Bye bye bianconeri

JUVENTUS Retrocessione in serie B con 30 punti di penalizzazione da scontare nel campionato 2006-2007; revoca dello scudetto 2004-2005; non assegnazione dello scudetto 2005-2006; 80.000 euro di ammenda
FIORENTINA Retrocessione all’ultimo posto e penalizzazione di 12 punti nel campionato 2006-2007, 50.000 euro di ammenda
LAZIO Retrocessione ultimo posto e penalizzazione di 7 punti nel campionato 2006-2007, 40.000 euro di ammenda
MILAN Penalizzazione di 44 punti nel campionato 2005-2006, penalizzazione di 15 punti da scontare nel campionato 2006-2007, 30.000 euro di ammenda

So, they didn’t slap Juve on the wrist after all. Their 2005 title is revoked while their 2006 title will not be awarded to anyone. (Presumably this means Milan will claim the 2005 scudetto.) Fined EUR 80k, whatever, but they’ll start their Serie B campaign with a 30-point disadvantage. I suppose it’s still possible that they could win promotion, but that will be tough when starting 10 games back in a 34-game season. Especially if your best players leave for Real Madrid, Liverpool and Bayern Munich.

Fiorentina and Lazio are both relegated as well and are penalized 12 and 7 points retrospectively next season. Milan loses 44 points for last season, 15 points next season and all three get small fines that one of their substitutes could pay without noticing it.

The point of retroactively subtracting points is to give Milan’s Champion’s League place to Roma, while Inter takes Juve’s. That lets Chievo Verona and Palermo grab the UEFA Cup spots, and more importantly, the three clubs that would have been relegated to Serie A, Messina, Lecce and Treviso, get another chance to stay up in Serie A. Inter and Roma fans will be happy, although I’d love to see Chievo give them a run for their money.

And, of course, I’ll be joining most of Italy in hoping to see Juve fall short of promotion next season. Forza… chiunque gioca contra loro!


They really, really, think you’re stupid

From the Washington Times:

Less than two months after voting overwhelmingly to build 370 miles of new fencing along the border with Mexico, the Senate yesterday voted against providing funds to build it…. All told, 34 senators — including most of the Republican leadership — voted in May to build the fence but yesterday opposed funding it.

But you know, if you don’t vote for the right lizard this fall, the wrong lizard might win.


Happy Bastille Day

I love Bastille Day! I mean, what’s not to like about the French Revolution? Don’t forget to behead an amphibian today by way of celebration!


Insulting your intelligence

Cal Thomas notes that Republicans hope you are really, really stupid:

House Republicans are being told by their leaders to run campaigns this fall on a platform of fiscal discipline that includes cutting spending. This from a party that has given us new entitlement programs resembling Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society; this from a party that has set new records in “earmarks” for pork barrel projects in their home districts and states; this from a party that under Ronald Reagan at least tried to eliminate the Department of Education, but under President Bush has thrown new money at it with no appreciable improvement in academic achievement….

[House Majority Leader John] Boehner’s concluding line might have worked better in 1994 when hopes were high that a Republican majority would mean smaller government and less spending: “Reversing the culture in Washington that believes the solution to every problem involves more government and more spending is not easy.” It’s easier if you haven’t spent your principles and care more about staying in office than doing what you promised, but have refused to do.

There’s no way that approach will work. You need to be dumb enough to be a Democratic voter to fall for that sort of thing. It’s not that it’s hard to lie to Republicans – 2006 will be the most important election EVER – but to pull this sort of thing off, you need an audience of illiterates, dropouts and unemployables of the sort that the Democrats depend upon.

I’m no Republican, but I still find it tremendously amusing that so many Democrats actually think they are smarter than Republicans based upon their political affiliation. I mean, you’d think they’d be capable of taking into account that every exit poll shows the average Democrat to be poorer and less well-educated than the average Republican, right, but I suppose if they could do that, they probably wouldn’t be Democrats in the first place. Sure, the Dems have the eggheads in the professariat, but then, the professariat has been inordinately socialist in every country around the world since the 1920s.


Let off lightly

From the Corriere della Sera:

Ecco come finirà, almeno secondo la clamorosa anticipazione riportata in prima pagina dalla Gazzetta dello Sport. Juventus, Fiorentina e Lazio retrocesse in serie B. Milan in A , ma senza la possibilità di partecipare alle coppe europee. In più ci sarà una partenza ad handicap molto forte in termini di punti per i bianconeri nella serie cadetta. Penalizzazione di 6-7 punti, invece, per gigliati e biancazzurri. Per la Juventus si parla invece di un handicap di 20 punti. Quanto al Milan, oltre alla sanzione afflittiva da scontare nel campionato appena concluso, in modo da non poter partecipare alle coppe, si parla di una possibile, ma improbabile penalizzazione di 15 punti nel prossimo campionato.

