mojo-photo-peanuts.jpg

If you thought it wasn't possible to hold Charles Schulz's brilliant "Peanuts" comics in any higher esteem, think again. Today's NY Times describes how scholars are pointing out that the strip's references to music were anything but random. It turns out the notes displayed above Schroeder's piano often referenced actual pieces that add a level of humor:

"If you don't read music and you can't identify the music in the strips, then you lose out on some of the meaning," said William Meredith, the director of the Ira F. Brilliant Center for Beethoven Studies at San Jose State University, who has studied hundreds of Beethoven-themed "Peanuts" strips. ... Mr. Schulz also mined Beethoven's life for material. He had numerous books in which he underlined details about Beethoven's love life, clothing, even his favorite recipe (macaroni with cheese).

For instance, in the strip above, with Schroder working out beforehand, the notes pictured are the opening bars of Beethoven's "Hammerklavier" Sonata (Op. 106), known for its extraordinary difficulty. All this is part of an exhibit, "Schulz's Beethoven: Schroeder's Muse," at the cartoonist's eponymous museum in Santa Rosa, where you can learn such details as the fact that Schulz's favorite composer was in fact Brahms, but he just thought the name Beethoven looked funnier on the page. He was totally right.

Having spent eight years bypassing the laws of the land via signing statements, executive orders, or just simple denial, the Bush Administration is adding to its grim legacy with a rush of last-minute orders and rule changes. Compiled here by ThinkProgress, these include a number of actions aimed at the elderly, ill, and disabled--including cuts to Medicaid and disabled veterans' benefits. These last-ditch measures are likely to turn into some of the first political and policy challanges faced the Obama administration.

Some of Bush's parting shots are so low-profile that they might easily escape notice. The latest of these arrived on Friday in the obscure form of a "call letter" to private insurance companies that want to contract with Medicare to provide health and drug coverage in 2010. Such calls are issued annually. But this time the call letter was released two weeks earlier than it was last year, and two months earlier than the previous year--ahead of the changing of the White House guard. Medicare advocacy groups view the early release as "an attempt by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) to assure continued leniency in the oversight of private plans for at least another year and as a last-ditch effort to promote private Medicare Advantage plans."

Medicare Advantage (MA) plans--which offer managed care run through private insurers, paid for by the federal government--are the point of the stake that conservatives have long been trying to drive into the heart of traditional Medicare (which, for all its shortcomings, is the closest thing to a single-payer program that this country has ever seen). Columnist Saul Friedman recently wrote about the history of of this effort, recalling a 1995 press briefing in which Dick Armey, Newt Gingrich's collaborator on the "Contract With America," announced their intent to "wean our old people away from Medicare." The first step was to introduce private Medicare HMOs--what later evolved into Medicare Advantage plans, with a big boost from the Republicans' 2003 Medicare bill.

Playmobil Airport Security Set

play200.jpg

Let's play TSA!

Patriotic, sure—note the passenger's jaunty reds, whites, and blues. But authentic?

I was a little disappointed when I first bought this item, because the functionality is limited. My 5 year old son pointed out that the passenger's shoes cannot be removed. Then, we placed a deadly fingernail file underneath the passenger's scarf, and neither the detector doorway nor the security wand picked it up. My son said "that's the worst security ever!".

Image courtesy of Amazon.com

Eric Holder Jr., by all accounts, is a decent, smart, caring, competent fellow. President-elect Barack Obama's pick to be attorney general had a brilliant career in public service: he graduated from Columbia University law school, worked at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, was a trial attorney at the Justice Department, a Superior Court judge in Washington, DC, a US attorney, and, then deputy attorney general. He has served on various nonprofit boards: George Washington University, the American Constitution Society, Morehouse School of Medicine, Save the Children Foundation, the District of Columbia's Police Foundation, and the Innocence Project. He's been a member of Concerned Black Men for over 25 years. He also, in a way, represents what's wrong with Washington.

