The View from Bologna

The Man (Oil Baron) from Inter says 'Yes'. Inter vs Zapatistas

Bologna may have been relegated, but it's not all doom and gloom in the world of football. Inter Milan President Moratti responded positively it would seem to the Zapatista challenge to a game.

Moratti's reply to Subcommandante Marcos, and the balaclaved Zapatistas response seem to have had little coverage in the Italian press, having been published initially in the Spanish edition of Inter's fan magazine, but thanks to intrepid translators on the web the exchanges have made their way into English.

Dear Subcomandante Insurgente Marcos,

I am exceedingly pleased to have the privilege of writing in response to your extremely pleasant and kind challenge. I am addressing you, and through you to all the EZLN, in order to thank you for the opportunity you have given all of us to experience this special relationship. Allow me also to express my thoughts in response to your very, very kind letter. We will play. We will play our game, and I thank you for that. It will be a great match. Perhaps in a field, like we did as children, perhaps surrounded by giant trees. Or in a stadium, in the capital or o­n a rectangle drawn out in chalk o­n the earth, with the dust rising up until it makes us cough. Exhausted, but happy.
[...]
Since we are in agreement, we will bring the balls and you the bitter pozol. If you accept, we will begin discussing the organization with the respective representatives and managers. We hope we can play soon.
[...]
The game will truly be a simple and important moment. Every revolution begins from its own penalty area and ends in the opponent's goalpost.

With so very much admiration and affection, I am sending you and all the zapatista indigenous men and women, my most personal best wishes, as well as those of my wife, my children and the nerazzurro peoples.

Un abrazo,

Massimo Moratti [excerpt from full version, translated by Irlandesa
___________________________________________

Don Massimo,

We have received the letter in which you inform us that your football team, the International F.C., has accepted the fraternal challenge we
made to you. We appreciate the kindness and honesty of your response.
[...]
I am letting you know that, in addition to being spokesperson for the EZLN, I have been unanimously designated Head Coach and put in charge of Intergalactic Relations for the zapatista football team (well, in truth no one else wanted to accept the job). In this role I should, perhaps, make use of this letter to move forward in fixing details about the match.
[...]
And perhaps, if you are in agreement, for the games in Mexico the EZLN would turn to Diego Armando Maradona and ask him to be referee; to Javier El Vasco Aguirre and to Jorge Valdano and ask them to act as assistant referees (or linesmen); and to Sócrates, midfielder who was from Brazil, to be 4th referee. And perhaps we might invite those two intergalactics who travel with Uruguayan passports: Eduardo Galeano and Mario Benedetti to do the play by play of the game for the Zapatista System of Intergalactic Television ("the only television which is read"). In Italy, Gianni Mina and Pedro Luis Sullo could be the commentators.
[...]
And, perhaps, in order to differentiate ourselves from the objectification of women which is promoted at football games and in commercials, the EZLN would ask the national lesbian-gay community, especially transvestites and transsexuals, to organize themselves and to amuse the respectable with ingenious pirouettes during the games in Mexico. That way, in addition to prompting TV censorship, scandalizing the ultra-right and disconcerting the Inter ranks, they would raise the morale and spirits of our team. There are not just 2 sexes, and there is not just one world, and it is always advisable for those who are persecuted for their differences to share happiness and support without ceasing to be different.
[...]
With all this (and a few other surprises), we might, perhaps, revolutionize world football, and then, perhaps, football would no longer be just a business, and once again it would be an entertaining game. A game made, as you put it so well, of true feelings.

Perhaps...Nonetheless, this is just to reiterate to you and to your family, to all the men and women of the Inter and the nerazzurro fans, our appreciation and admiration for you (although I'm warning you that, in front of the goalposts, there will be neither mercy nor compassion). As to all the rest, well...perhaps...but...

Vale. Salud and may the green-white-red that clothes our dignities soon find themselves on both lands.

>From the mountains of the Mexican Southeast.

