Spoke Too Soon - Manny Ramirez Delt To Dodgers


I underestimated the Red Sox. I thought they would try hard for a 3-way deal to get rid of Manny, see it fail, and then tell the disgruntled outfielder that they 'really tried...sorry, Manny.' But no, they had a beautiful backup plan. Instead of a 3-way deal between Boston, Miami, and Pittsburgh, we have a 3-way deal between Boston, Los Angeles, and Pittsburgh.

Boston sends Manny Ramirez to LA after paying the $7 Million reamining on his final year. The Dodgers send 2 minor league prospects to the Pirates. The Red Sox send backup outfielder Brandon Moss and reliever Crag Hansen to the Pirates. And the Pirates send 30 year-old outfielder Jason Bay to the Sox to replace Manny.

So Manny will be playing for Joe Torre. Serves him right. If you bad-mouth the team that loves you, cuts you slack, protects your privacy, and pays your salary, then you don't deserve to play in Boston. Manny and Nomar can hang together while the Dodgers clearly have paid too much for a 2-month rental. Thanks, LA. You've been really kind to us Bostonians this year.

Manny Ramirez is a future hall of famer. I really wanted to see him finish his career with Boston. But his two MLBCS rings and series MVP will assure that he enters the Hall of Fame with a B on his plaque. I will also miss him because he was from the hood next door to me - Washington Heights. His Indians jersey and photographs hang on the wall of Coogans. He's one of us New Yorkers. We will always be proud of him.

"That damned spotted owl. It haunts us to this day."


Thanks to Sadly, No! and their commentator, J--, for pointing this out.

The Office of Professional Conduct (OPC) has published its final report on the interviewing techniques of Monica Goodling during her tenure at the US Department of Justice.

It is worth a read because it is full of scathing evidence and a conclusion that cannot possibly be misread:


[Page 125] The evidence demonstrated that Goodling violated Department policy and federal law, and committed misconduct, by considering political or ideological affiliations in the appointment of IJs and BIA members. Goodling admitted in her congressional testimony that she “took political considerations into account” in IJ and BIA hiring. She stated that Sampson had told her that IJ hiring was not subject to civil service laws, and that she “assumed” those laws did not apply to BIA member hiring. The evidence showed that she used political considerations in assessing candidates for both IJ and BIA positions.

That's an important distinction. It means that Monica Goodling asked the same political screening questions of both political appointees (which is legal) and DOJ candidates for employment (which is not). Many of the candidates for career positions screened by Goodling included IJ applicants - Immigration Judges. Ms. Goodling was not a decision maker in the hiring process. But she was a key interviewer, and made recommendations on who to hire and who to reject. You might think that the political screening questions would be subtle. But thankfully, they were quite blunt. Take a look at this key excerpt from pages 17-19 (emphasis mine):

As White House Liaison, Goodling’s primary responsibility was to screen candidates for political positions. Based on our witness interviews and review of documents, and the results of our survey, we found that most of the people Goodling screened or interviewed had applied for political positions. However, Goodling also assessed candidates for various types of career positions, including candidates for AUSA positions requested by interim U.S. Attorneys, career attorneys applying for details to Department offices, and candidates for IJ and BIA positions. We also found that Goodling interviewed many candidates who were interested in obtaining any position in the Department, whether career or political.

Our investigation demonstrated that Goodling sometimes used for career applicants the same political screening techniques she employed in considering applicants for political positions. In addition, she used for candidates who were interested in any position, whether career or political, the same political screening she used for applicants who applied solely for political positions, and some of these candidates were placed in career positions.

In the sections that follow, we describe the process Goodling used as White House Liaison to screen candidates for political positions within the Department. We note where applicable the evidence that she used similar techniques in assessing candidates for career positions. As detailed in this chapter, Goodling used a variety of methods to screen candidates, including interview questions, Internet searches, employment forms, and reference checks.

I. Interview Questions

According to witnesses we interviewed and documents we reviewed, Goodling regularly asked interview questions designed to determine how politically conservative the candidates were. We interviewed Angela Williamson, who was the Department’s Deputy White House Liaison and reported to Goodling during most of Goodling’s tenure as White House Liaison. Williamson attended numerous interviews conducted by Goodling and told us that Goodling asked the same questions “all the time” and tried to ask the same questions of all candidates. Williamson said she became so familiar with the questions, Goodling occasionally allowed her to conduct portions of interviews or entire interviews on her own.