That's not because of Holder's infamous role in the Marc Rich pardon. That episode--which Holder will certainly be asked about during confirmation hearings, which are scheduled to begin Thursday--was a case of Washington pay-to-play. There's little doubt that Rich, a fugitive financier indicted for tax evasion, racketeering, and trading with the enemy (Iran), was able to win that last-minute pardon from President Clinton (with Holder, as deputy attorney general, leaning slightly in its favor) because he had hired a former Clinton White House counsel to argue his case and because Rich's ex-wife had pledged money to Clinton causes.

Holder's role in the Rich pardon may not have been instrumental, but it was a mistake--a terrible way to cap off decades of public service. But he is a poster child for something perhaps more pernicious and extensive in the nation's capital: selling out. Months after the Clinton administration ended, Holder went to work for the influential law firm and lobbying shop of Covington and Burling. (He also joined the boards of Eastman Kodak and MCI.)

Holder was doing what so many routinely do in Washington: cashing in. He took years of experience he had gathered as a public servant and rented it to corporations accused of serious wrongdoing. He smoothly went from doing good to doing well. In 2008, according to his confirmation questionnaire, he made $2.1 million at Covington and Burling. And he expects in 2009 to bring in over $2.5 million, including his separation payment.

Moving Ahead on Nukes

MOVING AHEAD ON NUKES....Hillary Clinton got all the press yesterday, but Steven Chu was up on Capitol Hill too and he got lots of questions about nuclear power during his confirmation hearing for Secretary of Energy. Blogger KB of NEI Nuclear Notes says, "If you're a proponent of nuclear energy in the United States, I'm not sure that Steven Chu's testimony...could be any more encouraging." Here's one excerpt from the transcript:

Senator Bob Corker (R-TN): The issue of nuclear. I'm gonna skip down and just be very brief since you've had now nine questions regarding that. I noticed a lot of people say that they support nuclear, but they also mention the waste issue. And it's as if once we solve the waste issue then we can pursue nuclear again. It's my understanding, based on what I've heard here today, you mean pursue nuclear now in spite of the, some of the issues that we have regarding waste. Is that correct? All out now? Loan guarantees, let's move ahead. We have 104 plants today. Probably need 300, let's move on?

Steven Chu: Yes, because I'm pretty confident, I'm confident that the Department of Energy, perhaps in collaboration with other countries, can get a solution to the nuclear waste problem.

Italics mine. Obama has been fairly ambiguous about nuclear power in the past. "We should explore nuclear power as part of the mix," he said during the primaries, but he's also insisted that his support was contingent on first solving safety, waste storage, terrorist attack, and weapons proliferation concerns. Conversely, Chu seems to be much more nuke friendly. I don't know how much of a bellwether this is, but it's worth noting. More at the link.

Prosecuting for Torture

PROSECUTING FOR TORTURE....Susan Crawford, head of military commissions, says charges can't be brought against Mohammed al-Qahtani because she has determined that he was tortured during his interrogation. Matt Yglesias argues that this demonstrates why Barack Obama should be willing to open prosecutions against Bush administration officials for authorizing torture:

We have here a legal determination that a captive in US custody was tortured. And if he was tortured, that means someone tortured him. And torture is a crime....To me, it doesn't make any sense to say that we're going to have determinations that people were illegally tortured and yet we're just not going to do anything about it. It'd be one thing to pardon people for this kind of thing as part of some larger legal or investigative strategy. But to just leave it hanging? If Crawford thinks Qahtani can't be prosecuted because he was tortured, then it stands to reason that there's someone who can be prosecuted for the torturing.

I won't pretend that I don't have mixed views on this, but basically I agree. There's one thing I'd be interested in seeing first, though, that I don't think I've seen before: a sober legal analysis of whether torture prosecutions are likely to succeed. The fact that Qahtani's case has been tainted is based on a certain set of legal principles, and Crawford almost certainly made the right ruling here. But there's a whole different body of statutory law and evidentiary requirements that would come into play if a prosecutor were trying to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a specific person was guilty of breaking U.S. law by ordering or carrying out the torture of Qahtani. That's a much, much harder case to make.

I guess this is my worst case scenario: we end up bringing charges against Bush administration officials and then they get off. That would be tantamount to an official sanction for this stuff.

