“Such an act has grossly interfered in China’s internal affairs, hurt the feelings of the Chinese people and damaged Sino-American relations.” –MA ZHAOXU, Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman, harshly condemned the spontaneous Saturday meeting between U.S. President Barack Obama and the Dalai Lama, Tibet’s spiritual leader. China considers the Dalai Lama a separatist who wants to
Continue reading …
Sir Paul Stephenson says row over links to News International overshadowed his work Britain’s top police officer, Sir Paul Stephenson, announced his shock resignation as he was brought down by his failure to tell senior figures, including the prime minister, that Scotland Yard had hired a former News of the World executive as an adviser while refusing to reopen inquiries into phone hacking. Stephenson had been angered over the questioning of his integrity and said he had to go in order to stop the controversy distracting the Metropolitan police from the challenges it faced, including the 2012 London Olympics. The crisis over hacking engulfing News Corporation began to turn toxic for Stephenson on Thursday after the arrest of Neil Wallis, who was the News of the World’s deputy editor under former No 10 aide Andy Coulson and during the period when it is alleged phone hacking was widespread at the paper. Hours after Wallis was arrested, it emerged that he had worked for the Met. In a stunning statement , Stephenson stressed his integrity and dismissed weekend claims that it was compromised by accepting a free stay at a luxury health spa where Wallis had been hired as a PR consultant. Stephenson said: “I have taken this decision as a consequence of the ongoing speculation and accusations relating to the Met’s links with News International at a senior level and in particular in relation to Mr Neil Wallis who as you know was arrested in connection with Operation Weeting last week … “I have heard suggestions that we must have suspected the alleged involvement of Mr Wallis in phone hacking. Let me say unequivocally that I did not and had no reason to have done so. I do not occupy a position in the world of journalism; I had no knowledge of the extent of this disgraceful practice and the repugnant nature of the selection of victims that is now emerging; nor of its apparent reach into senior levels.” In potentially toxic remarks for David Cameron, Stephenson said he had not mentioned Wallis’s appointment to protect Cameron: “I did not want to compromise the prime minister in any way by revealing or discussing a potential suspect who clearly had a close relationship with Mr Coulson. “I am aware of the many political exchanges in relation to Mr Coulson’s previous employment – I believe it would have been extraordinarily clumsy of me to have exposed the prime minister, or by association the home secretary, to any accusation, however unfair, as a consequence of them being in possession of operational information in this regard.” The shadow home secretary, Yvette Cooper said: “It is a very serious concern that the Met commissioner felt unable to tell the prime minister and the home secretary about this operational issue with Neil Wallis because of the prime minister’s relationship with Andy Coulson. It appears that their compromised relationship with Andy Coulson has put the commissioner in a very difficult position and made it even harder for the Met to maintain confidence around this difficult issue. Both David Cameron and Theresa May must take their share of the responsibility for this situation.” The Guardian has learned that Scotland Yard chiefs invited Wallis to apply for a senior communications post with the force in 2009, a decision Stephenson was aware of. Wallis was approached to apply for the two day a month contract by the Met, following discussions involving the forces’s most senior figures. A source with close knowledge of the Yard’s thinking at the time said part of Wallis’s attraction was his connection to former News of the World editor Coulson, who was a leading aide to Cameron, then in opposition and expected to become prime minister. Part of the Met’s thinking was that Wallis’s connections would help the force’s relationship with Cameron: “One [Wallis] is a lot cheaper and gives you direct access into No 10,” the source added. Stephenson was facing the prospect of a difficult Commons statement by Theresa May, the home secretary, and anxiety expressed by the deputy prime minister, Nick Clegg, about confidence in the Met because of the failure to tackle the scandal. Stephenson also faced a rough ride tomorrow from MPs on the home affairs committee angry that in his evidence just weeks ago he had failed to tell them about the hiring of Wallis. On top of that he faced anger within his watchdog, the Metropolitan Police Authority, about his failure to inform them about Wallis’s employment when he spoke to them last Thursday. On Thursday, Boris Johnson, had carpeted Stephenson over his actions. The Met denied that Stephenson’s five-week free stay at a luxury spa was in any way connected to the fact