Welcome, Mother Talkers!

Many of you are starting to come over from a great site called Mother Talkers. Welcome!

Mother Talkers is a great site for all of us moms, and if you didn't already come from there, I highly recommend a visit. You'll find a link on my link list.

And as for MT, well, I've been lurking a bit and will no doubt join the conversation as soon as I get my two year old some juice. And then a binky. And then, and then, and then... Well, eventually!!!! [Update: I just joined, can't post for 24 hours but then I will introduce myself there.]

In the meantime, welcome again, and please let me encourage you to post comments! I'm more interested in a discussion than a rant, and I hope you are too! If not, stick around, I rant a lot anyway...

From the "I couldn't have said it better" dept

Tim Grieve on Salon.com's War Room:

If you assume that Americans troops will leave Iraq someday -- and, one way or another, everyone says that they will -- then all we're talking about here is a two-part question of timing: A) What can be accomplished in the meantime, and B) how many people will die in the process? The math is pretty simple: Unless you think the answer to A is "a lot," then the number you can accept for B has got to be close to zero.

The buck should stop in its own bill

Here's an idea: From now on, appropriations can only be attached to a bill that is in the same category of spending.

Want farm appropriations? Then you're going to have to attach them to (or put up a) farm bill, not the anti-Iraq-escalation bill.

The victims of Katrina/Rita still need help! Then attach it to or put up a bill for natural disasters and stick it on there.

Very often a good bill gets attached with far too many appropriations, lovingly referred to as "pork", unless it's for your state, and then it's called "good policy". Now, this is nothing new, and neither is the fact that supporters of a bill often have to turn away from it once it's covered with the Barnacles of the Committee Sea. (Someone, I can't think who, haha, said, "I voted for the $87B before I...", yeah, everybody sing.)

We also seem to have the problem of runaway spending. If you have a kid or were one, you know that if the kid keeps hitting the parents up for a dollar here and five dollars there, it's much harder to keep track than if the kid has an allowance. Allowances can be budgeted, tracked, and renegotiated; nickel-and-dime spending runs amok.

Nickel and dime, hah! How about $87B and $250M and, and, and...? This is how the spending since the Iraq war (and before it, since many so-called Afghanistan appropriations were really to prep for the Iraq war) has gone so completely haywire that people seem shocked to hear how it's added up. Just like the parent who suddenly realizes they've been handing their kid $500 a month instead of $50.

And not just in the war(s). Does anyone really know how much we spend on agriculture? Transportation? Education? Disasters? You'd have to do a lot of research I would think to compile every bit of appropriations from all the many bills to really add it up, and it seems like a lot of folks just don't bother. The war spending is something that attracts attention, and so people have been trying to research the facts and educate the public-- but what you see there is emblematic of the way spending is handled all over the federal government. And all of this has worked so well in favor of the politicians, who can stick spending here and there and hide it from us in a three-card monte game.

So, bills with Barnacles, spending run amok, and a shell game. One fix: limit spending to bills of the same category.

First, the bills that are for important issues like war won't get bogged down with the Bridge to Nowhere. (Well, and silly bills won't either, I guess.)

Second, we can finally track and responsibly allocate money to different arenas while keeping a good handle of what we've spent already and to what end. Want a bridge? I mean, in all fairness, the 50 people who live on that island don't think it's "nowhere". But let's weigh it with all of our other transporation spending, see if it's a priority, check to see if we can afford to spend more, then allocate funds or put them off for another try next year.

Third, (which is an extension of the last point) we can keep our eye on those who are trying to hide money from us by spreading it around through so many bills, because they just won't be allowed to do that any more.

I'm not advocating that we have one bill for each item to spend money on (you can't have a bill for each bridge that someone wants to build, it would be too many bills), but just that when appropriations are attached or grouped together, that they are grouped by spending category. Farm bills are farm bills.

This seems like such a simple fix. Either there is something wrong with it that I haven't thought of, in which case please tell me in the comments section, or politicians won't listen because... they're crooks? Can't think of why else they wouldn't support it.

Now it's on you. Tell me why I'm wrong, or go tell your elected representatives that you want to see spending limited to bills of its own category.

King George

The other day (the 17th) at a press conference, when referring to the US Attorneys, said:

"...[The US Attorneys] serve at our pleasure."

"Our" is the ROYAL plural, a pronoun only a king or queen can use. It's even more chilling when using it to talk about "serving at the pleasure of..."

No one else caught this, of course, just your trusty Shakespeare-studying politico gal, LMP.

Perhaps there was another answer. Perhaps he was frankly admitting that he's handled by a team that doesn't let him make decisions. He couldn't be referring to the White House or the Administration as a group, because the US Attorneys don't serve at the pleasure of the VP, or the AG, or any team made up of any of these people. They do in fact serve at the pleasure, or discretion, of the President and only the President. He could only be referring to the group that is making his decisions for him. The "Decider", huh!

