Click here to view this media Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said Sunday that any community should be able to ban mosques because there was a big difference between Islam and “our other traditional religions.” Last week, Cain came out again a proposed mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee on the grounds that it was an “infringement and an abuse of our freedom of religion.” “They have operated, Muslim worshipers at another site there for more than 20 years,” Fox News Chris Wallace noted in an interview with Cain. “What is your objection for them building a new mosque?” “Our Constitution guarantees separation of church and state,” Cain explained. “Islam combines church and state. They are using the church part of our First Amendment to infuse their mosque in that community and people in the community do not like it, they disagree with it. Sharia law is what they are trying to infuse… What I am saying is American laws in American courts.” “Couldn’t any community then say we don’t want a mosque in our community?” Wallace asked. “They could say that,” Cain admitted. “They are objecting to the fact that Islam is both a religion and set of laws, Shariah law. That is the difference between any one of our other traditional religions where it’s just about religious purposes. The people in the community know best. I happen to side with the people in the community.” “You are saying any community if they want to ban a mosque,” Wallace pressed. “Yes, they have the right to do that. That is not discriminating based on religion against their particular religion,” Cain insisted. In March, Cain also used Sharia law as an excuse for saying that he would not appoint a Muslim to his cabinet or as a federal judge. “No, I will not. And here’s why. There is this creeping attempt, there is this attempt to gradually ease Sharia law and the Muslim faith into our government,” he said.
Continue reading …
DGB confederation of trade unions cites benefits for workers as trend grows in Germany to re-establish midday napping tradition Angela Merkel might be calling the southern Europeans lazy these days. But German union leaders are calling for their compatriots to emulate them in at least one way: by taking siestas. The DGB confederation of trade unions argues that a short, lunchtime power nap makes sense for health and performance reasons. “Even though the siesta is something that isn’t a given anymore in the southern European countries, it is still a good idea for health reasons,” said Annelie Buntenbach, a DGB executive board member. “A short afternoon nap reduces the risk of, for example, a heart attack, and provides an energy boost,” she told Tageszeitung in an interview. Studies bear this out. Researchers at the Harvard School of Public Health and the University of Athens Medical School in Greece found that Greek workers who took regular siestas had 37% lower mortality rates from coronary illnesses than their napless counterparts. The idea has caught on in Germany, where big German companies such as BASF, Opel, Hornsbach and Lufthansa provide special rooms for their workers, and employers say they benefit from the increased productivity of well-rested employees. “An afternoon nap bridges the power low (of midday) with its heightened risk of errors,” said Jürgen Zulley, a professor of biology and psychology at the University of Regensburg. “A nap can help us to react faster, be more alert, remember things better and put us in a better mood.” A study last year at the University of California Berkeley backed that up by demonstrating that healthy young adults performed better at learning task towards the end of the day if they had taken an afternoon nap. Germans used to take siestas up until the industrial revolution. But the labour needs of the manufacturing economies caused the custom to die out in much of northern Europe. It has been a diminishing custom in the south as well over the past two decades, one some are trying to bring back. But not everyone is in favour. “We have already a half-hour break for breakfast and half-an-hour for lunch,” said Frank Pahlow, a Berlin electrician. “If we had longer breaks to nap, we would get home much later, which would be really bad. It’s different in Spain and Italy, where you need a nap because it’s so hot, but here in Germany, we don’t even have proper summers.” But some workers say they would jump at the chance of a midday recharge. “Sometimes I really need a nap, but I’ve never taken one at work,” said healthcare worker Nils Gordon de Mello, also in Berlin. “If there was a room at work where you could go and lie down for a bit in the afternoon that would be great.” Germany Health Work-life balance Work & careers guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Essam Sharaf sacks ministers of finance, industry and foreign affairs amid claims he does not have the power to hire and fire Egypt’s embattled prime minister, Essam Sharaf, fired several of his top ministers