And then? 
The infamous "Case
Ruby " know it all, like the mess that is at this time on this.
are surrounded. Surrounded by questions, questions that are close, very close. And even from within ...
I ask / ask what I think? Read. I await your judge.
The big shot: I
in politics I do not seek moral guidance . Yes, politics is not a place of moral education. The moral leadership in the Church, in society, but not in a place where you have to do, that manage a car. There may be good and bad examples, yes, but not moral guidance. If so it would require too much politics. People who proclaimed moral guides some politicians have always taken corners crazy myths or created deliberately hiding things: Kennedy is remembered as one of the best, but that's what started the war in Vietnam and went to bed that today might be Belen . Only he was killed and has since become a myth. Likewise Churchill is killed of alcohol and smoking and went to hell, but he saved the world from Nazism. We must pay attention to politicians as moral guides, they are only in dictatorships ...
As to the specific story of Ruby there are two main problems in my opinion. On the one hand
if everything were true it would be a gloomy picture and squalid; now quite agree with the opinion of Pansa whereby, even if everything is still to be established, the situation is still sad. On the other hand, two things amaze me, even though we understand very little of the law. First the fact that the alleged extorted denies to have been made and that the alleged "victim" of Berlusconi also denied. In secundis the fact that the charge of aiding and abetting prostitution exists only if someone has been enriched with an alleged prostitution Ruby: Ruby and Berlusconi have not helped anyone but themselves, the other defendants apparently did not have earned us nothing but exploiters presenters, as stated in
Sgarbi an article in the Journal . So the fact may not really exist. Not to mention the fact that the calls are told many stupidities and eavesdropping can not be the only evidence, is always the weapon of the crime. " But as rightly said Wolf in an interview, the completion of the investigation and certain legal and technical details not relevant: the sentence has already been issued, before the actual process while the media is famous and is being celebrated. Here in Italy we always process them on the contrary, Franzoni and Berlusconi are the defendants. We are all judges. It also says Servegnini at the end of his article in Corriere
.
That said, I repeat that if it really were true all that is emerging, I'd be disappointed. But the key questions are: disappointed by Berlusconi Berlusconi man or politician? And then you can continue to play a "boss" Berlusconi as if this was true or necessary to "make a new king"? You may continue to remain in a party like this? Big big question, which you notice right away that I can not answer without hesitation.
instinctively answer that man and do not condemn Berlusconi Berlusconi political. Even in my life I do a myriad of crap and maybe when I propose that policy and I really believe in things that are the exact opposite (positive) of the shit that I do. It is not inconsistent in my opinion but simply human beings: we are not perfect, it all wrong. Or better (and more specifically to the politicians), we have good ideas for society and the common good but does not mean that we can do it yourself. Why did not we really believe? I think not.
How many things we really believe, then it does not come in person ... Why stay in the PDL? I believe in certain things in politics (do not call "values" values \u200b\u200bis a word that means nothing).
I believe in a state that has to ensure the least possible value to society that is already there (associations, private, church, community centers, etc ... I do not care if one provides a good service to the community is valued and not need to create a state that the choke). I have many other ideas about what should make policy, but this is the main state less than the Company. I know it sounds a hell of those slogans that read on useless campaign posters, but at least try for a second to think about it ... This stuff is called
Subsidiarity and just willy-nilly in the PDL can be carried forward, the better ancora adesso che il centralista Fini ha cambiato casa . Per cui lì sono e lì rimango, a prescindere da capi, ballerine e altro. Ci sono una miriade di cose che possono darmi fastidio e farmi arrabbiare perchè io non mi comporterei così ma che per la visione che ho di politica sono (so che vi incazzerete quando leggerete questo) secondarie rispetto alla moralità del capo. Questo perché, come ho già detto prima, la politica per me conta molto meno rispetto a quello che pensa la stragrande maggioranza della gente, oltre al fatto che davvero ( e ve lo dice uno che un minimo dentro la "macchina politica" c'è ) pensare di avere come guide morali certi miei "colleghi" non può che darmi il voltastomaco.
Quindi, appurato che ritengo giusto rimanere nel PDL, cosa devo fare? Molti anti-berlusconiani proprio con noi all'interno del PDL si arrabbiano, perché dicono che dovrebbe essere principalmente compito nostro detronizzare il loro nemico. E dicono anche che non vogliamo vedere e che siamo "minimizzatori". Tranquilli, vediamo anche noi. Questo però è il punto sul quale ho più dubbi, nel senso che non penso il problema sia tutto lì e non penso sia quello il nostro compito.
Non dobbiamo guardare solo la punta della piramide ma tutto quello che c'è sotto, sia esso la società o i partiti. Siamo davvero pronti ad un dopo-Berlusconi? La risposta dovrebbe essere assolutamente si, ma vi spiazzo se vi dico che
non me ne importa nulla del dopo-Berlusconi ? Proprio perché credo nella Sussidiarietà e nel fatto che tutto debba partire dal basso,
la cosa che mi preoccupa è il fatto che sia la Società a saper fare proposte , non tanto la politica. Ed in questo senso, pur essendoci tanti buoni esempi (e tanti altri che possono potenzialmente nascere), quello che mi preoccupa è che vedo tante proteste e pochissime proposte. (altra frase slogan, lo so, ma non me ne viene una migliore). Protestiamo perché non arriviamo a fine mese ma poi pascoliamo come capre nei centri commerciali. Ci lamentiamo dei disservizi ma non siamo in grado di eliminarli noi i disservizi. Il solito giudizio saccente sulla società? Forse, vedetelo come like, for me it is. We expect things and then we do not know what to do with, as Pasolini said. That's why I hate this time the word "shock." It means nothing and is not enough. I accept them but I am not convinced the huge gatherings of indignation (I've done it too, worry, and do not exclude that there "ricascherò!).
I would like people to me in practice and shows a small scale what he believes can be done and it works . But not a model of society, if anything, many small scale models: the political model is best which accepts as many models as possible. I in my modest political work I try to do this. I fail often, sometimes they are lazy and I do not, but in general I try. As they say, a witness.
And I try as best I can also testify to a certain "righteousness", but aware of the fact that wrong, and even so sometimes . But because I do not witness policy, a witness because we all witness a little bit no matter what we do. I hate the centrality of politics to me the policy has to rely less and less, be more "light". Has less and less likely is it that makes people do stupid things.
I know that many will interpret as to minimize or not wanting to deal with the problem 100% but I think this current political fact of the centrality of the company to politics (and associated gossip and nonsense words) is the real crux of the matter. That said, the critical path!
