home

Sunday Morning Open Thread:

England was robbed of an equalizer goal by Lampard in its game with Germany. Germany leads at half 2-1. It's been a wide open game. Should be a great second half.

Argentina-Mexico. Mexico will shock the world.

< Transformation: Obama Goes From "Impotent" To FDR In A Flash | NarcoSubs Used to Transport Colombian Cocaine >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Heard On the Street (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 04:00:23 PM EST
    Not sure what this means, exactly, but a friend of mine who started a beer company several years ago, said that there are zero 18 wheeler trucks available at the moment in the whole of the US. They are all out working.

    While it is true that many trucking companies have gone out of business, it also seems that business maybe picking up here in the US.

    Yeah, no one likes to hear good news these days, but this does seem potentially good news for the economy at least short term.

    Another data point (none / 0) (#31)
    by ruffian on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:18:14 PM EST
    One of my personal economic barometers has been a friend of mine who is a commercial construction drywall project manager here in central FL. He was out of work for a year and a week, and just got a job.

    Tiny little green shoots.

    Parent

    Well, this is just grand (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 09:14:00 PM EST
    The Obama administration won't charge Blackwater (for now) with sanctions violations based on their activities in trying to secure business there.

    Why, you may ask?

    Had the company been indicted, it could have been suspended from doing business with the U.S. government, and a conviction could have brought debarment from all government contracts, including providing guard services for the CIA and State Department in war zones. In recent weeks the Obama administration awarded the firm a $120 million State Department security contract, and about $100 million in new CIA work.

    More:

    If the renamed Blackwater were indicted under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and the International Traffic in Arms Regulations, it would cost Xe Services more than 95 percent of its business.

    As Blackwater, that business included protecting the CIA's Kabul station and participating in a never-implemented program to hunt down and kill al Qaida leaders.

    Why Sudan?

    Southern Sudan had emerged in 2005 as an autonomous region after a U.S.-brokered peace deal ended a 22-year war with the North. Weeks after he took the helm of the new Southern Sudan government, Kiir's predecessor, John Garang, was killed in an unexplained helicopter crash, and Blackwater's sales pitch to the Bush administration was that protecting the new leader would support U.S. policy objectives.

    The company, however, also saw huge potential profits.

    After negotiating a $2 million draft contract to train Kiir's personal security detail, Blackwater in early 2007 drafted a detailed second proposal, valued at more than $100 million, to equip and train the south's army. Because the south lacked ready cash, Blackwater sought 50 percent of the south's untapped mineral wealth, a former senior U.S. official said.

    In addition to its well-known oil and natural gas reserves, Southern Sudan has vast untapped reserves of gold, iron and diamonds.

    "Most people don't know this stuff exists. These guys did," said a second former senior official who saw the document, which apparently was never signed.



    If it is any consolation (none / 0) (#32)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:41:03 PM EST
    Iraq has finally been able to have them expelled.  Their sovereignty is now strong enough they called that shot.  But it took them over two years to get done what was once promised to them....no more Blackwater or Xe.  This isn't a problem with the military anymore though,  we don't need to hire them but we will hire our own contractors.  They are answerable to the military chain of command though. This Blackwater problem exists solely with the state department "needing" to hire them.  Why is that?  Why can't the state department get on the same page and why must the state department continue to hire these companies of horror and shove them down the throats of the peoples who have been murdered by them?  You can't even go into Iraq anymore if you have EVER been Blackwater affiliated or employed.

    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 12:01:29 AM EST
    Iraq hates Blackwater, as they should. The US is not in the same position. It would seem that there is a limited pool of mercs and a limited pool of companies that hire them here in the US.

    The Central Intelligence Agency has hired Xe Services, the private security firm formerly known as Blackwater Worldwide, to guard its facilities in Afghanistan and elsewhere, according to an industry source.

    The previously undisclosed CIA contract is worth about $100 million, said the industry source, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the deal, which is classified.

    "It's for protective services ... guard services, in multiple regions," said the source.

    Two other security contractors, Triple Canopy and DynCorp International, put in losing bids for the CIA's business, the source said. (A DynCorp spokeswoman says the company did not bid on the contract.)

    "Blackwater has undergone some serious changes," maintained a U.S. official who is familiar with the deal and spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss it freely.