on Sunday in the latest attempt to end mass nationwide protests against his government’s slow pace of reform. The ministers of finance, industry and foreign affairs all followed in the footsteps of Sharaf’s deputy, Yehia el-Gamal, who stepped down last week amid demonstrations that have called the legitimacy of Egypt’s ruling military generals into question. Protesters have demanded that the interim cabinet be purged of all politicians linked to the Mubarak regime. They are also insisting that the executive power of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces (Scaf), which has controlled Egypt since February but is accused by many of deliberately stifling revolutionary progress, be curbed. Sharaf, who is under pressure to resign from many of his former supporters in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, has been locked in negotiations for days over the details of his reshuffle – a sign, according to analysts, of a power struggle behind the scenes between Scaf and the relatively impotent civilian government. In a further indication of division, a senior military official told local news sources that Sharaf was not entitled to appoint or dismiss ministers under the interim constitution. Major General Hassan al-Ruweiny said Scaf had “sole authority” over cabinet personnel – a statement likely to infuriate protesters, who have already drawn comparisons between recent public statements by Scaf and the rhetoric deployed by Mubarak’s regime. Among those leaving the cabinet is Mohamed el-Orabi, appointed foreign minister less than three weeks ago. He said he was stepping down to “honour the will of the people” after protesters charged him with being a long-time supporter of Mubarak’s rule. Joining the cabinet are two new deputies: the veteran economist Hazem Beblawi, who will take up the finance portfolio, and Ali al-Selmy, a leader of the liberal Wafd party who has been asked to oversee social reforms. The appointment of Selmy has instantly met with criticism in some quarters owing to Wafd’s initial lukewarm support for the revolution and Selmy’s record as deputy president of Cairo University, where he was accused of using state security agents to suppress teachers’ demands. Sharaf is expected to replace up to 15 ministers in the reshuffle. But his changes remain dependent on approval from Scaf, and attention will now turn to the fate of the interior minister, Mansour el-Essawy, and the justice minister, Mohamed al-Guindy, both of whom are unpopular among protesters but appear to have the support of military generals. The full lineup of the new government will be unveiled on Monday. Egypt Hosni Mubarak Arab and Middle East unrest Protest Jack Shenker guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
Click here to view this media Ali Velshi grilled anti-tax zealot Grover Norquist about his responsibility for Republicans being completely inflexible on raising taxes today on CNN’s Your Money, and you can read the transcript of that back and forth here , but it was the segments preceding and following that interview and David Gergen’s comments that had me irked after watching this. Norquist was painted as an extremist and a rigid ideologue, but what did we get for analysis surrounding that? David Gergen repeating one right-wing talking point after another on the “bloated welfare state” and how wonderful austerity measures will be for our economy and making excuses for these House Republicans playing hostage with raising the debt ceiling even as he admits he’s not quite sure if they’re insane enough to wreck our economy on purpose. David Gergen can always be counted on for some right-wing turd polishing and for helping to move that Overton window to the right. We need to be having some honest discussions about how to get our economy back on track and Americans back to work, but in our corporate media those discussions never include fixing our trade laws or not rewarding companies for shipping jobs overseas and instead we’re being told that these politicians are somehow “principled” because they believe in myths and trickle-down economics. Sorry Gergen but I think it’s perfectly fair to villainize them when they’re doing things that harm Americans and our economy and doing them on purpose. VELSHI: David, you have been in the White House. You understand how people think. Why are some people so concerned, particularly those who are concerned with scoring political points — why is it this fealty to lower taxes overtaking the idea that this actually could have broader and more devastating effect, to not raise this credit limit? GERGEN: Well, I think, ultimately, the Republicans — at least I hope — will agree to go and lift the debt ceiling. Certainly, Speaker McConnell (SIC) has agreed to that. Certainly — I mean, Speaker Boehner has certainly. Mitch McConnell has over on the Senate side. But there is a strong sentiment among Republicans that the cuts that are on the table now are illusory, that there are