Subcomanadante Insurgente Marcos (D. T. Z.)

(designing plays on a chalkboard and fighting with Durito because he's insisting that, instead of the traditional 4-2-4, we should present 1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1-1, which, he says, is confusing).

Mexico, May of 2005.

The exchange is printed in full, and well worth reading, on the excellent z-net

Attenti ai Gufi - Football, religion and the dark ages.

Gufo - an Owl. Gufare - to hoot.

On Saturday evening Italy's Serie A drew to a close. The final match of the season, a playoff to decide relegation, took place in Bologna. Being but fair-weather fans, we opted to watch Bologna vs Parma from the comfort of a nearby bar (the beautiful evening and impressive setting of Bologna's Renato Dall'Ara Stadium taken together relegate us from the 'fair weather' category, into an even less loyal category).

It's a tense time. Bologna had at various times during the season appeared to be safely out of the relegation zone, but due to a number of defeats, and a cruel combination of goals scored elsewhere, found themselves in the playoffs. There's the panicky scent of chance in the air.

As Parma shoot their first goal into the Bolognese net, a sickening feeling takes hold of my stomach. What if I, we, or someone else in the bar is a gufo? A gufo is someone who brings bad luck, and if identified is liable to be hunted out of the bar with extreme prejudice.

The identification is analytical. If you have never been to a game, and at your first appearance the team loses, well... If each time you go to the bathroom something dreadful happens on the pitch - then you'll have a duty to hold your bladder until the final whistle. And so on, and so on.

As the second and decisive goal slides in, sending Bologna into Serie B for the next year, my rational side takes over. Such superstitions are ridiculous, I console myself, and besides I reason, defensively, they've been losing all season with and without my supernatural support.

In the aftermath of the recent referendum defeat, scientist and researcher Umberto Veronesi commented "I believe that we've had the confirmation that we live in a period of scientific obscurity. The Church has its role in this attitude, but it's not alone. You just have to think of the success of psychics, alternative medicine, of horoscopes and fortune tellers."

This monkey tends to agree with Veronesi - but can't help but wonder whether he crosses his fingers too when his team's striker is in front of goal...

Theo-Cons, neo-guelphs and the realities of abstention.

25.9% of Italians voted in Sunday and Monday's referendum on the law 40/2004 on assisted procreation. That's less than one in four Italians entitled to vote.

And yet, in the last number of days, the papers and television have spoken about little else. We've been treated to the birth of dozens of new terms [at least to this monkey's ears] to describe a new class of politically engaged, and victorious catholics. Theo-Cons, New-Traditionalists, and my particular favourite Neo-Guelphs (courtesy of Alfredo Biondi of Forza Italia ).

The mediatic birth of this class comes as a result of the failure of the referendum. For while scarcely anyone actually voted in defense of any of the law 40/2004*, the poor turn-out means that the law will remain as is. And remaining as is, it is seen by many (including - it would seem - the Church) that this law governing various different aspects of artificial procreation is as close to Catholic teaching as one is likely to get at the moment**.

That the non-vote is a crushing defeat for those involved in the referendum is certain. The leader of the Democrati di Sinistra, Piero Fassino, admitted disappointment having failed to convince many of his own party voters to go to the polls: "There were parts of our own electorate that we weren't able to bring to the vote, particularly in the South, where the turnout was less than our natural vote. We have to reflect on this"[1].

"It's a result of biblical proportions", commented Prof. Bruno Dallapiccola, a member of the committee Scienza e Vita (Science and Life), celebrating the defeat of the referendum. His colleague Luisa Santolini, President of 'Forum for the Family' and one of the founding members of Scienza e Vita claimed "75% of the Italians listened to us and were with us"[2]. The committee was the primary campaigning force calling for Italians to not vote in the referendum, after that is the Congregation of Bishops and the influential Cardinal Ruini (who publicly called for an abstention on the part of Catholics).