After Goodling resigned, Williamson typed from memory the list of questions Goodling asked as a guide for future interviews. Among other questions, the list included the following:

  • Tell us about your political philosophy. There are different
    groups of conservatives, by way of example: Social
    Conservative, Fiscal Conservative, Law & Order Republican.

  • [W]hat is it about George W. Bush that makes you want to
    serve him?

  • Aside from the President, give us an example of someone
    currently or recently in public service who you admire.
  • We found that this last question often took the form of asking the candidate to identify his or her most admired President, Supreme Court Justice, or legislator. Some candidates were asked to identify a person for all three categories. Williamson told us that sometimes Goodling asked candidates: “Why are you a Republican?”

    Several candidates interviewed by Goodling told us they believed that her question about identifying their favorite Supreme Court Justice, President, or legislator was an attempt to determine the candidates’ political beliefs. For example, one candidate reported that after he stated he admired Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Goodling “frowned” and commented, “but she’s pro-choice.” Another candidate commented that when Goodling asked him to name his favorite judge, it seemed to him that she was trying to “get at my political views.”

    Williamson said that she and Goodling took notes during candidate interviews, which were maintained in folders for the candidates. We also found that many of Goodling’s and Williamson’s interview notes reflected that the topics of abortion and gay marriage were discussed during interviews. It appeared that these topics were discussed as a result of the question seeking information about how the applicant would characterize the type of conservative they were. We received information from our survey that 34 persons interviewed by Goodling or Williamson said they discussed abortion, and 21 said they discussed gay marriage.


    And how did Goodling research candidates and filter out the suspected liberals from the 'good Bushies'? She used the most powerful media search tool on the planet - Lexis/Nexis. Any candidate who went near specific topics in print or online news media would presumably be disqualified. Another key excerpt:

    We found that Goodling’s Internet research on candidates for Department positions was extensive and designed to obtain their political and ideological affiliations. We determined that while working in the OAG, Goodling conducted computer searches on candidates for career as well as political Department positions. Goodling used an Internet search string in her hiring research that she had received from Jan Williams, her predecessor as the Department’s White House Liaison. At some time during the year Williams served as White House Liaison, she had attended a seminar at the White House Office of Presidential Personnel and received a document entitled “The Thorough Process of Investigation.”

    The document described methods for screening candidates for political positions and recommended using www.tray.com and www.opensecrets.org to find information about contributions to political candidates and parties. The document also explained how to find voter registration information. In addition, the document explained how to conduct searches on www.nexis.com, and included an example of a search string that contained political terms such as “republican,” “Bush or Cheney,” “Karl Rove,” “Howard Dean,” “democrat!,” “liberal,” “abortion or pro-choice,” as well as generic terms such as “arrest!” and “bankrupt!”

    When Williams left the Department in April 2006, she sent an email to Goodling containing an Internet search string and explained: “This is the lexis nexis search string that I use for AG appointments.”

    The string reads as follows:

    [First name of a candidate]! and pre/2 [last name of a candidate] w/7 bush or gore or republican! or democrat! or charg! or accus! or criticiz! or blam! or defend! or iran contra or clinton or spotted owl or florida recount or sex! or controvers! or racis! or fraud! or investigat! or bankrupt! or layoff! or downsiz! or PNTR or NAFTA or outsourc! or indict! or enron or kerry or iraq or wmd! or arrest! or intox! or fired or sex! or racis! or intox! or slur! or arrest! or fired or controvers! or abortion! or gay! or homosexual! or gun! or firearm!

    In addition, Williams provided to Goodling the White House document described above entitled, “The Thorough Process of Investigation.”


    The Spotted Owl. The damned Spotted Owl. It haunts us to this day. Those Bushies know what we like. There is no escape from the Goodling Lexis/Nexis search string.

    Despiration At Camp McCain

    This is quite entertaining. The McCain campaign today released an attack ad calling Obama 'The World's Biggest Celebrity.' And what celebrities flash before our eyes in the ad? Brittney Spears and Paris Hilton. Here it is.

    Dudes! Those are the celebrities you are using in an attack ad? I guess it is meant to get the geezers all angry, since we all know that those two girls drive drunk, party too much, and don't respect their elders.

    But if your purpose is to paint Obama as an elitist, snobby celebrity, Britney and Paris don't come to mind. What you want to do is throw-in members of the Whole Foods, Starbucks, limousine liberal, big Hollywood set. And who is that? Have any of these kids in the McCain camp seen any of Soderbergh's Oceans 12 movies? Do they know that 2 of the 3 male leads in those movies are vocal Obama supporters? Do they know that the most powerful woman celebrity in America, Oprah Winfrey, has endorsed Obama? Do they know that Tom Hanks, Will Smith, Ed Norton, the Affleck brothers, and Morgan Freeman are on the Obamawagon? Want to attack liberal thinkers? How about Warren Buffet and Freakonomics author Steven D. Levitt?