some gimmicks in there, that just as we saw at the end of last year, we had this announcement about great, big budget cuts — when you really broke it right down, it didn’t turn out to be very much. VELSHI: Right. GERGEN: You remember that. Turned out to be peanuts. There’s a strong feeling that what they’re being asked to do is to agree to cuts that are not actually — that are actually quite modest, and then increase taxes, and in effect, to pay for the welfare state, a bloated welfare state. And they would like to shrink the size of the welfare state. This is ultimately a conversation, a debate, a debate, you know, a food fight over how big the American government should be. And you know, that’s why they’re not — that’s why they’re not doing it. But I — the question becomes — I cannot believe, at the end of the day, House Republicans will be so recalcitrant that they’ll take us into default. It just — I — I — that would be so much beyond what I think we’ve ever experienced, Ali, knowing we’re on the edge of Niagara Falls, knowing we’re on the edge of a precipice, I can’t believe they’ll take us over. VELSHI: You would think so and you would hope so. I don’t know. VELSHI: David, Grover Norquist is remarkably committed to what he’s talking about. But he — there is a problem here. There’s an underlying problem that politicians in America cannot do something that risks their seat because their voters won’t let them. And pledges like this contribute to a great deal of inflexibility in Washington. GERGEN: Well, Ali, listen, let me put my cards on the table. And Grover knows this. I have supported the Simpson-Bowles plan all along. I do believe that taxes need to go up as part of an effort — overall effort to get the deficits under control. But you know, in fairness, you know, Grover does have a point. And Simpson-Bowles itself said — it wasn’t one-to-one, a tax increase versus $1 in spending cuts, it was two-to-one in spending cuts versus tax increases. The Simpson-Bowles commission recognized that the — more central than taxes is the question of how much we’re now spending. We’ve taken the level of spending in this country from about 20 percent of GDP at the federal level up, as you well know, to 24 to 25 percent over the last two years, another year in sight for 25 percent. And what Republicans are saying is you got to sweat that down. And I believe that taxes ought to go up as part of this package, but I think it’s unfair to villainize the Republicans when, in fact, there is a very real possibility that the Senate will present a plan which will have $1 trillion to $1.5 trillion dollars in cuts and no tax increases, and that’s what the president is ultimately going to accept, and that may be where we come out at the end of the day. VELSHI: The problem — GERGEN: I just — I think — VELSHI: The issue is more political, David. GERGEN: I think to say that default versus tax increases is — is — it misstates the problem somewhat. VELSHI: Yes, well, I’m not sure why the two are in the same discussion. I would have really preferred that they deal with the debt ceiling, and they deal with spending and taxing entirely separately. But we’re not in that position, David. The reality is, in part because of people like Grover Norquist, we’re not in that position. A lot of people who otherwise would vote for an increase in the debt ceiling can’t do so because they are not in a position to compromise. GERGEN: Well, yes and no. I — it comes back, Ali, to what people fundamentally believe is the problem. And Republicans fundamentally believe that this underlying problem is we’ve allowed spending to go higher and higher, and they don’t want to raise taxes to pay for that. They would rather see it shrink down. The Democrats — I — you know, who — and I’m not trying to villainize Democrats, either. I think that they come from a very sincere place of really wanting to provide a stronger social safety net. They want to provide, you know, far more services to the country. And they believe that the rich ought to pay a lot more to get there to — to get there. VELSHI: Diane Swonk, is there any way to reduce our debt, to get into a situation where our deficits are not as big in a meaningful way to the tune of $2.4 trillion that we’re talking about without increasing some taxes? SWONK: Oh, there’s a way to do it. It’s whether or not that’s really going to be politically acceptable to the American public. The kind of pain that that would induce — and I agree completely with David on this one. The kind of pain that that would induce is not something that we’re really ready to swallow. There’s a balance in this country between spending and tax cuts. And it is more. We do need to cut spending more than raise taxes. VELSHI: David Gergen, thanks very much. David Gergen is CNN’s senior political analyst. Diane Swonk is a chief economist with Mesirow Financial.
Continue reading …NPR, Enjoying Murdoch ‘Crumbling,’ Finds British Pundit Blaming…Campaign Finance Reform?