While there are eminent scientists on the committee of Scienza e Vita (giving lie to the notion that this referendum was simply a choice between 'science' and 'faith'), their claims that Italians have listened to and followed their advice is anything but scientific. In fact there are any number of reasons for the low turn-out (or high abstention - depending upon your view point). It could be that 75% of Italians are in agreement with their position. It's just as likely, though, that a large number of the electorate chose not to vote as a)the issue doesn't directly affect them, and b)there was a wealth of contradictory and confusing information making it difficult to choose. In fact, between 1990 and 2005 there have been ten different referenda, and 7 of them failed to reach a quorum.

It would be foolish, though, to discount that there is indeed a class of politically motivated, and more importantly strategically minded Catholics who in this case added their numbers to a traditionally high abstention rate (to pass the referendum requires by law a quorum of 50%+1). The question is really what the final division was - something that we'll never know.
Rocco Buttiglione, our favourite 'moderate', obviously believes the 'active-abstentionists' were in the majority. He proposed that "with Christian values one wins, like Bush did in America, and as will happen in Germany and Poland"[3]. And Zapatero in Spain? Or, indeed, Tony Blair in Britain?

Buttiglione's fundamental (pardon the pun - it's irresistible) mistake, though, is to confuse the active and passive. It's relatively easy to convince people not to vote, particularly on a complicated issue that affects a minority of the population. It's quite another thing to convince people to vote.

It's something that the shockingly pragmatic Cardinal Ruini seems to recognise. One of the major debates in this referendum has been what effect a defeat for the referendum would have on the existant abortion law. In theory, having established the legal rights of the embryo, the next battle should be over Italy's abortion legislation. Ruini however, in a surprising piece of realpolitik announced that he and his Bishops have no such immediate intention, at least on the surface: "I don't know who invented this small fairy tale that we intend to intervene against the law 194. We're against abortion but we don't want to modify the law"[4]. This may very well be due to the fact that, according to the latest opinion polls, 56% of Italians would vote against any moves to remove the option of legal abortion. Values and rights are one thing - picking only the battles you're likely to win is another.

Ruini has been described as a general, giving Pope Benedict XVI his first victory. Perhaps Biondi put his finger on it perfectly when he coined the term neo-Guelf. The Guelfs*** were Papal allies during the medieval wars fought ostensibly between the Papacy and the Emperor. In reality, though, as Vatican historians will be all too aware, many of the alliances were short term and based upon a wide range of factors.

How large, influential, and above all durable this supposed coalition of Theo-cons is remains to be seen.

*Of the four elements being voted on, the highest vote in defence of the law was a meager 21.8% of votes cast (in the case of heterologous procreation - which many voters in favour fo the referendum saw as controversial).
**Whether any form of assisted procreation is in concordance with Catholic teaching is open to debate. According to documents available online, from the Archdiocese of Dubuque, science should only be used, morally, to assist in the functioning of the natural act.
***In 1334 Pope Benedict XII forbade, under pain of the censures of the Church, the further use of the Guelph and Ghibelline names.
[1]Piero Fassino interviewed by Goffredo De Marchis - La Repubblica 14/06
[2] - La Repubblica 14/06
[3] - La Repubblica 14/06
[4] - La Repubblica 14/06

Not just a pretty face -The theory of the intelligent Cavaliere

While there are those who comfort themselves in the depths of the night with the idea that il Cavaliere, Silvio Berlusconi, Italy's prime minister and one of the world's richest men, is, simply put, a buffoon, not so seasoned media watchers like Umberto Eco.

Last year, speaking to a packed audience in Bologna (on the occasion of the launch of the book L'Opposizione al Governo Berlusconi), Eco pondered whether anyone had noticed the strange patterns of Berlusconi's media 'moments', those wonderful episodes ranging from the concentration camp guard jibe, through to the suggestion that judges are genetically crazy. The theory of the intelligent cavaliere, as we'll call it, suggests that when Berlusconi is in the news for all the wrong reasons, you can bet your bottom dollar that there's something else important happening elsewhere.