    Wouldn't an educated viewer remember that Paris Hilton is apolitical, and that Britney Spears once said that she completely trusted George W. Bush? In fact, a closer examination reveals that Paris' grandfather, William B. Hilton, contributed thousands to the McCain campaign, and called the campaign to complain about the ad! Poor choices, indeed.

    And then it occurs to me. This ad is not for the college educated. It is for the rednecks in Virginia, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. They have no clue who is on the cover of Esquire or Vanity Fair this month, and neither do McCain's people.

    Time For McCain To Choose A Running Mate


    Former congressman and current Louisiana governor, Bobby Jindal. Like Dinesh O'Souza, he's a disgrace to Indian-Americans everywhere.

    John McCain has until August 7th to choose a running mate. If he waits until after the Olympics begin, he will lose a chance to make a strong impact with his choice. Once the Olympics begin, it will be Obama's turn to choose a running mate, and then quickly take his campaign to the DNC convention in Denver. The time for McCain's selection is during the next 13 days. If he blows this, it will be another missed opportunity for his campaign to score points.

    And the man at the top of his list of candidates is 36 year-old Louisiana governor Bobbby Jindal. Oh please choose him, senator. A young, homophobic, anti-evolution, anti-intellectual dipshit will do nothing to help him defeat Barack Obama. Meanwhile, Obama is seriously considering Joe Biden. He may be inconsistent, but he's an attack dog. And Obama needs an attack dog to bite some fools.

    While McCain Was In German Village, Columbus...

    ...Obama was making an eloquent speech in Berlin in front of an estimated 200,000 people. Speech transcript and video below.


    Delivering a speech in front of 200,000 non-Americans, on a sunny day in Berlin, shown worldwide in a narrow-aperture, cinematic HD shot...no sweat.


    Thank you to the citizens of Berlin and to the people of Germany. Let me thank Chancellor Merkel and Foreign Minister Steinmeier for welcoming me earlier today. Thank you Mayor Wowereit, the Berlin Senate, the police, and most of all thank you for this welcome.

    I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before. Tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for President, but as a citizen - a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world.

    I know that I don’t look like the Americans who’ve previously spoken in this great city. The journey that led me here is improbable. My mother was born in the heartland of America, but my father grew up herding goats in Kenya. His father - my grandfather - was a cook, a domestic servant to the British.

    At the height of the Cold War, my father decided, like so many others in the forgotten corners of the world, that his yearning - his dream - required the freedom and opportunity promised by the West. And so he wrote letter after letter to universities all across America until somebody, somewhere answered his prayer for a better life.

    That is why I’m here. And you are here because you too know that yearning. This city, of all cities, knows the dream of freedom. And you know that the only reason we stand here tonight is because men and women from both of our nations came together to work, and struggle, and sacrifice for that better life.

    Ours is a partnership that truly began sixty years ago this summer, on the day when the first American plane touched down at Templehof.

    On that day, much of this continent still lay in ruin. The rubble of this city had yet to be built into a wall. The Soviet shadow had swept across Eastern Europe, while in the West, America, Britain, and France took stock of their losses, and pondered how the world might be remade.

    This is where the two sides met. And on the twenty-fourth of June, 1948, the Communists chose to blockade the western part of the city. They cut off food and supplies to more than two million Germans in an effort to extinguish the last flame of freedom in Berlin.

    The size of our forces was no match for the much larger Soviet Army. And yet retreat would have allowed Communism to march across Europe. Where the last war had ended, another World War could have easily begun. All that stood in the way was Berlin.

    And that’s when the airlift began - when the largest and most unlikely rescue in history brought food and hope to the people of this city.

    The odds were stacked against success. In the winter, a heavy fog filled the sky above, and many planes were forced to turn back without dropping off the needed supplies. The streets where we stand were filled with hungry families who had no comfort from the cold.

    But in the darkest hours, the people of Berlin kept the flame of hope burning. The people of Berlin refused to give up. And on one fall day, hundreds of thousands of Berliners came here, to the Tiergarten, and heard the city’s mayor implore the world not to give up on freedom. “There is only one possibility,” he said. “For us to stand together united until this battle is won…The people of Berlin have spoken. We have done our duty, and we will keep on doing our duty. People of the world: now do your duty…People of the world, look at Berlin!”