July 17, 2011 No CommentNPR is clearly relishing the Murdoch newspapers scandal in Britain. Its Weekend Edition headline on Saturday was “News Corp. Dynasty Crumbles From the Top Down.” Anchor Scott Simon interviewed Financial Times columnist Clive Crook and asked if the scandal will cause sell-offs: “How big a dent that they represent in his holdings and his influence?…Can you foresee them having to make incisions in their holdings?” Just say it: What will happen to Fox News? Crook said it was quite a “catalog of disasters” with closing down News of the World and now accepting resignations from top News Corp./NOTW executives like Les Hinton and Rebekah Brooks. But he also said the really tight relationship in Britain between politicians and the newspapers came about because…Britain has “largely succeeded in getting money out of politics.” It dramatically increased media power. No wonder the liberal media favors it: CROOK: Yeah, the political influence thing is very interesting. An important aspect of this story in Britain is the close relationship between the newspaper business, Rupert Murdoch's business, and leading politicians – not just the Tories though, the current prime minister is very embarrassed by this. But Labour is just the same, all the parties are just the same. They have to get on with the newspapers. And why is that? I think it's interesting that they have to because Britain has largely succeeded in getting money out of politics, something many Americans would like to do here. The consequence of doing that is that the newspapers become incredibly important and you have to have them in your pocket if you're going to do well.
Continue reading …
Israelis complain they are being forced to move to the suburbs as the prime minister promises to look into the rent crisis Dozens of protest tents have been erected in Tel Aviv, with plans for further encampments in other Israeli towns and cities. But the nascent protest movement is not about democracy or dictators – but house prices. In an echo of the tactics of pro-democracy protesters in the region, students and young workers in Israel’s main city have pledged to remain in the protest tents until action has been taken to address the issue of high housing costs. Hundreds of supporters joined the core of tent-dwellers in Rothschild Avenue, one of the city’s most prosperous streets, over the weekend. The National Students’ Union, which joined the protest after it began, said it would pitch further protest camps in universities and colleges around the country. Protesters told the Israeli media that rents were too high and that the cost of buying homes was prohibitive. “I work as a waitress and study, I receive regular help from my parents, and I’m still overdrawn at the bank,” 26-year-old student Lior Birger told Yedioth Ahranoth. Her rent was 2,300 shekels (£416) a month. Nir Ginosar, 35, said he, his wife and child were forced to leave Tel Aviv for cheaper housing in the suburbs. “Both I and my wife work and earn a decent living, but without help from our parents we’ll never get to buy a home. Our struggle is for working folks who simply can’t make ends meet.” The Israeli prime minister, Binyamin Netanyahu, promised Sunday’s cabinet meeting that the government would address the protesters’ concerns. “I am aware of the rent crisis,” he said. “I am certainly aware of the housing crisis … We are a small country. We have a very large demand for apartments, both for purchase and for rental, and there are not enough apartments.” He said the government would tackle the “insane bureaucracies” that were to blame for the dearth of new construction. Demand for housing is high in Tel Aviv, Jerusalem and other main cities where most employment is concentrated. The shortage of property is exacerbated by a large number of homes owned by American and European Jews who visit Israel two or three times a year. In some areas, the burgeoning ultra-orthodox community has added to the pressure on housing stock. Ultra-orthodox families are large; having eight or nine children is not uncommon. The Israeli authorities say there is plenty of available housing outside the main cities, and financial incentives are offered to those willing to relocate. Housing minister Ariel Attias told Ma’ariv newspaper: “These people sitting in tents here in Tel Aviv don’t want to live in the periphery. The fact of the matter is that there is only a shortage in areas of high demand. Another fact is that there are plenty of apartments available at much lower prices [outside Tel Aviv]. The world does not begin and end in Tel Aviv.” The city authorities said they would permit the protest tents to remain as long as demonstrators maintained public order. Israel Protest House prices Binyamin Netanyahu Middle East Harriet Sherwood guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …The Very Serious People Still Want That Grand Bargain And Don’t Care What It Does To The Economy — Or Us