Last week, addressing a meeting of Forza Italia faithful, Berlusconi spoke fondly of an incident from his youth. Accompanied by his mother, he saw someone gesturing at him, or, not to put too fine a point on it, giving him the finger. He asked his mother what this meant, and she told him that it was their way of saying that he was 'number one'. All this was recounted with gestures included, to great dramatic effect (no doubt learnt when crooning on the cruise ships all those years ago). Interestingly, immediately afterwards Berlusconi told his faithful that no-doubt this story would be siezed upon by the media in an attempt to portray him as vulgar etc.

Lo and behold, Enzo Biagi, one of Italy's leading journalists, writes in the Corriere della Sera that Berlusconi at Bolzano responded to whistling with vulgar gestures (in what this monkey reads as horrified tone)[1].

Biagi and Berlusconi have a history together. In March 2002 Berlusconi issued what has become known in popular folklore as the Bulgarian Dictate (Diktat Bulgaro), during a press conference in Sofia on a State visit. He suggested forcefully that certain journalists working in the State broadcaster RAI were making criminal use of their position and should in reality have no place in public broadcasting. Biagi, a veteran journalist and opponent to Berlusconi (he once suggested that Hitler too had been elected democratically) failed to have his contract renewed six months later. His case is but one of many celebrated instances of popular and prestigious voices failing to find space at RAI during Berlusconi's tenure as Italian prime minister.

Now there is a full blown spat in the press between Berlusconi and Forza Italia functionaries on the one hand, and Biagi, various members of the opposition and journalists on the other.

Interesting though it may be, let us leave this spat aside, and return to our theory of the intelligent cavaliere. In a week when the European Union are threatening punitive measures against Berlusconi's government for failing to stay within agreed economic parameters; in a week when much of the country is demanding of its politicians an answer as to whether they will vote in this weekend's referendum on assisted procreation (not how they'll vote, but if they'll vote - Berlusconi whose electoral slice includes a substantial vote from both women and Catholics is keeping quiet on his intentions); in a week where one of his coalition partners has suggested that Italy drop out of the Euro and adopt an emboldened and capitalised Lira; in times like these, rather than answering questions of substance, or being held accountable, Silvio Berlusconi is dominating the news with explanations and self-righteous justifications for a second rate joke.

Remember this the next time someone (this monkey included) talks loftily about the threat Berlusconi poses to freedom of the press. Increasingly in Italy, as elsewhere, the press poses a threat to the freedom of the press, or at least to the diffusion of real news.

[1] Il prestigio del varietà - Enzo Biagi Corriere della Sera

Exercising hobby horses - Italian reflections on the rejection of the European Constitution

Ever the PR maestro, Silvio Berlusconi stage managed the signing of the the European Constitution, in Rome last October, perfectly. It simultaneously managed to cover up the various glitches of the Italian EU Presidency (including the failure to get agreement on the Constitution), and gave the signal that Italy under Berlusconi is a firm part of the European project.

According to a poll taken by the Eurisko Institute, 63% of Italians would vote in favour of the adoption of the European constitution, if a referendum was required for ratification (which it isn't).

Remarkable considering the lack of information about the Constitution and its implications [implications here is intended in a completely neutral sense]. The double defeat has opened the way for Italian politicians, once more, to talk about their own hobby-horses rather than reflect on the Constitutions specifics.

In no particular order, our hobby horses are:

Egotistical and Agnostic Democrats:
Rocco Buttiglione, spurned candidate for the European commissioner post last October, an intellectual heavyweight, managed, in a brief interview with La Repubblica, to reveal the true reason behind the French 'Non' vote: "I expected it because those that didn't want Christian values [oops, he seems to have forgotten the Judeo roots] in the Constitution, it was clear in reality didn't want a Europe". So the vote against the Constitution was because it was too secular? "It's the culture of ethical relativism that is structurally contrary to the European project".
Confused? The interviewer justifiably was - Buttiglione helpfully clarified: "Egoism and Solidarity don't go hand in hand"[1].