It will end like this, at least according to the early report on the first page of the Gazetto dello Sport. Juventus, Fiorentina and Lazio are relegated to Serie B, AC Milan will stay in Serie A but without the possibility of competing in the European tournaments. Additionally, there will be a severe handicap for Juve in the lower leage. The penalty will be 6 or 7 points, instead, for Fiorentina and Lazio. For Juventus they are talking about a handicap of 20 points. As for AC Milan, other than the sanctions effected on the season already concluded, which will prevent them from playing in the Champions League or the UEFA Cup, they are talking about the possibile, but unlikely penalty of 15 points next season.

I’m disappointed. Juve deserved to suffer far worse than either Fiorentina or Lazio, as the entire affair was directed by its president and this is hardly the first time that the bianconeri have been proven to be corrupt, cheating bastards. I wanted them to go down to Serie C at a minimum, I’m not sure that forcing them to start less than seven games back will prove enough to keep them from bouncing right back to Serie A next season. Sure, they’ll take a solid financial hit, but that’s meaningless to a team financed by Khadafi’s oil wealth. What’s ridiculous is that this penalty is harsher on Fiorentina or Lazio than it is on the team most responsible for the entire Calcipoli affair. I’m glad that Milan hasn’t been too hard hit, though, and it will be interesting to see what is done about the last two tainted scudetti. If Juve is stripped of both championships but both Milan is deducted points from last season, then theoretically Milan will claim the title from two years ago, but Inter will claim last year’s.


In the market

So, the motherboard on my laptop is dying, which means I’m going to be getting a new machine here soon. Any recommendations? I don’t like Dell, M-Tech and ProStar are out, and Dell just bought Alienware… so I’m thinking of going Widow. I’m tempted to go for the monster with the 19-inch screen, but my current beast is enough of a bear to carry around, so I’ll probably stick with a 17-incher.

Any advice? It will be a dual-boot system, since Windows is sadly required for the primary application which is NOT games.


I’m officially appalled

Can the mystique of a British sports car be recreated by a Chinese company in America’s heartland? That’s the bet by Nanjing Automobile Group, which plans to resurrect the fabled MG marque in a tricontinental demonstration of how truly global the automotive industry has become.

Okay, some things are just wrong. I’d rather see the brand revived by an idiosyncratic lunatic hand-building rickety old MGAs in his garage, to be honest. MGs are wonderful sports cars, as there’s no other car that allows you to experience a white-knuckled envelope-pushing drive while remaining within the speed limits.

After taking a curve at 60 MPH in my old 1977 MGB, the White Buffalo told me that felt much safer hitting the same stretch of road at 120 in the Porsche. You want excitement? There’s nothing like diving into a sharp turn and wondering just what will happen if a wheel decides to fall off.

I’ve mentioned this before, but it’s worth repeating. I was once pulled over in Edina for driving after midnight with my headlights off. They don’t work, I explained to the policeman. Well, why did you decide to drive it at night, then, he asked very reasonably. They worked when I left, I explained.

I was both surprised and relieved when the cop laughed and said “Lucas Electric, prince of darkness” then sent me on my way with an encouragement to pay close attention since other cars might not be able to see me.

One presumes that Nanjing will not build its marketing plan around “MG quality”.


Mailvox: failing to grasp the concept

JV doesn’t have a particularly strong handle on that whole “libertarian” thing:

You got your loyals that are moral, upright, pro-life types. And then you got your loyals who get off by posting erotic comments which cause slobbering idiots to do likewise and a thread devolves into disgusting voyeurism. And you got your alchoholic losers who brag about in what manner they’re going to get drunk. And you link to bloggers who spin the glories of fornicating with multiple women.

And you just sit back and yuk it up, and none of it bothers you. Your columns and many posts are interesting and shed some light, but all the extra baggage?

I wouldn’t think that I’m enough of a comedian to qualify as one who “yuks it up”, but yes, the sitting back and being largely indifferent is accurate enough. I don’t like every comment made by every commenter here, in fact, I don’t like every commenter. But so what? The comments aren’t for me, they’re simply my way of providing readers and critics alike with a forum. There are very few rules and the vast majority of the time, everyone abides by them.

Sure, most of the communication is trivial, but then, so is the vast majority of all communication. I’ll never forget what an English friend of mine who had learned Italian before me once said. He told me how much he’d wanted to understand what the people around him were saying when he first moved to Italy, and how disappointed he was when he was finally able to understand them and realized that they were just babbling about inconsequentialities like everyone else, the only difference was that they tended to repeat themselves by saying the same thing three different ways.

I’m responsible for my own words. JV is responsible for his, and no man can be held liable for those that belong to another. If you don’t like the comments, then don’t read them. They won’t pop-up at you, and in any case, they don’t change the posts or the columns one jot or tittle.


