The Economist's latest comment on the situation in Italy is sadly
accurate (maybe slanted on the mild side).
http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751325
But they are wrong about history. It is most unlikely that Nero burnt
Rome. He was a cruel bastard (but not more so than most rulers at his
time - and quite a few in several places nowadays). But he had no
reason to set Rome on fire. Though he did, after the fact, reconstruct
(quite beautifully) part of the city.
Also... Italy's current prime minister likes to think of himself as a
musician (specifically a singer) but to the best of my knowledge he
doesn't play the violin. Mussolini did. Is that a coincidence or a hint?
Cheers
Giancarlo