    "They've had to if they want to survive. They've had to prove to the government that they're a responsible outfit. Having satisfied every legal requirement, they have the right to compete for contracts. They have people who do good work, at times in some very dangerous places. Nobody should forget that, either."

    WaPo

    Personally, I think mercenaries should never be allowed to work for the US government. But what do I know.

    Parent

    Take it up with your President (4.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 12:10:27 AM EST
    Escape From US Indictment (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 12:09:30 AM EST
    Apparently weary of all the controversy, Prince announced two weeks ago he was putting the company on the block.

    "If Prince's rumored future move is linked to concerns over possible indictment," wrote Jeremy Scahill, author of a book on Blackwater, "the United Arab Emirates would be an interesting choice for a new home -- particularly because it does not have an extradition treaty with the United States."

    Prince's spokesman Corallo declined to discuss his client's plans, saying "his personal life is his own."



    Parent
    There is a lot of work out there (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 12:16:53 AM EST
    creating little evil militias for rich oil Princes.  We have had a few friends go this route, take their military training and fly helicopters around for wealthy sheiks and whatever soldier of fortune bands they want to put together.  I'm sure that Prince is going in that direction since the U.S. can't do anything to him then unless he becomes an enemy combatant.  It is risky work though working for rich overlords in lawless lands, they can decide to have you popped in a heartbeat too when you aren't looking and nobody knows nuthin.  Good luck out there Mr. Prince.

    Parent
    well (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 12:48:49 AM EST
    Apart from the abundant supply of work and $$, I think that the decision to go to a country that has no extradition treaty with the US may have to do with this too:

    In April, meanwhile, a federal grand jury indicted four of Prince's former top deputies, including his legal counsel, and a fifth employee, on 15 counts of conspiracy, weapons and obstruction-of-justice charges.

    We will see..

     

    Parent

    Tough break for England, (none / 0) (#1)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:01:47 AM EST
    and they needed that equalizer since it's fairly clear Germany is the better team.  Another argument for instant replay in WC play, at least for goal disputes.  But no, like the morons who run MLB, FIFA is stubbornly stupid about making sensible moves to reform its antiquated and flawed system of reffing.

    Meanwhile, what a monster Germany's Miroslav Klose is. An absolute animalé who refuses to be stopped when he gets near the goal.  No one comparable for the Brits.

    Germany will probably hold on and advance.  Another outstanding Deutschland team, as usual.

    I am surprised that the ref and assistants (none / 0) (#2)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:15:53 AM EST
    all missed that goal.

    It wasn't even a question (none / 0) (#3)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:22:08 AM EST
    of whether all of the ball was past the goal line -- the ball clearly was at least two ball widths beyond it.

    Well, I suppose this was an equalizing karmic moment for Germany for the disputed, and probably miscalled, goal for England in the 1966 WC.

    Parent

    Irrelevant anyway now that the score is (none / 0) (#5)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:27:32 AM EST
    4-1 for Germany.  Amazing dominance on Germany's part.

    I was hoping for a slightly better showing from England even though I knew they weren't likely to deliver.  

    Parent

    And now it's over. (none / 0) (#6)
    by scribe on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:56:06 AM EST
    I think everyone is in agreement that England was robbed of a goal, but they are also in agreement that England played (in the words of a commentator) "overweight", "fat" and "old".

    Ouch,

    Parent

    Yeah - ouch. (none / 0) (#7)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:03:53 AM EST
    They were robbed, but based on the level of play from England, I just don't see that goal as having denied them of momentum which is sometimes what happens.  In this case, they were simply out played by a better, hungrier team.

    Parent
    Yup. ARD's second story (none / 0) (#8)
    by scribe on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 11:34:38 AM EST
    (the first is the recap) is headlined "Revenge for Wembley", i.e., the 1966 World Cup defeat.

    Parent
    I don't either (none / 0) (#11)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:05:26 PM EST
    there's no therapy in soccer :)

    Parent
    Unless you are the U.S. :) (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:05:49 PM EST
    Quick strike for Germany, 3-1. (none / 0) (#4)
    by brodie on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 10:26:36 AM EST
    That should just about seal their victory.  Completely unsurprising.  They are just a better futbol team, England being a half-notch the lesser.

    Oooh, now it's 4-1 -- getting ugly.

    Evertime I watch Mexico (none / 0) (#9)
    by magster on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 01:40:00 PM EST
    they shoot incredible shots that just miss their target.