    People of the world - look at Berlin!

    Look at Berlin, where Germans and Americans learned to work together and trust each other less than three years after facing each other on the field of battle.

    Look at Berlin, where the determination of a people met the generosity of the Marshall Plan and created a German miracle; where a victory over tyranny gave rise to NATO, the greatest alliance ever formed to defend our common security.

    Look at Berlin, where the bullet holes in the buildings and the somber stones and pillars near the Brandenburg Gate insist that we never forget our common humanity.

    People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.

    Sixty years after the airlift, we are called upon again. History has led us to a new crossroad, with new promise and new peril. When you, the German people, tore down that wall - a wall that divided East and West; freedom and tyranny; fear and hope - walls came tumbling down around the world. From Kiev to Cape Town, prison camps were closed, and the doors of democracy were opened. Markets opened too, and the spread of information and technology reduced barriers to opportunity and prosperity. While the 20th century taught us that we share a common destiny, the 21st has revealed a world more intertwined than at any time in human history.

    The fall of the Berlin Wall brought new hope. But that very closeness has given rise to new dangers - dangers that cannot be contained within the borders of a country or by the distance of an ocean.

    The terrorists of September 11th plotted in Hamburg and trained in Kandahar and Karachi before killing thousands from all over the globe on American soil.

    As we speak, cars in Boston and factories in Beijing are melting the ice caps in the Arctic, shrinking coastlines in the Atlantic, and bringing drought to farms from Kansas to Kenya.

    Poorly secured nuclear material in the former Soviet Union, or secrets from a scientist in Pakistan could help build a bomb that detonates in Paris. The poppies in Afghanistan become the heroin in Berlin. The poverty and violence in Somalia breeds the terror of tomorrow. The genocide in Darfur shames the conscience of us all.

    In this new world, such dangerous currents have swept along faster than our efforts to contain them. That is why we cannot afford to be divided. No one nation, no matter how large or powerful, can defeat such challenges alone. None of us can deny these threats, or escape responsibility in meeting them. Yet, in the absence of Soviet tanks and a terrible wall, it has become easy to forget this truth. And if we’re honest with each other, we know that sometimes, on both sides of the Atlantic, we have drifted apart, and forgotten our shared destiny.

    In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help make it right, has become all too common. In America, there are voices that deride and deny the importance of Europe’s role in our security and our future. Both views miss the truth - that Europeans today are bearing new burdens and taking more responsibility in critical parts of the world; and that just as American bases built in the last century still help to defend the security of this continent, so does our country still sacrifice greatly for freedom around the globe.

    Yes, there have been differences between America and Europe. No doubt, there will be differences in the future. But the burdens of global citizenship continue to bind us together. A change of leadership in Washington will not lift this burden. In this new century, Americans and Europeans alike will be required to do more - not less. Partnership and cooperation among nations is not a choice; it is the one way, the only way, to protect our common security and advance our common humanity.

    That is why the greatest danger of all is to allow new walls to divide us from one another.

    The walls between old allies on either side of the Atlantic cannot stand. The walls between the countries with the most and those with the least cannot stand. The walls between races and tribes; natives and immigrants; Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down.

    We know they have fallen before. After centuries of strife, the people of Europe have formed a Union of promise and prosperity. Here, at the base of a column built to mark victory in war, we meet in the center of a Europe at peace. Not only have walls come down in Berlin, but they have come down in Belfast, where Protestant and Catholic found a way to live together; in the Balkans, where our Atlantic alliance ended wars and brought savage war criminals to justice; and in South Africa, where the struggle of a courageous people defeated apartheid.

    So history reminds us that walls can be torn down. But the task is never easy. True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. They require sharing the burdens of development and diplomacy; of progress and peace. They require allies who will listen to each other, learn from each other and, most of all, trust each other.

    That is why America cannot turn inward. That is why Europe cannot turn inward. America has no better partner than Europe. Now is the time to build new bridges across the globe as strong as the one that bound us across the Atlantic. Now is the time to join together, through constant cooperation, strong institutions, shared sacrifice, and a global commitment to progress, to meet the challenges of the 21st century. It was this spirit that led airlift planes to appear in the sky above our heads, and people to assemble where we stand today. And this is the moment when our nations - and all nations - must summon that spirit anew.

    This is the moment when we must defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it. This threat is real and we cannot shrink from our responsibility to combat it. If we could create NATO to face down the Soviet Union, we can join in a new and global partnership to dismantle the networks that have struck in Madrid and Amman; in London and Bali; in Washington and New York. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope.