The globalization of availability

Sixteen Volts makes some cogent points about the likeliness that dating abroad will increase with the Internet and inexpensive international travel. He also raises the interesting idea that this may lead to cross-cultural conflict over time:

I thought a little bit more about the issue of Western men going to find wives from aboard, in the spirit of the post “Sexual Poverty” by Bulletproof Pimp and “Foreign Affairs” at Feministe. Since the numbers of men and women are for all practical purposes equal in West, there can’t possibly be two girls for every guy, let alone ten. In addition, pretty much everybody agrees on what is attractive, and especially on what is unattractive, which leads to a harsh zero-sum competition for the desirable partners within both sexes. There simply is no solution to this equation, and blaming either men or women for this situation is useless.

The vast majority of Western men therefore have to live under a severe sexual scarcity in which their choices of both short-term and long-term partners are severely constrained. The men in the bottom third or so have to settle for women who are in many ways deficient and worse than those men would ideally want to marry. This is pretty weird when we remember that these men easily belong to the richest 5% of all humanity. It would truly be strange if the richest 5% of people had to wear tattered rags and live in hovels, instead of being able to use their wealth to buy themselves a wider range of options. In every other aspect of life we take it for granted that the richest 5% get to have the best choices available to them, so why do these rich people tolerate this situation when it comes to sexual choices?

That’s an insightful way to consider the situation. Right now, it’s only the social equivalent of the “early adopters” who are taking advantage of their attractiveness advantage vis-a-vis the men in Malaysia, the Ukraine and so forth. It’s the curious, the adventurers and those who simply have no alternative. But like Ilkka, I can see the pattern evolving, particularly as sites like MySpace and technologies like Skype explode with popularity and it becomes as easy to communicate with someone in the Czech Republic as the next suburb over.

Ilkka also brings up a point that I have made before on an individual basis, but he shows how it is even more meaningful on a wider one as well. I think he is correct to see this as being conceptually related to the global outsourcing phenomenon, and likely to have similar results:

Of course, the Western men who currently marry foreign women also tend to be highly despised by the women back home. The highly emotional arguments and putdowns are humorously analogous to the “arguments” that the progressives sling against Wal-Mart and the people who shop there. But this matters less than it perhaps should, for the simple reason that these men are usually already despised by women even before their proactive little trip (just like most people can’t afford to shop at Saks, in this analogy), so it’s not like it’s a huge loss for these men.

(Here’s a free hint to women: once you make it explicitly clear that sex with you is not a realistic future possibily for some man, you also lose your power of affecting his choices and behaviour with a possibility of sex.)

Indeed, it’s interesting how so many intelligent and educated women fail to grasp something that provides so many less intellectual women with a living. Once a woman explicitly rejects a man, in most cases she ceases to exist for him as a woman and therefore possesses none of the female influence on him which she is accustomed to exerting over the men around her. (This does not hold true for psychopaths and stalkers who are capable of concocting their own realities, of course, I’m talking about your average guy.) Such rejecting is a self-neutering act, which can certainly be useful or even necessary in some situations, but usually is rather more than the woman bargains for. Aging creates a similar effect, the reason so many older women complain about being invisible is that they have lost an influence that they have long taken for granted. The fact that they are finally being judged solely on the basis of their intelligence, accomplishments and personal character is apparently cold comfort to many of them.

The irony is that in proclaiming their own independence from Western men, Western women have relieved Western men of their own sense of dependence on and responsibility for Western women. Precisely how this will play out, I do not know, but as Ilkka suggests, it could easily become a flashpoint of sorts, both here at home as well as those third-world countries where the women perceive a value in Western men that their more affluent sisters do not.


Feminists against choice

It’s okay to murder a baby, as long as you don’t murder a baby for a disapproved reason:

Sex selection of babies for non-medical reasons is set to be outlawed in the UK under Government plans for a shake-up of embryology regulation. Health Minister Caroline Flint told MPs she was minded to introduce a “clear and specific ban” on the use of new techniques to choose one gender of baby.

Allowing parents to pick sex for reasons such as “balancing” the make-up of their family could be the start of a “slippery slope” to designer babies, she warned.

Never count on logic or consistency from a feminist, much less a group of them. The fact that she may be capable of it is no indication that she won’t abandon it the first time it happens to get in the way of what she wants at the moment.

You would think that free access to abortion would be the one thing that would never compromise on, until, of course, it became clear that those damnable Patriarchists* were capable of seducing strong, independent, but falsely conscious women into killing girl babies.

So, now that we’ve established that it’s acceptable to ban killing a baby because it’s a girl, how about we simply ban killing babies because they are human beings?

*I previously proved that feminists are anti-semitic, you may recall. There’s nothing they hate as much as a Patriarch.