    Argentina has a good keeper (none / 0) (#16)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:52:40 PM EST
    Or that scoreboard would be very very different.

    Parent
    If you jack with it in the backfield (none / 0) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:03:46 PM EST
    and you are playing someone lean and mean, it will hurt.

    So what do ya think? (none / 0) (#13)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:13:48 PM EST
    Has Bradley lost his coaching job?  Should he?

    Well, I'm not sure. (none / 0) (#18)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:06:20 PM EST
    I do think that the US team's failure to consistently pressure their opponents during all of their games was a problem that could be at least in part blamed on the coaching.

    They did a lot of standing around and watching the other team handle the ball - particularly in the first 10-15 minutes of every game.

    Parent

    I agree (none / 0) (#20)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:08:54 PM EST
    I'm not angry at him because we lost.  It does look like we have a geniune coaching problem and I think he should go.

    Parent
    I don't know what he said to them. (none / 0) (#24)
    by inclusiveheart on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:50:07 PM EST
    I know my coach used to punish us after games where we did that by making us run up a huge dune that was about six stories high - win or lose - if he saw any of that - we were toast at the next practice - or even once right after the game.

    That dune was a good deterrent to that sort of lax attitude during a match.

    Still, not everyone saw it that way on the team.  Some still felt the need to hang back.  One girl I remember was much more concerned about the ribbons on her pony tail than playing the game.  You'd think that its only teenaged girls who would fall into that habit, but I've seen plenty of pro players exhibit similar arrogance/disconnection from the play around them.

    Bradley pulled together a great group of strikers, but his defensive strategy was undisciplined and at times, down right embarassing.  There was one close call yesterday where the US defender chose to send the ball across the goal in the penalty box to the goalie with far too many offensive players within striking distance.  A better choice would have been to clear it out at the sideline and take advantage of the time to reset - even though it would have given the throw in to the opposition.  An even better decision would have been to try to knick it off an opposing player in sending it off - lol - and that can be done.  And another where a US defender clearly had NO clue who was around him or where he was.  His mark was behind him and he headed the ball but he was never going to control it from where he was - the ball was too high in its arc - he was stationary as it came towards him.  I can think of at least five different things he could have done better in that moment starting with looking around as well as moving back to beat his mark to the ball rather than just haplessly trying to head it.  

    It was a free-for-all on the defensive line in every game.  They just didn't seem to have it together and they weren't aggressive enough when the ball came into the danger zone.  More than anything the play was frenetic and panicked, imo.

    Parent

    Has Maradona (none / 0) (#14)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:49:31 PM EST
    left a forever bad taste in my mouth whenever Argentina has a bad call that is in their favor?  And it isn't that I want Argentina to lose either, because I think they deserve to win.  Maradona was such a cheater of giant proportions though.  If he teaches the extremely gifted how to cheat well because just being good isn't enough, he should be beaten up in an ally somewhere.  It is a fear I have.

    You're leaving out (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:07:09 PM EST
    the part about Maradona being easily one of the ten most gifted footballers of all time, aside from being a greater cheater, which all great footballers learn how to do early on -- some to the extent that when they do it, most people miss it.

    We're talking about a game that is also take-no-prisoners war, masquerading as "just a game." Ask people like Pele if Maradona is-was significantly more dishonorable than any of the other greats; I think you might be surprised at his answer.

    Parent

    Ask Pele? (none / 0) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:14:48 PM EST
    Pele wasn't much of a cheater but he wasn't much for calling out anyone who needed calling out either.  Pele is proof you can be great and don't need to cheat.  If anyone knows lifting the leg a bit higher isn't going to get me someone's shin, that would be me.  Real players don't need to rely on cheating or immediate jubilant celebration when you know you are fecking off sides.  I've seen players signal the ref to make a call against THEM in this World Cup alone.  Let's not get carried away with attempting to create some narrative that cheating is something to overlook or stroke.

    Parent
    So now you're saying (none / 0) (#23)
    by jondee on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:41:13 PM EST
    Maradona wasn't great; just, what? more ruthless and underhanded?

    I haven't heard that kind of emotionally-tinged revisionism since those things that began with a "p", that ended in '08.

    Parent

    So you're saying that the gifted (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:09:19 PM EST
    have rights to be huge cheaters?  Why do I get the feeling you don't REALLY know THAT MUCH about his history of play outside of google highlights?

