Commissioner of Baseball was the job that George W. Bush really wanted. Because Bud Selig, while owner of the Milwaukee Brewers, insisted on converting his position as interim baseball commissioner into permanent commissioner, he prevented George W. Bush from getting his dream job. As a result, Bush had to settle for second best, and it's clear his heart hasn't really been in it.

Had Selig stepped down, Commissioner Bush, a recovered "heavy drinker," would certainly have wanted to crack down on the merest hint of misuse of drugs by baseball players. And, as baseball commissioner, he wouldn't have invaded Iraq, legitimized torture and shredded the Constitution. And who knows, President Gore might served only one term and the Republicans might have kept control of Congress, so everybody's a winner.

George W. Bush is now in the midst of trying to ensure his legacy. His speech this Friday at the Conservative Political Action Committee made clear that he sees the future direction of the Republican party as continuing what he regards as his signature policies: demanding lower taxes appointing conservative judges, increasing spending on defense, and fighting the war on terror, which, for Bush, means continuing the war in Iraq and the military occupation of Iraq indefinitely. Put another way, Bush's speech put down a marker that if John McCain or any other Republican wants to be elected in 2008, Bush expects it will be by a continuation of his basic policies-- a third term of the George W. Bush Administration. It is worth noting that on almost all of the issues just mentioned, John McCain appears to be following Bush.

The Republicans, now divided, are trying to put the Reagan coalition together again. Bush's advice is: do it my way. Use my Presidency and its commitments-- low taxes, a conservative judiciary, and national security in an age of terrorism as the party's mantra going forward. To know what the Republicans stand for, look at what I stand for.

There has been a great deal of debate, and consternation, in Congress recently concerning the Bush Administration's intention to enter into a a bilateral Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) with Iraq by the end of July. The Administration has indicated that it does not plan to obtain any congressional authorization or Senate approval for such an agreement. Many legislators believe this would be unconstitutional. So, for example, Senator Clinton has introduced S.2426, which would express the "sense of Congress that any bilateral agreement between the United States and Iraq involving `commitments or risks affecting the nation as a whole', including a status of forces agreement (SOFA), that is not a treaty approved by two-thirds of the Senate under Article II of the Constitution or authorized by legislation does not have the force of law," and that would prohibit the use of funds to carry out such an SOFA that is not such a Senate-approved treaty.

The business and financial punditocracy is terrified of ever uttering the word "recession" because they think they'll get blamed for self-fulfilling prophecy if it happens. But now they are starting to utter it, in the required format "I don't think it will happen but it might," which means they do think it will happen. Some are even gloomier and are embedding the D word in breathy exhalations.

In the last episode of our Hinges of History Review, I discussed the magical cloak of invisibility over the U.S. nuclear arsenal. Meanwhile, I've been nibbling at the edges of another Great Denial, known as peak oil. This is the most important geopolitical fact of our age, far more important in the context of international power struggles, war and peace, than global warming, infectious disease, water supplies, deforestation, mass extinction, human rights, you name it. Yes, you may care more about some of those other little problems, but governments, especially the ones that wield powerful militaries, do not.

As Eliot Spitzer's time in office is coming to a rapid close (he announced his resignation today, effective Monday), I've been hearing a lot of nonsense coming from politicians interviewed about the scandal on TV (what a shock, eh?). This morning I put the TV on and saw some politician (I have no idea who he is) who called what happened with Spitzer "a tragedy."

Oh give me a break. I wish these political hacks would stop using the term "tragedy" to describe this. This politician was naturally a Democrat, like Spitzer. Would this same guy be using that term if Spitzer were a Republican? Hardly likely. If he was, they'd be demanding his head on a stick and talking impeachment (like many Republicans in NY are now).

Listen, I have sympathy for Spitzer's wife and three daughters. They are trapped in the middle of this mess and surely had absolutely no idea what he was up to. They will have to live forever knowing their father and husband left office in disgrace. I do feel for them.

I realize they aren't mutually exclusive, but I'm leaning toward more of the latter than the former. The point is, I don't know for sure whether he believes in the alternate universe represented in his public pronouncements -- most recently his triumphalist crowing on the fifth anniversary of his world historic crime of invading Iraq -- or whether he knows it's all fantasy and he just figures that when George W. Bush lies, it's not a sin, because he's God's anointed.

That is the lede to a rambling post today, and the reason you're getting this, and didn't get one yesterday, is because of traveler's burnout. Honestly, I don't know how the candidates do it, constantly changing time zones, eating too much or too little and usually badly, sleeping erratically, but having to keep working and stay alert through it all -- it's just too much for a hairless ape from the African savannah to endure.

I'm sure all my readers are familiar with the basic story of how nuclear weapons came to be upon the earth -- although I fear that most young people today are not. (They think that WWII was fought between the U.S. and its valiant German allies against the Soviet Union.) Prominent physicists, led by the most famous of them all, Albert Einstein, feared that Nazi Germany would develop an atomic bomb, and so they urged Franklin Roosevelt to get there first. The program to develop the bomb was carried out in total secrecy. If truth is the first casualty of war, democracy is the second. (That's why Dick Cheney is so fond of it, for both reasons.) It turned out that Germany was never close to developing nuclear weapons, and Germany surrendered before the U.S. tested its first atomic bomb.

In response to the controversy over Scott McClellan's new book What Happened, which disclosed that the Bush engaged in a propaganda campaign to push the United States into war, Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay lay out what actually happened, using sources and articles available at the time.

The media, they point out, have little excuse for having been misled either about the Administration's motives or about the strength of the case for war. The evidence was available; but the media simply didn't want ask the Administration tough questions about its war plans in the wake of the 9/11 attacks. At the moment when a strong independent media was necessary, most of it failed the country. Many members of Congress refused to support the Administration's call for war, and protests were held around the country. But the press downplayed the opposition.

Ask any Army infantryman, Marine or even Naval aviator what they think of the Air Force, and they're likely to scoff at the question. Some will be polite and try to spin something nice. Most will just tell you what they really think - which isn't great.

And honestly, when this is the kind of decorum the Air Force breeds into its officers as they graduate from its "prestigious" academy, perhaps we can infer that its leadership issues start early.

Without getting too political here, it doesn't help that the Commander-in-Chief doesn't seem to know how to behave in public either. Especially while the US is at war.

Especially as US servicemen and women are dying in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Dan Froomkin's blog for the Washington Post asks "Are We Closer to War?" The question, and most of the post, is sparked by the unceremonious dumping of Adm. William Fallon as head of the overall Middle East (and Afghanistan) command following his comments in an Esquire article about the unwisdom of going to war with Iran. Yes, I know that Adm. Fallot "voluntarily" resigned, but only after, apparnetly, Secretary of Defense Gates stopped returning his calls. Froomkin suggests a linkage between the Israeli attack on Syria (to smoke out the defensive electronics of recently acquired equipment from Russia) and the Cheney trip to the mideast re the possibility of a new war.

I used to own a movie (back when there were "videotapes" called Bodies, Rest, and Motion. It was one of those independent films where not much happens, but for some reason I liked the movie. It's about a couple who moves to Arizona and then once they get there, they break up and the guy starts dating someone else, who he now lives with. The guy and his girfriend are still friends iwth the ex. So that's just the background, nothing has actually happened yet. Ok.. now the boyfriend decides he wants to move to Butte, Montana. Girlfriend doesn't really want to go, but she's a nice, peaceable girl so she will follow him. They get all packed up, hire a painter, quit their jobs...at the last minute boyfriend tells her that he's going alone. And he leaves. She's stunned. The painter shows up and they start chatting, get high, and have sex. He goes on about love. She gets up in the morning and leaves, not waking the painter. The painter decides he will find her.

Following up on Mark's previous post, I think the correct analysis of why a Republican dominated court is unlikely to overturn Roe is not that the Justices themselves are primarily motivated to keep the Republican coalition together. Rather, the argument has to do with Presidential motivations in nominating particular Justices to the Supreme Court. That is, if you focus primarily on the motivation of Justices after they get on the bench you are looking in the wrong place for an explanation.

Since the failure of the Bork nomination in 1987, it has become clear that Republican Presidents and the party itself would pay a political cost if the Supreme Court appeared ready to overturn Roe v. Wade. Hence they have chosen people who were likely to weaken Roe but not directly overrule it. Ronald Reagan, for example, appointed Anthony Kennedy as a compromise candidate who could win easy confirmation. Kennedy has turned out to be far more moderate than Robert Bork would likely have been, and indeed, one can hardly imagine Robert Bork writing either Casey or Lawrence v. Texas.

Said President Bush to General Musharraf yesterday: "You can’t be the president and the head of the military at the same time."

Of course, under our own Constitution, the President must be the head of the military. Indeed, that very Commander-in-Chief Clause has been the source of many of President Bush's own most aggressive claims of unilateral and unchecked power in the conflict with al Qaeda and the war in Iraq. As Bush himself delightfully puts it in his inimitable, colloquial way, "I'm the commander guy."

Item One: It is my duty to comment on the study published last week in NEJM that came up with a new estimate of civilian deaths in Iraq following the 2003 invasion. The consensus spin on this was "See, those peaceniks got all hysterical over the earlier estimate of 600,000, it was only 150,000." So I guess the war was a good idea after all. Actually neither study is conclusive. The new one was based on a larger sample, which all things being equal is better, but it was conducted later, which is worse. The basic problem is that households in which people have died are less likely to be around to be sampled, and the problem gets worse as time goes on. This happens for a few reasons -- some households get wiped out entirely, and then there is no-one left to sample. Households that have lost the breadwinner are likely to dissolve, to move in with relatives, to leave the country entirely -- as 2 million Iraqis have done.

One of the respondents to my previous post points out, altogether correctly, that George W. Bush isn't truly "unaccountable." It's possible, after all, that Congress could impeach him or that it would simply vote to cut off all funds for even one more day in Iraq. Putting to one side the fact that the latter action would be irresponsible in the extreme, any genuine analysis of the notion of the American "constitutional dictatorship" must include attention to the vital role that political parties play in our political system.

Imagine, for example,

that Ross Perot had been elected and then embarked on Bush's policy in Iraq. One wonders if he would have been successful, precisely because there would have been no institutionalized party backing the Texas maverick. Even if he could have initiated some activities using his constitutional commander-in-chief powers, one could well expect that members of both parties would have been eager to engage in oversight and, should he turn out to be so dangerously adventurist as George W. Bush has been, he might well have been impeached. Who, after all, would have had any interest in saving him? Indeed, the impeachment would dramatically demonstrate to Americans the dangers of deviating from the sacred two-party system and succumbing to the blandishments of an "independent."

In a word, no.

It is true that the Administration's most extreme theories of the Presidency have been rebuffed both in the courts and in public opinion. But the more important question is whether the next President will find him or herself significantly limited in what he or she seeks to do because of the Bush Administration's failures. The answer to that question is: almost certainly not.

All of the presidential candidates seem to be picking up Barack Obama's theme of change and portraying themselves as agents of change. If things keep going the way they have been, the 2008 election now looks to be as defining a moment as 1932, 1968 or 1980. (If things keep going, that is. A lot can happen in ten months).

If 2008 turns out to be a pivotal election, defining a new political era, it is important to give credit where credit is due. Two key reasons for the change will be the crackup of the coalition of the dominant party of the era, the Republicans, and the almost complete political failure of George W. Bush and his chief political adviser, Karl Rove. Let me begin with the second feature, and move to the first.

Merriam-Webster recently announced the winner of 2007's "Word of the Year" award, which was determined via the always reliable internet vote.

This year's winner was "w00t".

The article mentions that "w00t" is not currently listed in a regular Merriam-Webster dictionary but this award "might just improve its chances." If you ask me, that is awesome.

I get into a lot of debates with people about language, particularly at work. A lot of people are driven crazy by the newest slang or even differences in regional dialect, but I think it's cool, or possibly even "pimp" (the kids are still saying that right? Somebody help me out here).

In the fascinating story/interview by Zev Chafets of Mike Huckabee in today's NY Times Magazine, there appears the following description of the process by which Huckabee became Governor of Arkansas:

In 1993, Huckabee won a special election for lieutenant governor. Then, in 1996, Gov. Jim Guy Tucker was convicted on federal charges of fraud and conspiracy in events relating to the Whitewater scandal.

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you that it is extremely crappy. Unfortunately, if you depend on resources such as the Washington Post, you do need me to tell you that.

For years, President Bush and his advisers expressed frustration that the White House received little credit for the nation's strong economic performance because of public discontent about the Iraq war. Today, the president is getting little credit for improved security in Iraq, as the public increasingly focuses on a struggling U.S. economy.

As Laura notes below, in his most recent signing statement the President has reserved the authority to disregard several "provisions" of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008.

Today the Senate voted 51-45 to adopt the Conference Committee's intelligence authorization bill. Included in that bill is section 327, a Feinstein Amendment that would require all agencies of the U.S. government, not simply the military -- to limit interrogation techniques to those identified in the Army Field Manual. Section 327 reads as follows:
SEC. 327. LIMITATION ON INTERROGATION TECHNIQUES.
(a) LIMITATION.—No individual in the custody or under the effective control of an element of the intelligence community or instrumentality thereof, regardless of nationality or physical location, shall be subject to any treatment or technique of interrogation not authorized by the United States Army Field Manual on Human Intelligence Collector Operations.
(b) INSTRUMENTALITY DEFINED.—In this section, the term ‘‘instrumentality’’, with respect to an element of the intelligence community, means a contractor or subcontractor at any tier of the element of the intelligence community.Only five Republicans voted for the bill--Senators Collins, Hagel, Lugar, Smith and Snowe.

It seems the bad news Senator Kennedy got this week has caused a lot of focus on cancer in general. Before I add to that particular chatter, let me say a word or two about Ted Kennedy. I worked for Ralph Nader just after I graduated from college, and back then Kennedy was already a force in the Senate. He was also already overweight, in perpetual need of a haircut, and not exactly abstemious, and he stayed that way until just a few years ago. In 1994, when Mitt Romney ran against him for reelection and it looked like it might be close, a friend of mine said, "Well, I voted for the bloated, alcoholic murderer, and I'm sure glad I did." Yes, he didn't always display the greatest maturity, self discipline or courage in his personal life, but he knew that his privileges and his sinecure in the Senate were not earned, and that they conferred an obligation to everyone less fortunate, and particularly the most vulnerable. He spent his life as a drum major for justice.

Today President Bush vetoed an intelligence authorization bill which would have required the CIA to abide by the Army Field Manual. The Army Field Manual outlaws waterboarding and a variety of other coercive techniques that the Administration euphemistically calls "enhanced interrogation techniques." The White House announced previously that it had waterboarded people before and might do so again in the future. Bush's veto is, in effect, an attempt to retain the option to violate the Geneva Conventions, the Federal Anti-Torture statute, and the McCain Amendment. He would only retain this option, however, because his lawyers have made unreasonable interpretations of U.S. law to conclude that the most egregious of these techniques-- including waterboarding-- are lawful, instead of what they actually are: violations of federal law and breaches of Geneva.

His appearance before Congress tomorrow starts at 10 AM, but it is High Noon for Roger Clemens on Wednesday, as he will plead his innocence before them that he never took any performance-enhancing drugs.

Let's face the facts. Clemens has boxed himself into such a corner that he has absolutely no choice but to do that.

You'd have to be blind or some kind of crazy Clemens fan to believe in his innocence. Right now he can't go before Congress and say that Brian McNamee supplied him and shot him up with PEDs. If he were to do that, he can kiss his Hall of Fame induction, his legacy and millions of dollars in endorsements goodbye. So he HAS to go before Congress and risk perjury and declare his innocence.

The case against him is just too strong. Two days after The Mitchell Report came out, Andy Pettitte came clean and admitted that McNamee shot him up (at least twice) with HGH. That was a near-death blow to Clemens, as the public simply won't believe that McNamee told the truth about Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch (who also came clean about his dealings with McNamee), but that McNamee was making some incredible lie about Clemens. Pettitte had plenty to lose, so he came out and admitted that the Mitchell Report was indeed truthful about him.

. . . you decide.

Which one of these people is more fucking nuts? This woman?

Authorities are considering charges in the bizarre case of a woman who sat on her boyfriend's toilet for two years -- so long that her body was stuck to the seat by the time the boyfriend finally called police. Ness County Sheriff Bryan Whipple said it appeared the 35-year-old Ness City woman's skin had grown around the seat. She initially refused emergency medical services but was finally convinced by responders and her boyfriend that she needed to be checked out at a hospital.

"She was not glued. She was not tied. She was just physically stuck by her body," Whipple said. "It is hard to imagine. ... I still have a hard time imagining it myself." He told investigators he brought his girlfriend food and water, and asked her every day to come out of the bathroom. "And her reply would be, `Maybe tomorrow,'" Whipple said. "According to him, she did not want to leave the bathroom."

Or this man?

A story in today's Times about George W. Bush's encounters with relatives of slain soldiers includes the following description of those meetings: "God is a frequent topic. Robert Lehmiller, also of Salt Lake City, says the president brought religion into the conversation, telling him, “If you truly believe the Scriptures, you will see your son again.” Although I probably should, I can't refrain from placing this comment in the context of the alleged belief of Islamicist suicide bombers that they will reach paradise quickly (and be greeted by 72 virgins). That is, I presume that for most of us that belief is just one more sign of irrational fanaticism. But what should we think of what presumably is the far more common belief in the US that there is indeed an afterlife in which one will be reunited with those one loved?