Wallis was a PR consultant to the company. The commissioner was recovering from a fractured leg caused by an operation to remove a pre-cancerous tumour, and only recently had returned to work. One of his attractions to the people who appointed him, Johnson and the then Labour home secretary, Jacqui Smith, was his reputation as a safe pair of hands which was earned while he served as deputy to Sir Ian Blair during Blair’s tumultuous commissionership. But his handling of the Wallis affair had tarnished that, as did admissions he had dined with News of the World executives including Wallis. On one occasion they met as the Met carried out its first phone hacking inquiry in 2006. A Home Office spokesman said May told Stephenson she was “sorry” that he was resigning when he called to inform her of his decision. “The home secretary took a call from Sir Paul Stephenson tonight in which he informed her of his decision to resign as commissioner of the Metropolitan police service,” the spokesman said. Stephenson will stay in post until a replacement is chosen. Johnson said: “Sir Paul believes, however, that the phone hacking saga now threatens to become a serious distraction during the run-up to the Olympic Games. He has persuaded me that someone else should now be allowed to take his work forward so that the focus can return to policing and bringing down crime.” The early favourite to replace Stephenson is Sara Thornton, chief constable of Thames Valley. Stephenson’s deputy, Tim Godwin, set up the latest phone-hacking inquiry while the commissioner was off work through illness and has let it be known he has not accepted News International hospitality. Lord Prescott, the former deputy prime minister who had called for Stephenson to resign, wrote on Twitter: “I always thought the Met and News International were too close and now we see how close they were. Another green bottle has fallen – more to come.” Peter Smyth, chair of the Metropolitan Police Federation, said: “I think it is a sad day for Paul and a sad day for the Met. He is a very private man, I have never had any reason to question his integrity.” He has come to a decision based on what he knows about himself.” Sir Paul Stephenson Metropolitan police Police Phone hacking News of the World News International Andy Coulson David Cameron Boris Johnson Theresa May Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Amanpour Focuses on One Poll Showing Support for Tax Hikes, Schieffer Upset GOP Not as Reasonable as Obama
July 17, 2011 No Comment
A couple of Sunday interview show hosts again forwarded White House talking points about the necessity to include taxes, I mean “revenues,” in any debt ceiling increase deal with ABC’s Christiane Amanpour focusing on a single poll she highlighted for ammunition the public is on her side while ignoring how, by two-to-one, the public opposes raising the debt ceiling at all. CBS’s Bob Schieffer touted how President Obama has made “concessions” but, he sputtered, “I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that’s their negotiating posture.” He demanded of Senator Marco Rubio: “Can you have meaningful reform here without increasing revenues in some way?” With “STUCK ON TAXES” on screen, Amanpour fretted: “Republicans made that a line in the sand – ‘No new taxes,’” yet “poll after poll recently have basically said the American people are not with you on that issue. The majority actually says that there should be a balanced approach.” She cited a Quinnipiac University survey , prompting her guest, Senator Jon Kyl, to highlight a Rasmussen poll showing 55 percent opposed to including any tax hikes in a debt deal and how even “a majority of independents say so.” Instead of acknowledging a range of survey findings, Amanpour denigrated the Rasmussen one, putting one set of Quinnipiac numbers on screen as she insisted “we could play polls all of the time, but a lot of the established ones, like the Quinnipiac, says 67 percent of Americans say debt reform should involve a balance of cuts and tax increases, especially for corporations and the wealthy.” Despite claiming “a lot of the established ones” show people want taxes raised, Amanpour failed to cite any poll beyond the one Quinnipiac survey she plastered on screen. Gallup’s survey released July 12 determined that by nearly two-to-one – 42 to 22 percent – Americans oppose even raising the debt ceiling, never mind what should constitute the elements of a deal. Amanpour, however, didn’t press Kyl, nor her earlier guest, OMB Director Jack Lew, about that. Another Gallup question found more “concern” (51 percent) for “the government would raise the debt ceiling but without plans for major cuts in future spending” than “the government would not raise the debt ceiling and a major economic crisis would result” (32 percent). Flashback to June 26: “ Amanpour Does Obama’s Bidding in Pushing McConnell to Realize Need for ‘Revenue Raising ’” Flashback to June 13: “ CBS’s Schieffer Trumpets Coburn’s ‘Candor’ on Willingness to Hike Taxes, Rues Others Lack Such ‘Courage ’” In April, Schieffer