    Parent
    Speaking of google (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:22:39 PM EST
    I just hit the google and I was wrong about how nice Pele is supposed to be in Tracy world.....Buwhahahahahahaha!

    "Maradona was an excellent player," `The King' told Brazilian newspaper `O Estado de Sao Paulo.  However he could not dribble with his right foot, he couldn't head the ball. He was not a complete player."

    This was in an article about Maradona's drug use and Pele saying he should be stripped of his medals.  His level of constant cheating during regular play was pretty pathetic though, perhaps that was how he compensated for not being able to dribble or head properly :)  Whew....Pele can also NOT be nice too.  Who knew?  Not me :)

    Parent

    William Kunstler: Disturbing the Universe (none / 0) (#15)
    by Rojas on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 02:51:26 PM EST
    Ran on the local PTV station this morning. Very moving, catch it if you can.

    Mexico scores (none / 0) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:02:00 PM EST
    Good on them, they've had a lot of good strikes.

    Robert Byrd seriously ill in hospital. (none / 0) (#22)
    by Angel on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 03:30:23 PM EST


    More Bad News (none / 0) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:03:19 PM EST
    As unconfirmed reports of an imminent Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities pick up steam in the Middle Eastern media, a US-based strategic intelligence company has released a chart showing US naval carriers massing near Iranian waters.

    rawstory

    Seems to me that Iran is going to get nukes because once it has nukes this sort of thing will not happen. It is amazing to me that some argue that nukes in responsible hands are ok. The big problem I have with that statement is that the ones who are deciding who is responsible or not are the ones who have nukes.

    oy.

    Toronto (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sun Jun 27, 2010 at 05:48:57 PM EST
    digby has the skinny on police tactics to demonize left during protests; It is called the Miami Model....  worth a read, and seems according to this report, nothing but the truth. In toronto there was violence by a small group, no police in sight, then the police went batsh*t on the peaceful protesters, and journalists covering the protests.
    The bulk of the arrests came later in the evening, mostly from among a group of peaceful marchers against summit-related restrictions on civil liberties. The police arrested those who sat down on a street near a hotel hosting some delegates to the summit.

    As was the case earlier in the day, police officers moved journalists out of the area as they began to make the arrests. Steve Paikin, a prominent Toronto journalist said that he was escorted away by two police officers who saw his government-issued summit media credentials. He was advised that if he stayed he would be arrested.

    As he was being taken away, Mr. Paikin said he saw another journalist, Jesse Rosenfeld, a contributor to the Guardian website, showing his identification to two police officers. At that point, according to Mr. Paikin, each of them took one of Mr. Rosenfeld's arm as a third police officer, wearing a t-shirt and shorts, punched the reporter in the stomach. After Mr. Rosenfeld fell to the ground, the third officer jabbed an elbow into his back. Mr. Paikin said.

    NYT

    US Troops Protected by Mercs? (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Mon Jun 28, 2010 at 01:02:43 AM EST
    "This commission was also going to ask Mr Torres why he personally flew to Iraq, to FOB Shield, and strongly suggested that Torres AES be allowed to post the unapproved guards, guards that would protect American troops, and then to 'catch-up the approval process'."

    Instead, a lawyer informed the commission staff that Torres was "nervous about appearing".

    The failure of a contractor to appear for an oversight hearing into lapses was just one example that the use of some 18,800 armed "private security contractors" in Iraq and another 23,700 in Afghanistan to protect convoys, diplomatic and other personnel, and military bases and other facilities in Afghanistan and Iraq was not working.....

    WTF:

    Asked to explain why Xe was awarded the contract, Charlene R Lamb, deputy assistant secretary for international programs at the State Department, stated that the competitors for the contract - DynCorp and Triple Canopy - weren't as qualified.

    Yet Don Ryder of DynCorp and Ignacio Balderas of Triple Canopy testified that they were both qualified and able to do the contract. The two men said that they would consider lodging a formal protest at the State Department on Tuesday after a debriefing with the government....

    Some witnesses and experts said that by definition this work should not be handed out to private contractors in war zones.

    "Private security contractors are authorized to use deadly force to protect American lives in a war zone and to me if anything is inherently governmental, it's that," said commissioner Clark Kent Ervin, a former inspector general at both the State Department and the Homeland Security Department. "We don't have a definitional problem, we have an acknowledgement of reality problem."  


    Asia Times