I'm awfully scared that the reason the GOP seems so unprepared for the 2008 election is that there isn't going to be one, and we just end up with King George until the end of his days.

Something I Can Relate To

Revealed in Friday's hearing regarding the Plame-Wilson scandal:

Not only did Valerie not suggest her husband for the trip to Niger, but when her section chief did suggest Joe, and told Valerie to ask him that night at home, she "wasn't thrilled."

"And I will be honest. I had -- was somewhat ambivalent at the time. We had 2-year-old twins as home, and all I could envision was me by myself at bedtime with a couple of 2-year-olds. So I wasn't overjoyed with this idea."

That's how I knew she was telling the truth. Even when the fate of the world hangs in the balance, even highly accomplished international players are afraid of bedtime with two-year-olds.

Why Mommy is a Progressive

I am a progressive. I believe in progress. I believe in elevating our society to something more than it was yesterday. To do that, we all have to work together. We have to make room for each other, and we have to help each other, so that the entity that is our society can grow and prosper.

Here in Austin a few years ago we were considering light rail public transportation (pre-9/11, so no talk about oil addictions, etc.). This makes a great example for this discussion.

What I, the progressive said: "This will make life easier for everyone in Austin, because it will allieviate some traffic problems as well as provide fast and easy transportation, especially to the downtown area. And it is a great step forward in modernity for our city, catching us up to other great cities. And personally, I prefer trains as public transporation because they are more reliable for getting you where you want to be, on time. Buses have to contend with city traffic, and so you can't rely on them as much."

What the conservatives said: "Only the taxes of the rich will pay for it, and only the poor will ride it! That's not fair! Why should we pay for something we're never going to use?"

And they killed it. [Now, how the conservatives killed it, that's another story, involving AM radio flooding the airwaves not just here, but in a lot of other Texas cities like Houston to make Austin's light rail a cause celebre. I suspect there's a reason that it was the conservative side that ended up with the powerful ability to control the message, think as one, and march in lockstep, but if you're interested in that, follow the link.] Oh, eventually 9/11 happened, and eventually the world began to shift, and eventually light rail came up again and this time we got it. (Building it will be another matter, don't look for light rail here any time soon.)

But let's go back to the debate. I wanted light rail so that we all could do better. Yes, that applies to me, the worker bee, bag lunch in my lap, getting on the train to go answer some CEO's phone. But it applies to my boss, too. Not only could he take the train if his Mercedes broke down (should he deign to do so, which according to the conservative side, he never would), but more importantly to him-- I, his employee, will be on time to work thanks to the train. Now, if you were a boss, and you were relying on 100 factory workers to show up to run your factory, wouldn't you want them there on time? (Or there at all, instead of taking the day off because of car trouble?) When I managed a call center, the hardest part of my day was the beginning of the call shift, when I had to herd cats to get everyone there. Some people I had to go get in my own car because theirs had died or their ride bailed out on them or whatever. If that worry had been lifted from my employees, and by extension me, we could have progressed to more important concerns.

Furthermore, where do the conservatives get off implying they are the only ones who pay taxes? Sure, Worker Bee is paying a lot less in total dollars than CEO, but WB is still paying taxes (taxes that put a bigger dent in his bottom line than the CEO's does), and shouldn't Mr. and Mrs. Bee get something to make their lives better too?

I'm sure Jesus wasn't talking about taxes and light rail when he said, "What you neglect to do for the least of these, you neglect to do for me," but I can't think of a better lesson. What you do with your tax dollars for the least of your fellow man (whether you're talking Austinites or Americans or Humans) you do for the good of all of us. Light rail helps us get to your jobs on time. Health care solutions mean increased productivity and less sick days. Even a program to help the poor with their heating bills might mean that your cleaning lady doesn't come to work after not having slept for a week and fighting off pneumonia because she didn't have adequate heat. Proper public education means that the interview you have this morning has every chance of being someone you can hire. If you want a happy city or a happy country where everyone is humming along and doing their part, then you have to help with that. You have to help by bringing PROGRESS to your community, no matter if you have money or not. If you do have money, help pay for some programs for the less fortunate (i.e., your employees). If you don't have money, pull your weight and contribute to our society with what you have, your hands and your heart.

That's why "Mommy is a Progressive". *

But, you might still be asking, why doesn't Mommy--ahem, that is, Little Miss Patriot (who BTW is someone's Mommy) call herself Liberal?

