DramatistDreamer

It's not just Monfils actually. He also couldn't come to an agreement with Simon in how Simon disagreed with how Noah would seemingly call players at the last minute. Two players who have had the most success against Cilic, in particular, turn out to be the ones that Noah couldn't work with. Go figure! Two players who'd always stepped in previously in Davis Cup. Noah had favorites and it wasn't either of these two. Apparently you didn't read Noah's latest interview where he pleads that his biggest regret was his failure with Monfils. He takes very little ownership of the situation

Croatia fielded their best team, which is what a team captain does when they want a win, while France did not. With his current ranking, there's no way that Tsonga should've been on that team while Monfils and Simon (two players who have repeatedly beaten Cilic, Monfils never having lost to Cilic or Coric) were left off the team. Lucas Pouille, who clinched the tie for France last year, was thrown in at the last minute after not even being named to the team. France/Noah was simply messy. At least he's stepping down, which a good thing. Although with the future of Davis Cup being so uncertain, I don't know what any of this is leading into. Nevertheless, congratulations to the Croatian Davis Cup team for winning the last Davis Cup as we know it, lol.

Who didn't know that the NRA's "good guy with a gun" sentiment would be thrown to the winds once the good guy was black?

lmao, Politico continuing to shave off what little is left of their integrity with a who cares? poll.

Overlooking the fact that this is a NYT article, the workarounds that Columbia sportswear employees to circumnavigate trade tariffs is a perfect illustration of why Trump's ad hoc tariff 'policy' (if you can call it that) is likely to flop at it's main goal-- to try to force companies to repatriate jobs back to the U.S. A Winter-Coat Heavyweight Gives Trump’s Trade War the Cold Shoulder

I read somewhere that Gimelstob's production company produces the ATP Tour Uncovered show.

Here's more tidbits on that PR firm (a.k.a. opposition research firm) Definers. Their Tim Cook for president campaign seems simply outrageous.

From what I've read/heard, the finger-pointing at Facebook has begun in earnest.

I'm not a fan of how Krajan has been known to treat the players in the WTA that he coached previously. I have my suspicions about his time coaching Dinara Safina. Speaking of folks who creep me out. WTF is this? I don't know much about Gimelstob's personal life but this has to be a new low!

I'm not a Facebook member but based on what I read from that NYT article last week, this sounds like confirmation of their horrible deeds.

Trump, in his ridiculous statement about the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, feels compelled to mention, not once but twice that he doesn't take Saudi money. "I don't make deals with Saudi Arabia" (remember how he repeatedly chants "No collusion" with Russia?) Also, "I don't have money from Saudi Arabia". Yeah, that's convincing.

Eeh, any article that cites the New York Post as a primary source though...The Post is more of a tabloid to me. It doesn't mean that what they report isn't often true but they definitely give me pause because they tend to rely a lot on gossip and hearsay. I admit that seeing The NY Post highlighted in red stopped me in my tracks.

Geez, it never ends.

The thing is, that there are rivals and factions that don't get along even within the KSA. Al Qaeda, right from the start was a pan Islamist militant organization, meaning they draw extremists from all over the Islamic world, not just Saudis. Bin Laden himself was ethnically Yemeni and Syrian. Bin Laden fought alongside the Pakistani mujahideen in the '80s against the Soviets. (which might be why he felt so comfortable retreating to Pakistan in the wake of the 9-11 attacks) There was some support for Al Qaeda within KSA, many from Wahabis who ostensibly hated the royal governing family. To calm them, the ruling royal families allowed the Wahabis to carve out their own sphere of influence within the kingdom, which many believed the governing families within KSA would later regret as it pulled the kingdom further toward Wahabism and an extremely conservative form of Islam, which the jet-setting, conspicuous consuming Saudi royals did not care for. Ironically, MbS seemed to be pulling KSA away from those more conservative aspects which were rooted in Wahabism, which is why MbS initially had so much support, particularly from Western countries and KSA's youth (which he may still have support from, tbh). We should never forget that Al Qaeda attacked and bombed other countries years before they attacked the U.S. Al Qaeda killed hundreds, thousands of people, mostly Muslims before they attacked the U.S. Bin Laden was already on the Most Wanted Lists for Terrorists, years before September11th, 2001. I'm not really sure where the theories of collusion between the Saudi government and Bin Laden stem from as I'm not familiar with those theories but I do remember that in Bin Laden's manifesto (written years after the attack), he claimed that Al Qaeda's motives for the attacks were a reaction against the U.S. having troops stationed in KSA, where the U.S. used Saudi airfields and airspace, as well as sanctions against Iraq. The bitterly cruel irony is that, of course, Al Qaeda would ultimately use airplanes as weapons of destruction. In short, we know that there are individuals who have been highly supportive of terrorist organizations and some of them are in KSA, as well as the UAE but from what I've read and saw in documentaries, Bin Laden, in particular had a distaste for the Saudi royal family and the feelings were mutual.