July 17, 2011 No Comment
enlarge Let’s tell the emperor he has no clothes: Cutting spending during a prolonged recession is about as likely to reduce the long-term deficit as rubbing your lucky rabbit’s foot. This is disaster capitalism, plain and simple: Even as President Obama and congressional leaders focus on a fallback plan to lift the nation’s debt ceiling, top Democrats and Republicans have begun to map a new way to craft the same sort of ambitious deficit-cutting plan they abandoned last week. As part of the deal being discussed to raise the debt ceiling, leaders on Capitol Hill are forming an especially powerful congressional committee that would be charged with drawing up a new “grand bargain,” possibly by the end of the year. Key elements for a big deal remain in place. Obama has been clear that he wants one and has started making the case to skeptical factions of his own party that getting the nation’s fiscal house in order is in their best interest. House Speaker John A. Boehner (R-Ohio) also remains committed to an ambitious plan, having told his troops that he didn’t become speaker to do small things. And, perhaps most critically, the markets are demanding it. The credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s says Washington must agree to reduce the debt by $4 trillion over 10 years to avert a downgrade. “We cannot as a country fail to deal with the debt threat,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.), one of the bipartisan “Gang of Six” senators who tried to reach an agreement in recent months. “Every serious economic analysis tells us we’ve reached the danger zone . And just kicking the can down the road? That can’t be. We’re better than that. We’ve got to be better than that.” Kent Conrad is out-and-out lying. The vast majority of reputable economists say cutting spending during a deep and prolonged recession is a really bad idea. That’s why Paul Krugman (you remember him – a Nobel Prize-winning economist, has a beard…) is incredibly frustrated at the craziness. He writes: As Brad DeLong argues , there’s a very good case to be made that we’re currently living under conditions in which fiscal contraction actually worsens the long-run deficit . Why? The argument runs like this: 1. Fiscal contraction reduces output in the short run; this immediately means that part of the initial gain in terms of a lower deficit is offset by reduced revenue and higher safety-net spending . These effects are especially large when you’re in a liquidity trap, so monetary policy can’t fight the fiscal contraction. 2. Reductions in short-run output and employment take a toll on long-run growth, too: capital investment is depressed, workers lose their skills, and so on. This in turn reduces future revenues . 3. Meanwhile, with real interest rates very low — actually negative on 5-year bonds — the cost of borrowing now in terms of future debt burden is also very low. So there is no plausible argument on behalf of the claim that fiscal contraction expands output; there is, on the other hand, a very plausible argument to the effect that fiscal contraction doesn’t even help the fiscal situation . So guess which perversity is considered a suitable position for Serious People, and which isn’t?
Continue reading …You know what a true insult from comedian Don Rickles would be? It would be if you appeared on a stage with Rickles and did NOT receive an “insult” from the “Merchant of Venom.” However, many media websites seem to be unaware of Rickles' stock in trade. They are crowing over the fact that they believe Don Rickles delivered serious insults to Bristol and Sarah Palin during a visit of the latter to the Tonight Show where the comedian was one of the guests. As you can see in this video (and below the fold), Rickles “insults” were relatively mild compared to the zingers he directed towards President Ronald Reagan on stage during his second inauguration in 1985. And the reaction from The Gipper was sheer laughter at the “insults.” Yet here we have such sites as Raw Story and andPOP taking the Rickles insults as if they were some sort of serious political commentary.
Continue reading …