First, there's the whole dirty word thing. Somewhere along the way, "liberal" became synonymous with "dirty hippie". (Don't get me wrong, I love dirty hippies! But I'm not going to vote for one for President.) And secondly, if we're assuming semantics matter, my perception of being "liberal" is that you want to just give away the store to everyone. In our light rail example, that might be, "Not only should we have light rail, but it should be free to anyone who wants to ride it! And we should give the poor a tax credit so that Mr. Worker Bee doesn't have to pay one dime towards it!"

Sadly, arguing semantics has been denegrated just like being a liberal has. But words really mean something to me. So let's recap this little semantic argument before we go.

• Progressive = progress for all members of the community;
  
• Conservative = holding back on progress in the community in order to protect the assets of the rich;
  
• Liberal = sharing everyone's assets so that we live in Eutopia and can do whatever we want regardless of whether it means real progress or not.

Want to argue with me? Please, do so! There's that blue shiny comment link, just begging you to hit it. Go on, hit it!


*There's a sweet children's book called "Why Mommy is a Democrat", I'm totally stealing that!

Quote of the Day

(OK, I'm stealing this idea from War Room!)

Apparently this was said a while ago, but I just heard it today.

“FEMA could screw up a two-car parade,” said then-Rep. Norm Mineta (D-Calif.).

Scooter scoots off to jail

Well, not quite yet. As usual, rich defendants get to tidy up their lives before surrendering themselves to the prison system. I'm not sure when he'll actually go, but

SCOOTER CONVICTED!

One count obstruction, one count perjury, not guilty on lying to the FBI. I guess they decided that he did make a mistake (really?) when first he made a statement, and then after he realized it wasn't right, decided to stick with Story A regardless of the overwhelming contrary evidence, which is when he obstructed justice and committed perjury. Or something.

UPDATE: Scooter was convicted of four out of five counts. The only one that they couldn't agree on (one juror held out) was the charge of lying to reporter Matt Cooper. (Cooper didn't keep notes so that one became he said/he said, and while it was likely it couldn't be proved-- at least to that one juror.) (So everything I said yesterday about Story A I pulled out of my butt.)

There will be appeals, and when they are exhausted, the question will be, will he be pardoned by the President? There are a couple of options here.

First, it happens just before Scooter packs his bags for prison-- that is, at the last possible second, but before he spends a single night in jail.

Second, it happens on the President's last day in office. Although, really, what would be the point? Scooter's only getting 2 years or so, and by Jan. 20, 2009 he'd be almost done-- why risk the controversy of this pardon when Scooter has like a month left and by that time has his cell all nicely decorated and comfy? (Not making light of prison, but this won't be "prison", this is Club Med California, where you can check in but not leave.) If, however, he has more than 6 months left in January 2009, my guess is he gets pardoned at that time.

Third, it happens right now, but since they haven't even done any appeals yet, and the blood is still fresh in the water as far as the news cycle goes, and there are another couple of years that Pres. Shrub* will have to face the cameras, that seems like an insane risk.

Fourth, it never happens. This could be because a) the WH just leaves him twisting in the wind, or b) because Scooter feels they've already done that, he turns state's evidence against Darth Cheney and possibly even Shrub. In which case, they can't pardon him because they'd be too busy trying to get the knife out of their collective back.

UPDATE: Those who follow these things (look for an article in this week's Newsweek) are talking about how Bush has been a stickler for the Justice Department guidelines on pardons. A Pres doesn't have to follow these guidelines, but apparently he really does. (And one of the guidelines is that the person has to have exhausted all appeals five years ago; that and other guidelines like "remorse" aren't met by Scooter.) He's given far fewer pardons at this point in his 2nd term than any president in 100 years. Those that have been answering the Lou Dobbs call-to-arms over the two border patrol agents recently convicted for shooting a Mexican drug smuggler will know that getting these guys pardoned is next to impossible with this President. So, how does a President who just a month ago touted the Justice guidelines as an excuse to avoid pardoning the border patrol agents then turn around and break them all to spring his buddy? That's going to look very, very bad. (Which, BTW, is why I believe he's been so stingy with pardons, he didn't want to draw political fire for his decisions.)

I'm really afraid that the public will forget about Plamegate, and the despicable actions taken by this administration. I'm afraid that they'll say, "Well, he resigned, he's not there anymore, who cares?" I hope that you will help me keep that from happening.

To which end, I will make a nice Plamegate tutorial for you to use when preaching from the streetcorners. Be watching for it!


*Shrub was one of Molly Ivins' classic monikers for Bush. I've noticed that since she died, lots of lefty pundits and radio folk are using that term. It could be that they didn't want to infringe on her while she was living and making a living, but now that she has passed her phrases become "public domain". I have no idea, but I'm jumping on the bandwagon. From now on, though, when I use one of her turns of phrase I'll toss in a link to my Molly post. For example, I'm so glad that Rumsfeld is gone and we can stop listening to him tell us "everything is tickety-boo."