    This is the moment when we must renew our resolve to rout the terrorists who threaten our security in Afghanistan, and the traffickers who sell drugs on your streets. No one welcomes war. I recognize the enormous difficulties in Afghanistan. But my country and yours have a stake in seeing that NATO’s first mission beyond Europe’s borders is a success. For the people of Afghanistan, and for our shared security, the work must be done. America cannot do this alone. The Afghan people need our troops and your troops; our support and your support to defeat the Taliban and al Qaeda, to develop their economy, and to help them rebuild their nation. We have too much at stake to turn back now.

    This is the moment when we must renew the goal of a world without nuclear weapons. The two superpowers that faced each other across the wall of this city came too close too often to destroying all we have built and all that we love. With that wall gone, we need not stand idly by and watch the further spread of the deadly atom. It is time to secure all loose nuclear materials; to stop the spread of nuclear weapons; and to reduce the arsenals from another era. This is the moment to begin the work of seeking the peace of a world without nuclear weapons.

    This is the moment when every nation in Europe must have the chance to choose its own tomorrow free from the shadows of yesterday. In this century, we need a strong European Union that deepens the security and prosperity of this continent, while extending a hand abroad. In this century - in this city of all cities - we must reject the Cold War mind-set of the past, and resolve to work with Russia when we can, to stand up for our values when we must, and to seek a partnership that extends across this entire continent.

    This is the moment when we must build on the wealth that open markets have created, and share its benefits more equitably. Trade has been a cornerstone of our growth and global development. But we will not be able to sustain this growth if it favors the few, and not the many. Together, we must forge trade that truly rewards the work that creates wealth, with meaningful protections for our people and our planet. This is the moment for trade that is free and fair for all.

    This is the moment we must help answer the call for a new dawn in the Middle East. My country must stand with yours and with Europe in sending a direct message to Iran that it must abandon its nuclear ambitions. We must support the Lebanese who have marched and bled for democracy, and the Israelis and Palestinians who seek a secure and lasting peace. And despite past differences, this is the moment when the world should support the millions of Iraqis who seek to rebuild their lives, even as we pass responsibility to the Iraqi government and finally bring this war to a close.

    This is the moment when we must come together to save this planet. Let us resolve that we will not leave our children a world where the oceans rise and famine spreads and terrible storms devastate our lands. Let us resolve that all nations - including my own - will act with the same seriousness of purpose as has your nation, and reduce the carbon we send into our atmosphere. This is the moment to give our children back their future. This is the moment to stand as one.

    And this is the moment when we must give hope to those left behind in a globalized world. We must remember that the Cold War born in this city was not a battle for land or treasure. Sixty years ago, the planes that flew over Berlin did not drop bombs; instead they delivered food, and coal, and candy to grateful children. And in that show of solidarity, those pilots won more than a military victory. They won hearts and minds; love and loyalty and trust - not just from the people in this city, but from all those who heard the story of what they did here.

    Now the world will watch and remember what we do here - what we do with this moment. Will we extend our hand to the people in the forgotten corners of this world who yearn for lives marked by dignity and opportunity; by security and justice? Will we lift the child in Bangladesh from poverty, shelter the refugee in Chad, and banish the scourge of AIDS in our time?

    Will we stand for the human rights of the dissident in Burma, the blogger in Iran, or the voter in Zimbabwe? Will we give meaning to the words “never again” in Darfur?

    Will we acknowledge that there is no more powerful example than the one each of our nations projects to the world? Will we reject torture and stand for the rule of law? Will we welcome immigrants from different lands, and shun discrimination against those who don’t look like us or worship like we do, and keep the promise of equality and opportunity for all of our people?

    People of Berlin - people of the world - this is our moment. This is our time.

    I know my country has not perfected itself. At times, we’ve struggled to keep the promise of liberty and equality for all of our people. We’ve made our share of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions.

    But I also know how much I love America. I know that for more than two centuries, we have strived - at great cost and great sacrifice - to form a more perfect union; to seek, with other nations, a more hopeful world. Our allegiance has never been to any particular tribe or kingdom - indeed, every language is spoken in our country; every culture has left its imprint on ours; every point of view is expressed in our public squares. What has always united us - what has always driven our people; what drew my father to America’s shores - is a set of ideals that speak to aspirations shared by all people: that we can live free from fear and free from want; that we can speak our minds and assemble with whomever we choose and worship as we please.

    These are the aspirations that joined the fates of all nations in this city. These aspirations are bigger than anything that drives us apart. It is because of these aspirations that the airlift began. It is because of these aspirations that all free people - everywhere - became citizens of Berlin. It is in pursuit of these aspirations that a new generation - our generation - must make our mark on the world.

    People of Berlin - and people of the world - the scale of our challenge is great. The road ahead will be long. But I come before you to say that we are heirs to a struggle for freedom. We are a people of improbable hope. With an eye toward the future, with resolve in our hearts, let us remember this history, and answer our destiny, and remake the world once again.

    Amateur Hour At Camp McCain

    Nicolle Wallace and her boss, McCain national press secretary, Brooke Buchanan get into a testy exchange with three St. Louis television journalists. The first man to speak in the video below is Mike Owens of KSDK (NBC). He is complaining that the McCain staff had requested to look at their video camera shot (angle). It seems that the McCain campaign is concerned with how the Senator looks from certain angles. He has scars, an inflamed left cheek from cancer, and a wounded shoulder that is smaller and lower than the other. In fact, from any angle, you can see the Senator's war and disease-related wounds. When the second journalist in the blue shirt, Charles Jaco (of FOX KTVI) backs-up Mr. Owens, the 36-year-old Wallace claims to have worked in the White House for '7 years.' When pressed for details she replies, "It doesn't matter." It turns out that she worked in the White House as the Communications director from January 2001 through June of 2006. How a 20-something, under-qualified individual acquired such a senior external communications position should be self-explanatory. It's all politics.

    Her attitude is apparently shared by her boss, McCain national press secretary, Brooke Buchanan. The video ends with a third journalist, Mike O'Connell of KMOV (CBS), asking Buchanan for her name and the name of her employee, Wallace (hey, two Scottish-Americans...wanna bet they are Scots-Irish like their favorite Senator?). What was Buchanan's initial request for her name? "Why does that matter?"

    Indeed. It's amateur hour at Camp McCain.

    Got to love how Nicolle Wallace folds her arms defensively while identifying herself. Sorry to put you out, Nicolle. For someone who worked 5.5 years in the White House, you sure don't handle pressure well.

    Andy Dick: Crash, Burn, Repeat


    The Hollywood press has seen his downward spiral, which has increased speed over the last few months. From crashing his car into a telephone pole while coked-up in 1999, to getting beaten-up by Jon Lovitz in 2007, to getting tossed out of a house party last month, to this latest episode at a Buffalo Wild Wings restaurant. We know how this story will probably end. Everyone in Hollywood thinks he either a disgusting asshole, a 'walking rehab patient', or both. This will not end well.

    Wired: Inside the High Tech Trash Disassembly Line

    Here's some environmental news I wanted to share. This is my first environmental post since 'Happy F-ing Earth Day'.

    There's an excellent diagram in the April issue of Wired. It is also shown here. It illustrates how the cleanest, most advanced waste separating facility works in Sydney. It separates paper, plastic, metals, and organic waste (biomass) for uses outside of a landfill. The gasses released by the organic waste help run the automated facility, and it has technologies that suppress odors. The result is more recycled resources, less landfill waste, and an expensive, but reliable way to separate trash when folks don't put in the effort to do it properly at home. The amount of waste being sent to landfills is increasing. Space in American landfills is shrinking (are so are the costs of adding refuse to that shrinking real estate as demand exceeds space). In fact, some big cities are beginning to pay foreign nations to accept our trash. More alarming, the cost of the fuel to transport waste to landfills is far outpacing inflation. So a facility like this, while costing 9-figures, makes a lot of sense.

    The facility is designed and built by Global Renewables, and we can only hope they get a contract to build a similar facility for a progressive US city (San Francisco comes to mind). Oh, and their publicly-traded, and they are cross-listed on RENIXX - the Renewable Energy Industrial Index.

    You're Welcome, New York


    The Sox played a huge role in delivering the American League victory, which we assume the Bronx crowd wanted. But we need to thank you for letting us play in your house tonight. It was fun. And it was a great day for 8 members of the Red Sox organization, including manager Terry Cheesesteak. You called us names. You called Jonathan Papelbon 'Overrated'. But you're forgiven, I guess. You wanted the American League to win, right? Well, the AL snatched victory just before the game had to be stopped.

    Overrated, huh? Yeah, when the chips are down, you don't want this guy throwing in your team's 9th inning. He sucks. 28 saves this season? On-course for a career-high 38? Rubbish. He's just a cocky, overrated bastard. The Yankees have no overrated players on their team, do they?

    The Yankee faithful never fail to show the whole country what whining, sore winners they are.

    Today's Required Viewing

    You may have heard back in June 2004 that an Irish journalist, Carol Coleman, was inturruptive and unfair to President Bush in an RTE interview held in the White House library. It was so unfair, in fact, it was never broadcast in the US. The transcript and video have been available on the Internet since June 2004. But it made its way to You Tube in November, 2006. And it is even better than it was originally described.

    It is an incredible look at a man who is either brainwashed by his handlers or certifiably insane. This is George W. Bush at the peak of his arrogance, just months before his narrow reelection.

    Watch it. Oh, and let the man finish, please. Finish away.


    John Nichols: Pampered Bush meets a real reporter
    By John Nichols
    June 29, 2004

    On the eve of his recent sojourn in Europe, President Bush had an unpleasant run-in with a species of creature he had not previously encountered often: a journalist.

    He did not react well to the experience.

    Bush's minders usually leave him in the gentle care of the White House press corps, which can be counted on to ask him tough questions about when his summer vacation starts.

    Apparently under the mistaken assumption that reporters in the rest of the world are as ill-informed and pliable as the stenographers who "cover" the White House, Bush's aides scheduled a sit-down interview with Carole Coleman, Washington correspondent for RTE, the Irish public television network.

    Coleman is a mainstream European journalist who has conducted interviews with top officials from a number of countries - her January interview with Secretary of State Colin Powell was apparently solid enough to merit posting on the State Department's Web site.

    Unfortunately, it appears that Coleman failed to receive the memo informing reporters that they are supposed to treat this president with kid gloves. Instead, she confronted him as any serious journalist would a world leader.

    She asked tough questions about the mounting death toll in Iraq, the failure of U.S. planning, and European opposition to the invasion and occupation. And when the president offered the sort of empty and listless "answers" that satisfy the White House press corps - at one point, he mumbled, "My job is to do my job" - she tried to get him focused by asking precise follow-up questions.

    The president complained five times during the course of the interview about the pointed nature of Coleman's questions and follow-ups - "Please, please, please, for a minute, OK?" the hapless Bush pleaded at one point, as he demanded his questioner go easy on him.

    After the interview was done, a Bush aide told the Irish Independent newspaper that the White House was concerned that Coleman had "overstepped the bounds of politeness."

    As punishment, the White House canceled an exclusive interview that had been arranged for RTE with first lady Laura Bush.

    Did Coleman step out of line? Of course not. Watch the interview (it's available on the www.rte.ie Web site) and you will see that Coleman was neither impolite nor inappropriate. She was merely treating Bush as European and Canadian journalists do prominent political players. In Western democracies such as Ireland, reporters and politicians understand that it is the job of journalists to hold leaders accountable.

    The trouble is that accountability is not a concept that resonates with our president. The chief executive who gleefully declares that he does not read newspapers cannot begin to grasp the notion that journalists might have an important role to play in a democracy. And, if anything, the hands-off approach of the White House press corps has reinforced Bush's conceits.

    Bush would be well served by tougher questioning from American journalists, especially those who work for the television networks. And it goes without saying that more and better journalism would be a healthy corrective for our ailing democracy.

    Come to think of it, maybe one of the American networks should hire Carole Coleman and make her its White House correspondent. It would be Ireland's loss and America's gain.

    Mark Webber On A Roll


    The last 72 hours have been fantastic for Red Bull driver, Mark Webber (Maaahk Weeebah!). On Thursday, he was re-affirmed as the primary driver for team Red Bull. His contract was extended after he proved himself by scoring points in 6 of the season's first 8 races. Then two days later, he qualified second at Silverstone - his highest-ever qualifying position, and his first career front-row start. He's a late bloomer, in his mid 30s and into his 7th Formula One season. But Mark has the right car, team, and skills to get his first F1 victory before this season is over. On Sunday, he will get his best chance ever for that win.

    Barry Letting Us Liberals Down Already


    And the sad thing is, he doesn't have to do any of this. I don't think he's winning any more votes by wearing the US flag lapel pin, making big promises to evangelicals, failing to stop telecomm immunity, or slapping General Wes Clark for rightly attacking John McCain. Hey, Barry, Clark was right to slap McCain. Where was McCain when the Wingnuts accused Senator Kerry of wounding himself in Vietnam? Barry, stop this madness. Your base is not happy with you at all.