pressed GOP Congressman Paul Ryan : “Do you think that we can solve the deficit problem without raising taxes in some way?” How on Face the Nation CBS’s Schieffer hit Senator Marco Rubio on taxes: > Well where are the concessions that the Republicans are willing to make? I heard the President, just this week, saying yeah, he’d be willing to talk about means testing for people on Medicare. I don't hear any concessions from people on the other side. They just say no taxes, and that’s their negotiating posture. > Can you have meaningful reform here without increasing revenues in some way – closing what some people call loopholes, eliminating what others call deductions? Aren't you going to have some way to increase revenues that goes beyond just cutting taxes? From the July 17 This Week on ABC: CHRISTIANE AMANPOUR: Obviously, the Republicans made that a line in the sand – “No new taxes.” And yet, poll after poll recently have basically said the American people are not with you on that issue. The majority actually says that there should be a balanced approach. Whether it’s the Quinnipiac, even including, not even a majority of Republicans say there should be no new taxes. So, do you think that you're out of step with the American people on this? SENATOR JON KYL, SENATE MINORITY WHIP: Christiane, I haven't seen the polls you're referring to. In fact, I looked for polls that backed up the President, didn’t find any. The last poll, if I could, just three days ago, this is the Rasmussen poll, the question was, “do you think a tax hike should be included in any legislation to raise the debt ceiling?” 55 percent say no, 34 percent say yes. And even
Continue reading …The Race To The Bottom: Half Of US Social Program Recipients Believe They "Have Not Used A Government Social Program"
July 17, 2011 No Comment
It’s really hard not to get discouraged when you realize that all the anti-intellectual elitist talk has led us to this exact circumstance : “Reconstituting the Submerged State: The Challenges of Social Policy Reform in the Obama Era, ” a paper by Cornell’s Clinton Rossiter Professor of American Institutions Suzanne Mettler features this remarkable chart showing that about half of American social program beneficiaries believe that they “have not used a government social program.” enlarge Credit: boing boing That’s right…all those bonehead tea baggers going to rallies with signs that say “Keep the guvmint out of my Medicare ” really *are* actually that ignorant. The Mettler paper (.pdf) is equal parts fascinating and depressing. It confirms for me that the entire national dialog is being controlled by people who really understand very little and revel in their lack of comprehension. Over time, the policies of the submerged state have reshaped politics in two ways, both of which presented profound challenges to Obama as he sought to accomplish reform and which, paradoxically, also imperil the success of his greatest achievements thus far. First, especially during the past two decades, the submerged state has nurtured particular sectors of the market economy and they have in turn invested in strengthening their political capacity for the sake of preserving existing arrangements. As a result, the alteration of such arrangements has required either defeating entrenched interests—which has proven impossible in most cases—or, more typically, negotiating with and accommodating them, which hardly appears to be the kind of change Obama’s supporters expected when he won office. Second, such policies have shrouded the state’s role, making it largely invisible to most ordinary citizens, even beneficiaries of existing policies. As a result, the public possesses little awareness of such policies, nor are most people cognizant of either what is at stake in reform efforts or the significance of their success.
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media A top Democrat Sunday accused Republicans of demanding a balanced budget amendment to “manipulate” the Constitution and end Medicare as it exists today. “What is wrong with ‘cut, cap and balance’ and what are the chances it will get through the House, through the Senate and signed by the president?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “No one should be fooled about this,” Van Hollen said. “They’re not proposing a clean balanced budget amendment. What they are proposing is to manipulate the Constitution and use it to impose the Republican budget plan. He continued: “If you look at that plan, it does end the Medicare guarantee. It slashes Medicaid. It slashes deeply to education and it protects tax breaks for special interests. They would write that into the United States Constitution. Under their proposal, it would be easier to cut Medicare than to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies. You have majority vote to cut Medicare and majority vote to create special interest loopholes. You need two-thirds to close tax breaks. That is an anti-majoritarian position. The framers would be turning in their grave if they read their provision.”
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media A top Democrat Sunday accused Republicans of demanding a balanced budget amendment to “manipulate” the Constitution and end Medicare as it exists today. “What is wrong with ‘cut, cap and balance’ and what are the chances it will get through the House, through the Senate and signed by the president?” Fox News’ Chris Wallace asked Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), the ranking Democrat on the House Budget Committee. “No one should be fooled about this,” Van Hollen said. “They’re not proposing a clean balanced budget amendment. What they are proposing is to manipulate the Constitution and use it to impose the Republican budget plan. He continued: “If you look at that plan, it does end the Medicare guarantee. It slashes Medicaid. It slashes deeply to education and it protects tax breaks for special interests. They would write that into the United States Constitution. Under their proposal, it would be easier to cut Medicare than to cut subsidies for oil and gas companies. You have majority vote to cut Medicare and majority vote to create special interest loopholes. You need two-thirds to close tax breaks. That is an anti-majoritarian position. The framers would be turning in their grave if they read their provision.”
Continue reading …Time’s Joe Klein: Obama’s ‘Winning’ Debt Ceiling Debate – Americans Understand ‘Eat Your Peas’
July 17, 2011 No Comment
Time magazine's Joe Klein said this weekend that President Obama “is winning” the debt ceiling debate. Klein told his fellow panelists on the syndicated “Chris Matthews Show,” “He is coming across as the most reasonable guy in a crazy city…When he says things like 'Eat your peas,' that's language Americans can understand” (video follows with transcript and commentary): JOE KLEIN, TIME: Can I just say – he's winning this thing. I mean really. He is coming across as the most reasonable guy… CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Because? KLEIN: …in a crazy city. MATTHEWS: How so? KLEIN: Because he seems reasonable. GLORIA BORGER, CNN: He put a deal on the table. KLEIN: And, and, when he says things like “Eat your peas,” that's language Americans can understand. KELLY O’DONNELL, NBC NEWS: People do like that. KLEIN: The real important thing to understand about the whole debt ceiling business is that no one in America really knows what it means and they care less about it. They care about the economy and jobs. BORGER: Well, they care about Social Security. KLEIN: He seems to be a guy who's trying to do, well they don't understand that's a consequence. They didn't understand it until this week. MATTHEWS: It's coming. Oh yeah – Obama looked so good telling Republicans, “Eat your peas.” That's language Americans can understand, especially coming weeks after he told them his young daughters behave better than they do. I guess to a shill like Klein, that's coming across as “reasonable” – talking to political leaders on the other side of the aisle like they're children. Somehow I doubt Klein would be so approving of a Republican president talking this way to Democrats.
Continue reading …
Venezuela left without interim president as leader receives chemotherapy, sparking fears about future government He had been home for less than two weeks. Long enough to milk the adulation from his fanbase. Not long enough to dispel the cloud of uncertainty over Venezuela’s future. Now that cloud has become darker with the news that Hugo Chávez is to return to Cuba for chemotherapy to treat his abdominal cancer, the severity of which is still unknown. As he flew out of Caracas at the weekend, Chávez left both friends and foes speculating about the future of Venezuela – and wondering if chavismo can survive without its namesake and founder. Chávez, who did not specify a return date, left the vice-president, Elías Jaua, and his minister of finance, Jorge Giordani, in charge of carrying out his instructions in his absence. But, tellingly, neither was sworn in as interim president. Constitutionally speaking, Chávez can be away for up to 180 days, at which point a vice-president would be sworn in to act as president until the next elections, due in December 2012. In reality, few believe Venezuela can be governed from afar for long. Many have interpreted Chávez’s refusal to name just one successor, and his vehement calls for unity, as a clear sign that the fissures within chavismo run deeper than chavistas themselves want to admit. For the political analyst John Magdaleno, the official announcement of Chávez’s cancer brought to light the many factions within chavismo. “It is a point of no return, whereby the small factions are not going to stop vying for the overall leadership,” he said. For the past 12 years, Chávez has amalgamated a coalition of political actors from across the spectrum under his homemade brand of populist ideology that mixes socialist programmes with Bolivarian instincts and strong anti-imperialist rhetoric aimed chiefly at the main export market for Venezuela’s biggest revenue earner, oil. Amid the uncertainty swirling in Caracas are three questions. The first involves the severity of Chávez’s illness and the extent of any likely incapacitation. On this, the president has given few hints. In one of the few cryptic references to his illness, he has deemed his cancer “as one of the best, not the kind that many [of my enemies] would wish upon me”. Before he left at the weekend, he told supporters that the cancer was not advanced. “No other malignant cell has been detected in my body,” he said. A former vice-president, José Vicente Rangel, said in a recent interview that finding a successor to Chávez would not be necessary because although “Chávez is ill, his condition is not critical”. But the illness has focused attention on the fact that at some point Venezuela will have a new leader. And so the second question: who might succeed him? Before Chávez’s unexpected return from Cuba on 4 July, the names of successors within chavismo ranged from the logical vice-president Jaua to the constitutionally impossible Adán Chávez, his brother and the governor of their home state, Barinas, and Chávez’s own daughter, Ma Gabriela, who more often accompanies Chávez in his public appearances. The leader himself has given few clues. Javier Corrales, professor of political science at Amherst College in Massachusetts, said Chávez could easily raise the profile of a chosen heir if it became clear that he could not carry on as president. “Chávez could do miracles, including raising
Continue reading …
Venezuela left without interim president as leader receives chemotherapy, sparking fears about future government He had been home for less than two weeks. Long enough to milk the adulation from his fanbase. Not long enough to dispel the cloud of uncertainty over Venezuela’s future. Now that cloud has become darker with the news that Hugo Chávez is to return to Cuba for chemotherapy to treat his abdominal cancer, the severity of which is still unknown. As he flew out of Caracas at the weekend, Chávez left both friends and foes speculating about the future of Venezuela – and wondering if chavismo can survive without its namesake and founder. Chávez, who did not specify a return date, left the vice-president, Elías Jaua, and his minister of finance, Jorge Giordani, in charge of carrying out his instructions in his absence. But, tellingly, neither was sworn in as interim president. Constitutionally speaking, Chávez can be away for up to 180 days, at which point a vice-president would be sworn in to act as president until the next elections, due in December 2012. In reality, few believe Venezuela can be governed from afar for long. Many have interpreted Chávez’s refusal to name just one successor, and his vehement calls for unity, as a clear sign that the fissures within chavismo run deeper than chavistas themselves want to admit. For the political analyst John Magdaleno, the official announcement of Chávez’s cancer brought to light the many factions within chavismo. “It is a point of no return, whereby the small factions are not going to stop vying for the overall leadership,” he said. For the past 12 years, Chávez has amalgamated a coalition of political actors from across the spectrum under his homemade brand of populist ideology that mixes socialist programmes with Bolivarian instincts and strong anti-imperialist rhetoric aimed chiefly at the main export market for Venezuela’s biggest revenue earner, oil. Amid the uncertainty swirling in Caracas are three questions. The first involves the severity of Chávez’s illness and the extent of any likely incapacitation. On this, the president has given few hints. In one of the few cryptic references to his illness, he has deemed his cancer “as one of the best, not the kind that many [of my enemies] would wish upon me”. Before he left at the weekend, he told supporters that the cancer was not advanced. “No other malignant cell has been detected in my body,” he said. A former vice-president, José Vicente Rangel, said in a recent interview that finding a successor to Chávez would not be necessary because although “Chávez is ill, his condition is not critical”. But the illness has focused attention on the fact that at some point Venezuela will have a new leader. And so the second question: who might succeed him? Before Chávez’s unexpected return from Cuba on 4 July, the names of successors within chavismo ranged from the logical vice-president Jaua to the constitutionally impossible Adán Chávez, his brother and the governor of their home state, Barinas, and Chávez’s own daughter, Ma Gabriela, who more often accompanies Chávez in his public appearances. The leader himself has given few clues. Javier Corrales, professor of political science at Amherst College in Massachusetts, said Chávez could easily raise the profile of a chosen heir if it became clear that he could not carry on as president. “Chávez could do miracles, including raising
Continue reading …
• Email sachin.nakrani@guardian.co.uk with all your thoughts • Press F5 to refresh this page or use our auto-refresher • Follow Sachin on Twitter if that’s your thing 42min: This first-half is ending on a niggly note, with both teams giving away needless free-kicks. USA in possession though deep inside the Japan half. Ending the first period just how they started it. This from Curtis in Minnesota: “Japan is the smallest side in the competition and Abby Wambach is the biggest, most imposing forward, but Wambach is constantly toppling over like a felled redwood as soon as a defender is anywhere near. Interesting, that.” 39min: Kawasumi blasts a shot over the bar after collecting Miyama’s short corner on the edge of the area. A neat little joke from Damien Neva: “USA thus far is a team full of misses”. Sepp Blatter is here. That’s good to know… 35min: And another chance for USA. Cheney reacts first to a lofted cross into the area and her looping header beats Kaihori before dropping just over the bar. Remarkably, Japan have had 52% of possession in this match. You would not have predicated that having watched the action so far. In fairness, most of that has been harmless passes across their backline. Very little of note in the opposition’s half. 30min: Japan were camped in their own half before braking out through Ohno. She played a cute pass to Ando whose low, left-footed shot from inside the US area was weak and easily saved by Solo. Japan’s best effort, however. Indicates that counter-attacking may be their best chance of snatching a goal here. 28min: Wambach hits the bar! That’s the best chance of the game. Came about after the referee played advantage for a foul by Iwashimizu on Cheney, Wambach seized possession, drove towards the Japan goal and then unleashed a left-footed drive which beat Kaihori but not the underside of the bar. 27min: Japan’s first corner, came about after Rampone, the US captain, headed clear a cross from the left-wing. The set piece comes to nothing, however. 25min: Japan struggle to clear the danger before Wambach’s volleyed cross from the left-side is held low down by Kaihori. 24min: Japan must pass the ball quicker if they are to sustain any pressure in this match. They’re looking to pass it around but then lose possession as the US snap at their legs and win the ball back. And they now have a corner on the right-side… 22min: Shot at goal for Japan, from Ohno. It came from some long overdue possession from Japan in the USA’s third of the pitch. The low drive was weak, though, and caused Solo in the US goal no problems whatsoever. Encouraging for Sasaki’s side, though. 20min: USA definitely on top so far and had all the chances. But it’s still goalless… 19min: The left-wing is definitely the USA’s best source of danger so far in this contest. Rapinoe causing havoc from there which Kinga, the Japan right-back, simply cannot contain. 17min: Rapinoe causing problems again, driving into the area from Lloyd’s pass before thrashing a drive into the side netting. Wambach is not happy, though. She was waiting in the six-yard area for a cut-back. 17min: Very ambitious effort from Lloyd which easily drifts over the bar. But Japan cannot afford to stand off these efforts if they are to get back into this match. 16min: ‘Happy birthday Angela’ reads a sign held by one of the spectators. 16min: Japan keeping the ball at the back now, trying to build up some possession. Iwashimizu in particular is neat wit the ball. US pressing relentlessly here, not allowing Japan any space in their third and then releasing the ball quickly through midfield. 11min: US starting to dominate again. Lloyd went close before Rapinoe met Cheney’s pull-backed pass in the area with a side-footed drive that skimmed just wide of the post. Japan just cannot get hold of the ball here. This from Mark Judd: “I’ve been to Tokyo twice in the past six months and more pleasant and polite people I’ve yet to meet. It is has to be Japan for me”. 9min: Another chance for the US as Wambach hits a long-range right-footed drive at goal. Drifts just over the bar, but the effort had Kaihori worried. Error before; there has been a shot on target in this game – Cheney’s early drive. Apologies. 8min: Oh another chance for USA. Rapinow whips a low cross towards the near post which Cheney reacts to first, but her poked shot goes just wide of the near post. Very even so far, USA started the brightest before Japan began to dominate possession and territory in the centre of the pitch. No shots on target as yet. 6min: Wambach gives away possession to Sawa but Rapinoe wins it back for the US. She plays a one-two with Lloyd but cannot retain possession down the left-wing and its a goal kick for Japan 5min: Sakaguchi with another interception in the centre of the pitch for Japan but her lofted pass poses no danger for the US defence. Japan appear to have settle after early US pressure. 3min: Ohno intercepts the ball in the centre of the pitch and tries to release Sameshima but USA’s defence cut out the danger. 2min: USA clearly intent on setting the pace here. Not allowing Japan to settle in the early stages. 1min: Early chance for USA. Cheney charges into the area from the left-wing and drives a shot towards the near post which Kaihori has to clear for a corner, which Japan just about to clear. Very strong start for the favourites. 1min: Japan kick-off…. Incidentally, Sawa is joint top-scorer in this tournament with four goals. Wambach has three for the USA, all of which were headers. Right then, we’re ready for action. Looks like a packed stadium for this, the sixth Women’s World Cup final. Teams are out in Frankfurt. National anthems about to take place… Kick-off approaching. It’s apparently 16c in Frankfurt…. Teams are in: Japan Kaihori, Kinga, Iwashimizu, Kumagai, Sameshima,Sakaguchi, Miyama, Kawasumi, Sawa, Ando, Ono. Subs: Yamago, Yano, Utsugi, Kamionobe, Tanaka, Nagasato, Maruyama, Takase, Iwabuchi, Fukumoto. USA Solo, Rampone, Le Peilbet, Krieger, Buehler, Boxx, Lloyd, Rapinoe, O’Reilly, Cheney, Wambach. Subs: Barnhart, Mitts, Sauerbrunn, O’Hara, Rodriguez, Morgan, Cox, Lindsey, Heath, Loyden. Referee: Bibiana Steinhaus (Germany) Good evening all and welcome to the final of the 2011 Women’s World Cup. Japan v USA, or to use a Biblical cliche, David v Goliath. Japan have failed to beat their opponents in 25 previous matches, drawing three and losing the rest. In the United States, they also face a nation that has won two of the previous five Women’s World Cup; the first ever in 1991 and then again, on home turf, in 1999. Japan, in contrast, have never even reached the final. But now is the time for change. This Japan side ain’t half bad, in fact they’re pretty special. So much so that they have been refereed to as the ‘Barcelona of female football’. Norio Sasaki’s team also have a cause that goes beyond the mere desire to lift a gleaming trophy – victory in Frankfurt this evening would help lift a nation devastated by March’s earthquake, tsunami and subsequent nuclear disaster. Both these teams have reached the final in eerily similar style, finishing second with six points in their respective groups before requiring extra-time to get through the quarter-finals and then winning their respective semi-finals 3-1, against Sweden in Japan’s case and France in the USA’s case. Japan have also lost to England and beaten the hosts, Germany, along the way, hinting at an inconsistency which makes the USA favourites to secure a third world title at the Commerzbank Arena tonight. A couple of players to keep an eye on; for Japan it has to be their captain and record caps-holder, Homare Sawa, who scored a hat-trick in her team’s 4-0 group win over Mexico and at the age of 32, remains a crucial figure. The USA will look to Abby Wambach for inspiration, a scorer in their quarter-final win over Brazil and semi-final triumph over France. Kick-off to come at 7.45pm. Should be decent…. Good evening all. Sachin will be here from about 7.15pm to guide you through the final of the women’s World Cup. If you get here before him, here’s Louise Taylor’s on why USA are favourites to lift the trophy but how Japan are spurred on by the need to lift the spirits of their nation. Enjoy. Aya Sameshima used to have a part-time job at the Fukushima plant. The last time she clocked on was in early March, just before Japan found itself devastated by an earthquake, a tsunami and the subsequent nuclear disaster which engulfed her workplace. On Sunday evening Sameshima will be part of the Japan defence as the team, at the 26th time of asking, aim to finally beat the United States in a women’s football match. Far from any old game, it is the final of the World Cup in Frankfurt and much is at stake. While neutrals can only be heartened by Japan’s welcome distraction from the enduring depression engendered by a disaster that left 21,000 people dead or missing, US fans hope victory may be sufficient to see North America’s financially fragile Women’s Professional Soccer League removed from effective life support. They trust Sameshima, who recently relocated to the WPSL by signing for Boston Breakers, will not thwart such ambitions on an evening when trans-Atlantic interest is such that Chelsea Clinton forms part of an official US delegation dispatched to cheer the team on. Continued here Women’s World Cup 2011 Women’s football Sachin Nakrani guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …