Balls: a history

With that kicky footy game in full swing over in the place with all the black people, Americans, nigh unfamiliar with the game beyond it being the thing they have to watch their sons and daughters play until the children realize there is no financial future in it, need an education in the history of the sport. With that in mind, the New York Times has provided a history of the soccer ball.

This is the ball that was used in the second half of the 1930 Uruguay v. Argentina final. This was the ball Uruguay brought, having played the first half with the ball Argentina brought. That's how things worked back then. The Uruguay ball was bigger and firmer and made with the skin of political dissidents. Their resistance to government commands translates to a resistance of wind... resistance.

The classic soccer ball as we know it. It debuted in 1970 at Mexico. The design was meant to be more visible on TV and the hexagonal shapes were meant to ward off evil Mayan spirits who were set to disrupt the game.

The current ball. Comprised of the fewest panels ever, 8, the ball is almost a perfect circle... as confirmed by circle experts and roundnessologists. The decal design on the ball was created after an extensive research session with the family and ex-girlfriends of England goalkeeper Robert Green, with the specific goal of confusing him when it was in flight. The inscription on the ball, "Jabulani", means "devil orb", a reference to South African end times prophecy where a giant horned Satan will appear and kick the Earth into an oversize outer-space net/black hole.

Stones

We've heard some bizarre penis-related conspiracies before. Who can forget Rush Limbaugh decreeing that we needed to save our penises from Obama. Well it turns out that Rush was almost right, which for him is a stunning achievement in accuracy. He just needed to turn his attention just a few tics lower....to the balls. Yes, Obama is a danger to Republican balls. Science said so.

Those who remember the street parties of Election Night 2008 might think the testosterone levels of Obama voters had shot up in triumph. That would be wrong.

Instead, liberal testosterone levels stayed stable, while those of male Republican voters plummeted. The latter also reported feeling submissive and unhappy.
...
Indeed, Republican men “felt significantly more controlled, submissive, unhappy and unpleasant at the moment of the outcome” than those who voted for Obama, the researchers wrote. “Moreover, since the dominance hierarchy shift following a presidential election is stable for four years, the stress of having one’s political party lose control of executive policy decisions could plausibly lead to continued testosterone suppression in males.”

Obama's win and McCain's loss had no effect on the testosterone of women, with male levels showing the same levels as they normally do when their sports teams win big games. Which just goes to show you that women need to invest more of their physical and emotional health into politics and sports like men do. So when you say something political felt like "getting kicked in the balls", something I do like five or twenty times a day, you're close. It's something closer to a chemical/metabolic ball kicking....from the inside.

So the next time some conservative commentator talks about how some liberal policy enacted by the liberals in Congress and the White House is damaging the masculinity of the country and pussifying it, just know that he's speaking from experience and scientific evidence. In fact were he to drop his pants on TV, which is what Glenn Beck is two weeks away from doing....tops, you would see the effects of 9+ months of shriveling, shrinkage, and receding. In fact the teabaggers might don't even have the requisite ability to teabag if Obama keeps issuing brutal commands from his throne of skulls. Still, this is a net positive. If there's anything Republicans need, it's less testosterone in their politics.

We commend your balls

With the world's leaders gearing up for the international negotiations over climate change at Copenhagen in December, many ideas, plans, numbers, alternatives, and solutions are being offered up as ways to combat the problem. But it isn't only developed and developing nations trying to come up with solutions, the OPEC nations have one of their own: any attempt to combat global warming should also include large sacks of money to be given to them because of lost revenue.

Saudi Arabia is trying to enlist other oil-producing countries to support a provocative idea: if wealthy countries reduce their oil consumption to combat global warming, they should pay compensation to oil producers.

The oil-rich kingdom has pushed this position for years in earlier climate-treaty negotiations. While it has not succeeded, its efforts have sometimes delayed or disrupted discussions. The kingdom is once again gearing up to take a hard line on the issue at international negotiations scheduled for Copenhagen in December.
...
“It is like the tobacco industry asking for compensation for lost revenues as a part of a settlement to address the health risks of smoking,” said Jake Schmidt, the international climate policy director at the Natural Resources Defense Council. “The worst of this racket is that they have held up progress on supporting adaptation funding for the most vulnerable for years because of this demand.”

C'mon world leaders, what's more important: combating global warming or keeping Saudi profit margins up? I mean after all if an emissions treaty is signed that means that OPEC nations will only make $23 trillion dollars from 2008-2030. That's a drop of 16%! How are you supposed to build the world's tallest skyscraper, build underwater hotels, create giant sand islands, or fund a decent mujaheddin with a measly $23 trillion? Hell, their women might even start learning to read if they don't have enough money to stop it.

I think with the revelation of this information and the fact that the Saudis view this as a "make or break" provision means we have to do the right thing. We have to scrap any meaningful emissions or climate change actions until such a time as we can adequately address the needs of rich shieks. In the rush to take necessary action for the common good it seems we forgot about the billionaires and oil conglomerates. I mean isn't that always the way? For shame.

Quote of the day

Former Vice-Criminal Dick "Thunderlips" Cheney

The documents released Monday clearly demonstrate that the individuals subjected to Enhanced Interrogation Techniques provided the bulk of intelligence we gained about al Qaeda. This intelligence saved lives and prevented terrorist attacks. These detainees also, according to the documents, played a role in nearly every capture of al Qaeda members and associates since 2002. The activities of the CIA in carrying out the policies of the Bush Administration were directly responsible for defeating all efforts by al Qaeda to launch further mass casualty attacks against the United States. The people involved deserve our gratitude. They do not deserve to be the targets of political investigations or prosecutions.

Of course, unsurprisingly, none of what he says is true. But you really have to appreciate the moon sized brass balls of a man who decries the alleged politicization of someone else's Justice Department after the tenure of the JD the Bush Administration presided over.

Still one hopes that his impotent dishonest shrieking does get Holder and Obama to change the one politically motivated part of the impending torture investigations: the fact that it isn't going to investigate guys like John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and Dick Cheney.

Balls

So "Mancow", the guy who got waterboarded and figured out within 6 seconds that it was torture, was on Keith Olbermann last night. In a wide ranging interview that covered everything from waterboarding being torture to waterboarding being torture with a foray into seriously...waterboarding is torture, he decided to drop this little bon mot about a call he got.

MANCOW: First of all, Sean Hannity called me and said, “It’s still not torture.” I said, “Sean” — he is a friend of mine — “it is torture.” All right.

That would be the same Sean Hannity who shot his mouth off about how waterboarding was not in any way torture and that he would subject himself to waterboarding to raise money for charity. Then he promptly went and hid in a corner and pretended he never said it. But he is brave enough to throw stones when someone else does it. Maybe Sean just thinks everyone forgot or doesn't care about his offer anymore. We didn't Sean, we're still interested. We still want to see you get tortured waterboarded...for charity's sake. Yeah...for...charity. C'mon, I want to see you try to lie your way through the aftermath of torture. I want to know if you're the Ruth of dishonesty or just a Joe Carter or Dale Murphy.

Quote of the day: On balls

Joe Biden's are plentiful and multi-colored.

Orrin Hatch, opining on the sweaty nether regions of our soon to be VP, Joe Biden.

Hatch, a devout Mormon not prone to profanity, quoted historian Richard Ben Cramer who once wrote that the Delaware Democrat has "a breathtaking element of balls ... Joe Biden had balls. ... He did what he wanted to do and he did it."

Your "Bush was awesome" talking points

In case you were wondering how to best sum up the 8 years of Bush rule without swearing, ranting, or burning that awesome Bush puppet you made, the Administration has gone to the trouble of printing up a list of talking points so you can spin their "accomplishments" in the best light.

A two-page memo that has been sent to Cabinet members and other high-ranking officials offers a guide for discussing Bush's eight-year tenure during their public speeches.

Titled "Speech Topper on the Bush Record," the talking points state that Bush "kept the American people safe" after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, lifted the economy after 2001 through tax cuts, curbed AIDS in Africa and maintained "the honor and the dignity of his office."

The document presents the Bush record as an unalloyed success.

This should be especially handy for all those Administration officials who draw a blank when asked to remember one positive thing this President did. Though there are a couple of...let's call them mistakes. Sure Bush did keep the country safe after 9/11, you just have to wipe those anthrax attacks from your mind (done and done) and forget all those hornet's nests he walloped with a big stick. I'm sure those won't ever come back to haunt us. "Lifted the economy"? Yeah, not the best time to mention Bush's economic legacy, which is only a sarcastically named tenement village away from being Hoover's equal. Let's face it, we all also have different definitions of the words 'honor' and 'dignity'. Mine are the dictionary definitions of honor and dignity, Bush's seem to reference some alternate reality where incompetence, failure, the complete politicization of every action, and burning every thing you touch are seen as esteemed virtues.

But these are easy shots to make. I mean completely blocking out reality and presenting your universally reviled accomplishments as staggering success is a kind of mental gymnastics and triumph over ethics that deserve applause. Furthermore, any administration official that can spew out these talking points without dry heaving or bleeding from the ears has won a sort of mental "always been at war with Eurasia" victory over their own perceptions. That's worth a bullet point on this sheet.

"I didn't earn it, give it to me."

Deciding to make a late charge in the "Biggest Balls of the Year" competition, Merril Lynch CEO John Thain decided that despite the fact that his company lost $11.67 billion and was forced to sell to Bank of America to stave off the negation of its existence, he deserves a fat stack of cash with a cherry on top.

Merrill Lynch & Co. chief John Thain has suggested to directors that he get a 2008 bonus of as much as $10 million, but the battered securities firm's compensation committee is resisting his request, according to people familiar with the situation.
...
Thain has said he deserves a bonus because he helped avert what could have been a much larger crisis at the firm, people familiar with his thinking told the WSJ.

Ah yes, I believe this is what's known as the "Incredible Huevos Maneuver". The old "Although we faced total ruination under my stewardship, we only hit 90% ruination so....uhhhh...money please" gambit. I guess by the standards of economic relativism, yeah Johnny, you didn't go Lehman Brothers on everyone. By normal standards you are a nitwit who ran his company into the ground and helped contribute to the new depression. Take pride, have a cookie, and fuck off. Sans the $10 million bonus you didn't earn.