    Astros In A World Of Hurt


    Astros pitcher Shawn Chacon is unhappy about his demotion to the bullpen and wants to be traded. But his marketability took a big hit when he threw GM Ed Wade to the floor of the players dining room.

    Chacon says he was provoked because Wade was yelling at him. Well, Wade should have yelled at him. He was being insubordinate, refusing to follow Wade into the Manager's office for a private discussion about his recent unprofessional behaviour. In fact, Chacon should never, ever hold a baseball in a professional game ever again.

    Richard Justice of the Sporting News writes:

    Maybe this moment is a reflection of how far a once successful franchise has fallen.

    Once upon a time, the Astros were Jeff Bagwell and Craig Biggio. They played the game a certain way. They represented professionalism and winning. Now with a farm system in disarray and a major league roster that's a patchwork of pieces from other organizations, the Astros are an absolute mess.

    The Houston Astros are both distracted and hurting. And their record against the American League this season is an expected 4-10. And who's coming to town to sweep them?

    That's right.

    It's nothing personal. The Sox have to sweep Houston to stay ahead of the Rays in the AL East. Matt Garza, Scott Kazmir, and the Rays are for real.

    If this were the English Premier League, Houston would be heading for relegation. Boston has to put its foot down and sweep this sorry lot. Stay tuned.

    Good Thing I Said 'Alledged'

    Here.

    Because it turns out that Joseph Sullivan, the principal of Gloucester High School, embellished the story of teenage girls forming a pregnancy 'pact' in his school. The didn't act disappointed when they got negative pregnancy tests. They didn't plan group baby showers. And they didn't give each-other high-fives when they received positive pregnancy tests. Those are the fabrications he told Time magazine, and it became a sensational national news headline last week.

    Why oh why have some the most embarrassing news stories of the decade have come from my home state? When will this shit end?

    Freedom Officially Dead In Zimbabwe


    Freedom and democracy were endangered for years. But a wave of terror, intimidation, rape, and murder have officially shut-down the opposition party, and have made Robert Mugabe stronger than ever. And Mugabe has essentially vowed not to relinquish power until he dies. Claiming that the MDC, the opposing party, is not patriotic and panders to British interests, the 84 year-old Mugabe said this:

    Only God, who appointed me, will remove me. Not the MDC, not the British. We will never allow an event like an election [to] reverse our independence....

    Mugabe's challenger, Morgan Tsvangirai, and the MDC won more votes by narrow margin in parliamentary elections in March, but fell short of earning 50% of the popular vote required to avoid a runoff. The runoff was scheduled for June 27th. But today Tsvangirai and the MDC stood down amidst intimidation, beatings, and killings by pro-Mugabe gangs. As is frequently the case in dictatorships, Mugabe explained that the months of escalated violence has been committed by the MDC, not by his party or supporters.

    Time for a disclaimer as well. I don't think there are any liberal bloggers who defend Mugabe. I say this because I know that Mugabe was once a victim of a white apartheid government when his country was known as Southern Rhodesia. Surely a man who survived white imprisonment and helped lead his nation to independence could be admired 30 years ago. He is also a vocal adversary of the UK and the US - two governments we liberals are always happy to criticize. But by no means does that make him someone to admire.

    Since 1980, Mugabe has become quite a monster. And yes, some right-wing blogs, such as Instaputz, have frequently attacked Mugabe. But in this case, the enemy of our enemy is still our enemy.

    Same applies to Hugo Chavez. On one hand, he is proving that second-world, resource-rich countries, can compete with the USA in the same hemisphere (like Brazil). Venezuela is a viable, alternative economic partner to African and Asian countries that don't like the USA's prices. But on the other hand, Chavez is still a power-hungry, irrational, democracy-smothering son of a bitch.

    And Mugabe is becoming a murderous, dangerous, son of a bitch. His actions threaten not only his country, but to a lesser extent, he threatens the already-fragile prosperity and democracy in Africa as a whole.

    Public Health Crisis Roundup


    Gloucester, MA: Alleged teen pregnancy 'pact' quadruples the normal number of pregnancies at Gloucester High School. It's a localized public health anomaly that will be sensationalized by the media, and studied by scholars for years.

    Japan: The number of domestic suicides topped 33,000 in 2007, the second-highest recorded number since the nation began compiling them. The article correctly points out that Japan does not have the highest suicide rate in the G8. That would be Russia. But as Parag Khanna and others point out, Russia cannot be considered a part of the elite industrialized world, given its shrinking population and increasingly vast, sparsely populated regions. Russia is too big, too corrupt, and is losing too many smart people. But that's another post for another time.