It seems that the Vatican is more responsive and timely than I had anticipated. In response to my question in this article asking when the Church would involve itself the answer can only now be “Pretty damn quickly.”

Now I doubt the editor of their affiliate accelerated the Pope, or perhaps worked at his instruction, but it is pleasing that the Italian government has found an enemy in the Church. The Vatican wields considerably more clout when dealing with the Italian right than our own Anglican bishops could ever hope to hold over the Labour party.

The news that Famiglia Cristiana’s editor is to be sued by a leader of the far-right coalition who hold power over Italy suggests that they feel especially vulnerable. We must hope that this measure is doomed to the failure which is richly deserves, but regardless it demonstrates that the instinctive authoritarian instinct to close down debate is in evidence here.

The article contains a worrying aside, however:

So far, church leaders have been far more outspoken in their criticism of the government’s policies than Italy’s main, centre-left opposition party.

Which simply pleads for the question: if the Italian left can’t even muster the guts to call finger-printing innocent children for being gypsies “Indecent” then what the hell are they for?

Sharp words from the Anonymous Liberal:

The McCain campaign insists that he did not cheat and it outraged at the very suggestion of any impropriety. In a classic non-sequitur (and one that represents a microcosm of the entire campaign to this point), the McCain campaign issued a statement saying: “The insinuation from the Obama campaign that John McCain, a former prisoner of war, cheated is outrageous.” Apparently POWs are, by definition, incapable of cheating on anything (something that would likely come as news to McCain’s first wife).

This interests me:

Look at the implicit message. Obama shares what these prominent Christians perceive as a respect for the family. McCain, by contrast, doesn’t; that shared look at 0:30 certainly implies that, presumably inspired by the affairs that, by his own admission, destroyed his first marriage.

I doubt ads like this will persuade Christian fundamentalists (defined here as those whose religion forms their primary voting concern) to vote for Obama in droves. Few would deny that he’s religious, or that he loves his family; but at the same time, the various vicious rumours about Obama’s church, and the Democrats’ general stance on issues like abortion, will probably put most of them off. Support from Clerics like Caldwell might act as a pull - but so support from Clinton, and virtually every other hate-figure the right constructs, will act as a push.

What they might do is persuade those fundies not to vote for McCain. That videos like this even exist demonstrates how disillusioned they are with McCain. Many pinned their hopes on Huckabee, and denounced McCain for moderation in the primaries; that flopped, and so have McCain’s attempts to win their confidence. And so a portion of the Republican base drifts away. Ads that continually remind that base their nominee isn’t “one of them” - and that his opponent is - will keep it that way.

Just so long as Obama doesn’t listen to them…

Signs that the Italian government has not embraced the ideology it is not most easily associated with. Or at least that it does not take kindly to criticism levelled at it from one of the few outlets not controlled by Berlusconi’s ownership (criticism of Berlusconi by those newspapers he does own is of course as common as the Murdoch press scrutinising BSkyB’s tax conduct). In this case a feature upon the unnerving right-swing was published in a newspaper with strong Papal ties. Although this is clearly not representative of the Vatican (instead representing the author and editor’s views) the attacks seem damning and authoritarians always struggle to evade being held to account for their excesses when the press is free. Which is why their immediate impulse is to stamp down or, in Berlusconi’s case, buy out.

This does raise an interesting issue, however: if the Vatican has not spoken out then was has it not and when does it intend to? As foul an organisation as it in many ways is the strength of the Church in Italy renders all true totalitarianism an impossibility, unless there rises to power a leader both bold and mad enough to march on the Vatican. The Church holds a substantial powerbase and if willing to speak out against the government’s draconianism and outright racism could have a substantial impact. Any making pretence that this would somehow be out of line for a religious organisation has clearly failed to grasp the innately political nature of the Church’s structure, intent and behaviour. This is the Church that attempted to prevent distribution of condoms at a Valentine’s Day festival in Brazil, not one which has any qualms about immersing itself in matters of public policy.

On a broader note, we can but hope that the criticism against the government results in a suitable backlash. Perhaps it could even trigger the form of examination and condemnation of Italy’s fascist past which it largely failed to embrace after the downfall of Mussolini. Douglas’ references to pro-fascist Italians are telling: “Mussolini had his positive side. The streets were safe in his day” is by no means a rare sentiment in Italy. Those who were not from the “weak” groups targeted enjoyed the fruits of the social democratic policies Mussolini failed to abandon while forging corporatism after the abandonment of his former comrades on the left. Consequentially the impression is positive, the only partially correct cliche that “Mussolini made the trains run on time” having substantial weight in a nation with as precarious infrastructure and unreliable services. Italians appear to struggle with the notion of the objective historian, seeing the origins and ideology of the writer as something which must be borne foremost in mind while reading, so perhaps the vileness of the past being alluded to in the present will cause many to recall the horrors and others who have never experienced the original power seizure of the fascists to relish the sensation first hand. This is merely my optimism talking, however. For the time being Italy is set for a grim few years. Whether Berlusconi shall have entrenched himself by the end of this time, empowered the left or both remains to be seen.

And I am interested in good relations between the United States and Russia. But in the twenty-first century, nations don’t invade other nations.”

John McCain, while not even joking.

An email to Andrew Sullivan which is well worth reading. The tendency of humanity to divide and distinguish sections of itself from the rest claims yet more carcasses. This does not legitimise Russia’s involvement in the slightest, but without the strife that broke there (which can only partially have been manufactured and fostered by Moscow) the Kremlin would have been denied even the scanty figleaf of pre-text which it presently grasps.

Sometimes I am so glad that satire exists.  In this case, because the boundaries of satire demonstrate clearly that this video is far, far beyond them.

Via Mike Rouse.  It’s a couple of months old, too, but who’s complaining?

Some commentators have criticised Obama for not responding to McCain’s attack ads in kind. He simply doesn’t need to - voters do it for him. Like so:

Obama gets the attack ads; they hit home. And he can claim he’s still the insurgency candidate who’s above the old, negative politics. Rather what he’s looking for, no?

(Hat-tip: Jennie)