Unfortunately many people were fooled by the contrived statements about WMDs that were never proven to exist. Also, the U.S. never understood how complex ethnic and religious rivalries were, which was one of the reasons why Iraq was such an unmitigated disaster. Once upon a time, the U.S. had use for Saddam Hussein (under Reagan...again) until they didn't. He was every bit as much of a despot back then but back then, he was a useful despot. Sometimes I wonder, personally if Al Qaeda was timing it specifically for an American presidential administration that was prone to war-mongering like a G.W. Bush administration. Would bin Laden have tried this during an Al Gore presidency? He didn't do this during the Clinton years.

Bush's issues in Iraq from what I've read, had more to do with Saddam Hussein and 'finishing the job that his father George H.W. didn't complete'. bin Laden, on the other hand had already been expelled by the Saudis, no? While Reagan and the U.S. military trained bin Laden and the mujahideen against the Soviets (skills that would boomerang back on Sept 11th). I doubt that the Saudis needed U.S. protection on that matter since Bin Laden was far from KSA in the caves of Afghanistan. Kuwait, Iraq's vulnerable neighbor, was another matter. Sometimes U.S. and Saudi oil industries collaborate (oil production, strategically driving down oil prices) and sometimes they are at cross-purposes (e.g. Trump administration granting waivers enabling businesses to buy from mutual enemy Iran, for seemingly political purposes). I haven't done much reading/research into Halliburton and oil, but Halliburton profited handsomely in Iraq by catering to the U.S. military in the theaters of war (catering, supplies, etc.) The war in Iraq itself was highly profitable whereas the war in Afghanistan (where bin Laden was thought to be hiding for a decade), was not. Trump's vested interest in KSA is likely to be much the same as the other autocratic countries he does business with.

I thought that the administration of Bush Jr. was one of, it not the most destructive presidencies in my lifetime (I can only speak for myself) but one tangible difference between the two is that Trump likely has personal business with the Saudis. Dick Cheney might have had business with KSA through his contracting firm Halliburton and though, he may have been the 'unseen hand' behind the president, he didn't hold the actual title. Trump, who is the current occupant of the title has business with the Saudis through Trump Inc. One of the reasons why I hope Rep. Maxine Waters demands and digs through those tax returns, is that there may be some irrefutable proof of Trump's conflicts of interest-- then again, he may have figured out a way to obscure the evidence by January '19.

It's well known that the U.S/KSA (oil) alliance has been in effect for several decades through various presidential administration in both political parties but KSA/MbS and Trump Inc. seem to be especially connected to each other. And the Trump administration is in the intrigue up to their necks.

Yesterday, I very nearly posted a tweet by Maggie Haberman where she was trying to amplify that very same concept by retweeting some ridiculous opinion piece from Slate. Why do these people only lecture Democrats and/or liberals to shrink from using language that is direct and bracing, while merely mentioning the abrasive, often insulting tones of Republican/Trumpists in the most matter-of-fact tone possible? Why no lecture for the Trumpists? I thought better of posting anything that Haberman tweets because by now, we all know what she's all about and frankly, I'm tired of her 'access journalism'.

Someone posted several videos from The Price Is Right from 1983 when the show did a salute to CBS daytime dramas by featuring actors from the network's soaps. This episode featured "Steve" and "Betsy" introducing prizes during the Showcase Showdown. They come on at around the 52nd minute.