Now, obviously no prosecution is ever certain, and fear of failure is a poor reason for doing nothing. But I'd still like to know that there's a decent chance that the legal case here is strong enough that convictions are at least likely. And I'd like to hear it from someone without a huge vested interest one way or the other. Without access to all the evidence this would be something of a whiteboard exercise, but still, has anyone with the appropriate background ever scoped this out?

Obama Keeps Bush's White House Chef

comerford.gif
Remember the hubub over whether Obama would plant a White House garden and pick a chef who serves sustainably-grown foods? Well, nevermind. It turns out that Bush's chef, Cris Comerford, sources much of her food from local farmers and some of it from a White House roof garden. And, according to previous Bush chef Walter Scheid, Laura Bush "was adamant that in ALL CASES (his emphasis) if an organic product was available it was to be used in place of a non-organic product." Who knew? Obama, I guess, who's decided to keep Comerford on. Let's just hope he applies her philosophy to the nation's food system, because that, at least, would be a first.

Image: Cris Comerford

Ho Ho Ho

HO HO HO....December sales, as expected, were pretty miserable:

Retail sales tumbled by 2.7% last month from the previous month on a seasonally adjusted basis, the Commerce Department said Wednesday.

....The producer price index, due for release Thursday, is expected to show a 2% drop in prices. Consumer prices due out Friday are expected to have declined 0.8%.

Adjusted for inflation, then, sales were down only 1.9% I'd do better if I could, but that's about the most positive spin I can come up with.

Strawman Watch

STRAWMAN WATCH....Mickey Kaus thinks economic growth and tight labor markets are the key to low-end wage growth. Unions aren't. I disagree, and a few days ago wondered how Mickey proposed to get to his paradise of endless economic growth anyway. Today he responds:

And Drum has a plan for "low-end wage growth" that doesn't involve restoring the economy? Good luck with that. There's a double Nobel waiting for him, I guess. A triple Nobel if he can boost wages at the bottom while simultaneously letting in millions of unskilled low-wage immigrants. ... P.S.: Drum seems to be explicitly embracing "pie-slicing" — redistributing shares of a non-growing economy — as an alternative to "pie enlargement." Nothing, at first glance, so terribly wrong with that. But can Drum point to a period in modern American history when low-end wages grew without an expanding economy?

Is this supposed to be serious? For the record: yes, of course I support economic growth. Of course it's a precondition for low-end wage growth. I've never even hinted at anything so idiotic as "redistributing shares of a non-growing economy." But we've had economic growth for most of the past three decades and it hasn't been enough to boost median wages more than a smidge. It's pretty obvious by now that we need more than just economic growth to get median (and low-end) wages growing again, and I think greater union density (it's currently less than 10% in the private sector) is probably part of the answer.

As for reducing the influx of low-wage immigrants, I'm fine with that. I always have been — though I have different ideas about how to get there than Mickey. Still, the evidence suggests that this will have only a tiny effect on low-end wages. We're going to need a better plan than just building a fence along the southern border.

Judge to Bush Administration: Preserve Your Emails

In its final week in office, the Bush administration might have some serious work to do: recovering millions of emails. For over a year, the administration has battled a lawsuit by two Washington-based watchdog groups seeking to force the White House to locate unaccounted for internal emails, and on Wednesday morning a federal judge issued a last minute preservation order [PDF].

In full, it reads:

The Executive Office of the President ("EOP") shall: (1) search the workstations, and any .PST files located therein, of any individuals who were employed between March 2003 and October 2005, and to collect and preserve all e-mails sent or received between March 2003 and October 2005 and (2) issue a preservation notice to its employees directing them to surrender any media in their possession–irrespective of the intent with which it was created–that may contain e-mails sent or received between March 2003 and October 2005, and for EOP to collect and preserve all such media.

This is a major assignment for the Bush administration, which has to date been tight-lipped about what it has or has not been doing to preserve its emails for post-administration archiving. "The EOP [Executive Office of the President] is going to have to go to each of the workstations and find PST files and save them," says Meredith Fuchs, one of the lawyers representing the National Security Archive in the case. "It also means all of the EOP employees who may have used CDs, DVDs, external hard drives, zip drives, memory sticks, etcetera, to save emails are going to now have to turn them over before they leave."