Stoney

@Cornell. "Travaglio is a significant media figure; he should step up if he wants to change the game. He would certainly have my vote." One of the problems in Italy is that no one seems to understand the elementary difference between politicians and journalists. Travaglio is a journalist, and it's legitimate for him to be a journalist and earn (even a lot, what's the problem?) by doing his job; but I don't see what sense it makes for him to become a politician. Clearly, we are convinced that anyone who finds an easy trick, a media-advertising formula to capture the attention of an audience made up of 90% sleepy monkeys can be a politician: legalitarismo, federalismo, antiberlusconismo, and all the other "-isms" made of totem concepts only good for those who believe that reality is simple and doesn't deserve too much analysis or explanation.

Axel, if we had to stop doing everything that brings money to the mafia, we shouldn't even step outside our house. Not to mention that there are perfectly legal actions that harm thousands of individuals, like giving money to the multinationals that are ravaging the Amazon rainforest. But it's better to shoot out anti-anti-conformist judgments to look cool.

Beyond the verbal violence of IlMigliore, I can’t say he is entirely wrong. As for Paolafrancesca: Fede's speech has nothing to do with what IlMigliore is saying.

A society as you envision it, founded on values of legality and social order, centered around the Individual, where anyone who breaks the law is sanctioned, is no less utopian than theoretical communism. To ensure the freedom of the individual, "the law" is not enough; this is the point you always overlook. Beyond the fact that it is crucial to clearly define what we actually mean by Freedom and Legality, which are broad concepts subject to interpretation, the society you outline would impose, through sanctions, an order deemed "just" and "better," effectively homogenizing all individuals into a single thought and way of life in the name of "freedom." In other words, in asserting freedom, it would be forced to deny it, betraying the very principle of individuality that was initially posited. And it doesn’t matter how "softly" it does this, whether with batons or through media propaganda; it would still constitute a totalitarian society in intent, even if it were born from the best intentions.

In reality, Odifreddi becomes passionate in his attempt to "wake" people up to something important: that mathematical and scientific discoveries have concrete implications even in ethics, theology, and thus in the way we approach life and the world. Unfortunately, in common perception, mathematics is little more than a jumble of incomprehensible rules and boring abstractions, as well as the quintessence of rational coldness from which it is wise to flee. It doesn’t surprise me that it is so, in a world where 90% of people have a knowledge of mathematics that is at best primitive, horrified at the sight of a first-degree equation or at a physicist explaining nonsense like the difference between mass and weight – just to illustrate. Although living in an era of scientific successes, the distance between them and the majority of the population is infinite. People allow science to influence them only through its technological application, which is the most superficial implication, while leaving everything that concerns genuinely engaging with issues at the door, accepting new and revolutionary viewpoints, and creating a widespread cultural layer that concretely influences the way of conceiving the world and human life.

@Killerjoe, comment 49. If someone is a singer by profession, sooner or later they'll hit the mark at least once. Honestly, I can acknowledge the merit of a couple of well-written lyrics (which I admit: they are nice lyrics), but I don’t see how that can save them from all the rest. One can certainly have fun with their songs, but how can we give them more substance than that? How can one not realize that if certain characters didn't have around them a machine that, against its will, pounds the ears of every single human being in this country for months and months with their catchiest tracks, no one would pay attention to them? How can we talk about "rock" and "poetry"? Many criticize those fools who listen to Ligabue, convinced they're enjoying true "rock," but I’m more afraid of those who are fully aware of the entire mechanism I described earlier and consciously choose to partake in it, under the pretext of "I’m not like the others: I know how to choose for myself." And they choose ready-made mush.

Blaming Negrita for the decline of Italian music seems a bit too much to me. If Vasco and Ligabue didn’t exist, I might understand you; if there weren’t still shows on TV presented by Gianni Morandi and Mollica wasn’t doing reports where he defines Adriano Celentano as "rock," perhaps I would agree with you. But Negrita has always made honest rock, and the shift towards Latin American sounds, which caught me off guard at first, makes sense in my opinion. If you pay attention to the lyrics (but evidently you are too snobbish to lower yourself to that: either musicians speak in a faux-intellectual way like those eminent ignoramuses of Baustelle or it’s not worth it regardless. Because to have meaning, a lyric must have it written in capital letters, the singer must show up in a suit and glasses; otherwise, it’s too difficult), there’s a subtle and constant critique of Italian society, compared in every way to that of South American countries: saying that we are becoming culturally like Chile and Colombia may not be a peak of expressiveness, but frankly, it doesn’t seem to deserve such fierce condemnation. It is definitely much more interesting than what many other much more renowned artists say.

Abominable review.