It's the fault of whining Governments:

Former EU Commission President, Romano Prodi, declared himself to be terribly displeased by the French rejection, and one presumes that he was doubly disappointed by the Dutch. His explanation for the rejection lay with sovereign governments who spend too much time criticising EU directives and regulations, covering up for their own inadequacies.

Was he talking about the French and Dutch electorates, or issuing a barely disguised criticism of the current Italian Government?[2]

It's a local thing - not to be taken too seriously:

"Internal politics weighed heavily on the vote [in France]. I believe Europe shouldn't and won't stop"[3] said Franco Frattini, Vice-President and EU Commissioner responsible for Justice, Freedom and Security. What one means by Europe going forward or indeed stopping remains unclear, at least to this Monkey.

It's a vote motivated by fear:

According to former Italian Prime Minister, and current President of the Democratici di Sinistra party, the main motivation behind the rejections was fear. "Every morning two fears were summed up in France: that of those who fear to lose, through the European Constitution, their social rights, and that of those who fear to lose, through enlargement, their own identity"[4].

So the vote, according to D'Alema reflected a failure on the part of the Governments involved and the EU to get their message across, about the real value of the Constitution. He didn't outline, with reference to the document, what that value might actually be, though.

It's a vote against Neo-Liberalism:

While the centre-left and centre-right were agreed that the vote was something negative, regardless of the motives for the result, parties on the fringes of both the left and the right took the 'Non' as a victory. In Fausto Bertinotti's case, the National Secretary of the Rifondazione Comunista party saw the result as a defeat for neo-liberalism: "An extraordinary participation, higher than any governmental election and higher than the previous referendum on Maastricht, has showed how alive the passion for Europe can be [...] and how proposals for another type of Europe can take shape, as happened with the No campaign in France".

An impassioned defence of the No vote, and one which staunchly refused to take into consideration suggestions that other motives may have been at play (fear of immigration and loosened borders with Eastern Europe for example).

A call to freedom for Padania:

On the hard shoulder of the right, the Lega Nord party, one of Berlusconi's coalition parties, saw the rejection as supportive of a) their long held wish for an independent Padania, and b) a return to the lira.

The logic, as far as it goes, is that the No vote was a rejection of heavily centralised government, and as such can be translated into an Italian context as a two-fingered salute to the government in Rome (of which they are a part).

Whilst metaphorically giving themselves the finger, one of their ministers, Roberto Calderoli immediately proposed a motion to the Government that ratification of the Constitution should be put to the people in the form of a referendum. Opportunistic perhaps, considering that the party has publicly called for abstention in the upcoming referendum on assisted procreation - their reasoning being that the issue is too complex to be decided by the electorate. The European Constitution is obviously, in their eyes, an extremely simple issue.

As to Minister Maroni's calls for the re-introduction of the lira, they deserve a consideration to themselves in a future entry.

Notably absent* from debate was Prime Minister Berlusconi - who briefly, four days after the French vote gave us the revelation that there was a lot of bureaucracy in Brussels, though this was more in relation to increasing worries being expressed in Europe about Italy's
finances.

The reaction to the rejection of the European Constitution has been strong on opinion and idle speculation, but very short on concrete debate. No mention has been made, during discussion to specific articles in the Constitution. And so, are we any the wiser about this historic document? Another opportunity to discuss real issues falls by the wayside as the hobby-horses go galloping by...

*Cynics would suggest that Berluska is keeping a low profile in the run up to next week's referendum on artificial procreation, while all party leaders have been pressured to indicate whether they will be voting or not.
[1] Interview with Barbara Jerkov - La Repubblica 30/05
[2] As reported by Andrea Tarquini - La Repubblica 30/05
[3] Interview with "Radio Anch'io", reported in La Repubblica
[4] in interview with Maurizio Costanzo
[5] As reported by La Repubblica 30/05