Met police say 43-year-old woman, believed to be Rebekah Brooks, was arrested by appointment at a London police station Rebekah Brooks has been arrested by police investigating allegations of phone hacking by the News of the World and allegations that police officers were bribed to leak sensitive information. The Metropolitan police said a 43-year-old woman was arrested at noon on Sunday, by appointment at a London police station. Brooks, 43, resigned on Friday as News International’s chief executive. She is a former News of the World editor and was close to Rupert Murdoch and the prime minister, David Cameron. Brooks was due to give evidence before MPs on the culture select committee on Tuesday. An arrest by appointment on a Sunday by police is unusual. In a statement the Met said: “The MPS [Metropolitan police service] has this afternoon, Sunday 17 July, arrested a female in connection with allegations of corruption and phone hacking. “At approximately 12.00 a 43-year-old woman was arrested by appointment at a London police station by officers from Operation Weeting [phone hacking investigation] together with officers from Operation Elveden [bribing of police officers investigation]. She is currently in custody. “She was arrested on suspicion of conspiring to intercept communications, contrary to Section1(1) Criminal Law Act 1977 and on suspicion of corruption allegations contrary to Section 1 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1906. “The Operation Weeting team is conducting the new investigation into phone hacking. “Operation Elveden is the investigation into allegations of inappropriate payments to police. This investigation is being supervised by the Independent Police Complaints Commission. “It would be inappropriate to discuss any further details regarding these cases at this time.” Rebekah Brooks Phone hacking Police News of the World News International Newspapers & magazines National newspapers Newspapers Vikram Dodd guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …
• Email scott.murray@guardian.co.uk for HOT GOLF CHAT • Marvel at Paul Lawrie’s hole-by-hole guide to Sandwich • Click here for the official Open 2011 leaderboard • Acquaint yourself with The Joy of Six: Open nightmares • Purchase, for pennies, the tale of the Open’s most useless hero 1.15pm: Sergio’s roll continues! He birdies 7 after sending a beautiful second shot pin high to 20 feet. His eagle effort is wonderful, but stops two blades of grass short on the right-hand lip. He tickles it in for birdie; he’s level par for the tournament! But dreadful luck for his playing partner Rory McIlroy, who addresses his ball to hit his birdie effort, only for it to be moved six inches by the wind. Because he’d grounded his putter, that’s a one-stroke penalty. He misses what becomes a par putt, and walks off the green with a six, sporting a wry grin. 1.05pm: It’s been another distressing day for the young Korean player Jung-Gon Hwang. The 19-year-old prospect was three shots off the lead after the first round, having shot a 68, and was still in the thick of it on +2 after day two. But he suffered in the storms yesterday, shooting an 83, and today experienced further sensations of unhappiness and tumult, carding four double bogeys – three of them on the bounce over the front nine – on his way to a nine-over 79. He’s finished the tournament in last place, needless to say, a whopping +24. Small mercies, though: he hasn’t shot the worst round of the day. At the moment, the American Harrison Frazar holds that unwanted record, having carded an 80. England’s Kenneth Ferrie and Sweden’s Henrik Stenson could equal that or do even worse: they’re respectively +10 and +9 for the day, after 16 and 15 holes. 1pm leaderboard: +1 Garcia (6) Selected other scores: -5 Clarke (2.10pm) -4 Johnson (2.10pm) -2 Fowler (2pm) Bjorn (2pm) -1 Jimenez (1.50pm) Glover (1.50pm) Par Kim (1.40pm) Mickelson (1.40pm) Hansen (1.30pm) Coetzee (1.30pm) Love III (1.20pm) Kaymer (1.20pm) 12.57pm: Garcia keeps the momentum going by knocking in his par putt! Brilliant! He’s -3 through 6, and +1 for the tournament, with the very inviting par-five 7th coming up. 12.55pm: Brilliance from Garcia, who spashes out from that deep bunker, right across the green to six feet. He’s got a chance to save par, though you can’t trust him with that putter. Meanwhile here’s what I’ll be watching on repeat once this is all over. “I don’t know if you’ve mentioned the Golf Boys Making of… video,” writes Gary ‘Monty’ Naylor, “but it’s very Spinal Tap.” “This would maybe work for you. Give you the image of hair.” 12.50pm: A huge par putt on 8 keeps Tom Lewis at +3. He’s been wonderful this week, and not just because of that opening-day 65 either. Meanwhile on 6, it begins: Sergio overhits a fade with his tee shot and plops his ball into a deep greenside bunker. A moment of genius is required here, because he’s got no room for error, having started nine shots off the lead. BAH, basically. 12.45pm: It’s now raining at Sandwich. Nothing tempestuous, just a good honest shower. On 5, Garcia taps in his short birdie putt, and he’s now only +1, six off the lead! Keep it up, Sergio, please. Please. He won’t keep it up, will he? I’m not falling into this trap again. 