation of impartiality, correctness and balance” is a concept to be intended, so to say, ad usum delphini? Or because, as Berlusconi would put it, “they are a bunch of Communists?”

But what was absolutely unpredictable has happened: the Supreme Council, which passed its sentence after sitting for around two hours, absolved the Milanese judge “because the deed does not constitute a disciplinary offence.” A blow under the belt for the left, which was confident that Forleo was practically isolated from the community of Italian magistrates and also from the vast majority of intellectuals and opinion leaders—of course they are all, all honorable men …

It’s curious what Antonio Di Pietro, asked for a comment on the absolution of Clementna Forleo, answered the interviewer (Corriere della Sera, Saturday, June 28, in Italian). After praising the sentence (“it’s the trade union minimum”) he added: “The truth is that Berlusconi doesn’t want normal judges only ‘normalized’ ones …” Excuse me, Mr Di Pietro, the interviewer stopped him, Berlusconi has nothing to do with that affair, not this time … “ Uh, er, but, you know, they are all Berlusconi. When they become the subject of judicial inquiries there are no differences, both left wingers and right wingers … all after the judge, apart from calling him hero post mortem, as they did with Falcone and Borsellino.”

But, perhaps, neither Di Pietro nor Beppe Grillo were expecting such a sentence. However they have been unusually quiet and self-possessed, this time—of course they are both honorable men …

Italian Government (probably) on the brink of collapse

“Poor Romano Prodi,” wrote the Financial Times on Sunday, “the year began badly for Italy’s slightly dishevelled but quietly effective prime minister.” I have got to confess that after reading the article I realized that I had lost something—something very important—during the last eighteen months, that is since April 2006, when Prodi returned to power by stitching together—as pointed out in the article—“an improbable patchwork coalition of nine squabbling parties, including communists, greens, and Catholics” (to whom I would add fiercely anticlerical ultra-secularists, moderate conservatives, free traders and libertarians).

As a matter of fact, I wonder how was it possible that I (as well as Bank of Italy’s Governor Mario Draghi!) had not before noticed—even though I do live in Italy!—our Prime Minister’s “quiet effectivess?” As it was not enough, how was it possible that I had not before noticed how heroically our “fiercely-competent” Minister of Finance, Mr Padoa-Schioppa, has been facing during those months “with the legacy of the fiscally-irresponsible Berlusconi government,” and the admirable way he “has begun to regain control of public finances?”

It would be a pity, therefore, to see him go so early, hit by two adverse events, of whom the first widely unexpected, both from the southern region of Campania:

a vesuvian eruption in the ongoing crisis of Neapolitan refuse collection, and the resignation of Clemente Mastella, Justice Minister, after he and his wife were hit by corruption allegations concerning appointments at a state hospital near Naples.

Obviously neither the Neapolitan people, except their centre-left Mayor, Mrs. Rosa Russo Jervolino, nor the rest of Italy think Mr Prodi bears any responsibility on the waste disposal crisis—even though the 17,000-strong Confturismo association of Veneto region must not have a particular veneration for Mr Prodi, but this is probably due to a disgraceful form of parochialism and economic egoism.

As for the rest of the article—by Martin Rhodes, a professor of comparative political economy at the University of Denver—, a very severe one, but unfortunately no more than what is necessary, I don’t think I have anything to say. Despite Mr Prodi and Mr Padoa-Schioppa, “Italy remains the least well-governed country in Europe.” How could I argue with that?