12.40pm: The wind is really getting up at Royal St George’s, so much so that balls have been gently oscillating on the greens. It’s not stopping Tom Watson, though, who is this close to rolling in a 25-footer for birdie on 3. Meanwhile SERGIO NEWS: on 5, he nearly holes his second, a short wedge that rolls an inch past the cup on the left and rests 18 inches away. He couldn’t, could he? Please. This is going to really annoy me when the wheels come off, as they surely will. “I’m going for Kaymer on penalties – sorry, in a play-off,” writes Gary Naylor, dipping into his Big Tome of Cheap But Amusing National Stereotypes (Guardian Books, 1986) . “And less of Monty being old – he’s younger than me!” And yet still way past his peak, Naylor, not as good as he used to be. But don’t feel too bad about it; at least you’re still making a small contribution to this year’s Open. 12.35pm: The amateur hero of the week, Tom Lewis, has just rolled a 50-foot eagle effort home on 7. He’s now -3, and four strokes ahead of his rival for the silver medal, the US amateur Peter Uihlein. Some more admin before we continue. This is the leaderboard as it stood at the end of the third round, and as it stands now. -5 Clarke (2.10pm) -4 Johnson (2.10pm) -2 Fowler (2pm) Bjorn (2pm) -1 Jimenez (1.50pm) Glover (1.50pm) Par Kim (1.40pm) Mickelson (1.40pm) Hansen (1.30pm) Coetzee (1.30pm) Love III (1.20pm) Kaymer (1.20pm) 12.30pm: A birdie for the Masters champion Charl Schwartzel on the 1st. Meanwhile SERGIO HAS JUST DRAINED AN 80-FOOTER FOR BIRDIE ON 3. A huge left-to-right break, judged perfectly! Good lord. He punches the air with his fist. The putt of the week? Along with Clarke’s eagle effort on 7 on Friday, yes. He’s +2 now, and on the move! Let me reiterate, because I’ll probably never have the chance to write this again: Sergio Garcia has just hit the putt of the week. McIlroy double bogeys the hole to drop back to +5, but let’s not take the wind out of our own sails here. 12.20pm: And we begin with early moves we like: Rory and Sergio have both birdied the 2nd to move to +3. “Am I correct in understanding that the planets aligned to give us Sergio and Rory paired up on the last day of The Open?” begins the extremely correct Ed Ed. “What’s the largest deficit ever made up to win an Open? If it’s fewer than 9 strokes, get ready for a run at a new record. Oh oh oh…..don’t know how I’ll be able to sit still through the front nine.” Paul Lawrie was ten shots behind Jean van de Velde going into the final day of the 1999 Open at Carnoustie. So in theory it’s on. You’d have to say they’re too far back, but let’s not be ruling anything out just yet. Right. Here we go… The weather: Blustery. Anything could happen, basically. I could have saved myself a lot of time and just posted that. Problem is, of course, there are some damn fine young golfers battling him for the prize. Clarke’s leading the field on -5, but the excellent if fragile Dustin Johnson is only one shot behind him at -4. Tucked in behind the leading duo, alongside Bjorn at -2, is the brilliant Rickie Fowler. Martin Kaymer, with one major already to his name, might have got his bad round out of the way yesterday, and is lurking on level par, alongside Anthony Kim, who has yet to deliver on his immense promise but has been quietly efficient all week. And then there’s Brian Wilson Lucas Glover, George Coetzee, Anders Hansen, Adam Scott, Zach Johnson, Chad Campbell… Or perhaps this is finally the moment for Thomas Bjorn, who threw away the 2003 Open here at Sandwich in a bunker at the 16th. Or is it the day of destiny for Cohiba-sucking horizontal Spaniard Miguel Angel Jimenez? Or – let’s not get too Eurocentric about this – perhaps the immensely likeable Phil Mickelson will finally put one of his trademark last-day charges together at a tournament he rarely features heavily in. Davis Love III? Tom Lehman? Tom Watson? A story, please. Give us a story. For the love of the golfing Gods, will one of you old buggers go out there and win it for us? “You know, maybe we’re just not good enough people to have a story this good happen to us.” So said legendary Sports Illustrated writer Dan Jenkins in the immediate aftermath of Tom Watson’s heartbreaking failure to win the 2009 Open at Turnberry as a 59 year old. Well, I hope you’ve all been well-behaved little girls and boys since then. Because Watson’s heroic near miss was the third in a triptych of toks to the teeth, following Colin Montgomerie’s fruitless pursuit of Tiger Woods at St Andrews in 2005 and Greg Norman’s brave attempts at Birkdale in 2008. We’re due one. Darren Clarke, 42 years old and full of steak and fine wines, step forward because this could be your time. The Open 2011 Golf The Open Scott Murray guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …