Lawyer Mama

High School is History

*****
Edited to add: After I wrote this post, I read something that made me incredibly angry.  Some people who didn't like me in high school for god knows what reason and have never known me other than by name, have decided to hurl insults at me from afar. Talk about being stuck in high school.  But, sweetie, let me make this clear: you don't want to get into a bitch fight with me on the blogosphere.  Trust me on that.

I write about myself and my family on this blog.  I don't write about the daily bullshit of my life - going to the store, scrapbooking, picking up the kids from soccer.  Frankly, that bores the shit out of me.  If you think I'm self-absorbed because I write about my inner world or that I'm living life as an adolescent because I wrote two posts about high school in the last TWO YEARS, maybe a blog isn't the right place for you.  I'm just sayin'.

And yes, I tend to swear a lot when I'm angry.  My husband loves it.  (-;
*****

Everyone has a gripping stranger in their lives, Andy, a stranger who unwittingly possesses a bizarre hold over you. Maybe it's the kid in cut-offs who mows your lawn or the woman wearing white shoulders who stamps your book at the library - a stranger who, if you were to come home and find a message from them on your answering machine saying, "Drop everything. I love you. Come away with me now to Florida," you'd follow them. 

-- Douglas Coupland, Generation X: Tales for an Accelerated Culture

I've been thinking about my personal history a lot over the last few weeks.  Maybe it's because of my little walk down Boyfriend Memory Lane.  Maybe it's because old friends from my two high schools keep popping up on Facebook or in my email.  (Hi, Brian, Katie, Bobby, Christy, Dan, Scott, and anyone else from high school who wanders by!)

This isn't to say that I live in the past.  In fact, aside from the last week or so, and a moment of discovery here or there, high school, isn't something that I spend much time thinking about at all.  I haven't shared my high school foibles and romances here in Flashback Fridays like so many people do.  I haven't posted my prom pictures or reminisced about the crazy things we did after football games and at Katie's lake cabin.  I don't write about much of that because I don't think about it.

However, I'm afraid that a few people, one person in particular, after seeing the huge number of posts about high school - yeah all two of them - and the people from it, have gotten the wrong idea.  I am not a single post (or two) on my blog.  From that small selection it would be easy to decide that I regret something or someone. 

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Although I'm certainly not a religious person, I do believe that everything happens for a reason.  To understand that about me, all you have to do is read my series on infertility.  Everything in my life has led me to where I am now, with my family as it is now.

There are people from my past that I will always care about and yes, be curious about.  There is one person in particular that someday I would love to sit down and just catch up with, without all that baggage and bullshit that accompanies relationships.  Someone I wish I could be friends with.  Someone I once loved and now wish all the best in life.  Someone I wish I could know would be OK in the end, despite all the bad luck and tragedy.

Does that make any sense at all? 

I'm not a threat.  I shouldn't even be a disturbance or a blip on the radar because, let's be absolutely clear here: I married the love of my life.

T is my soul mate, my bashert, my gripping stranger.  The day I met him changed my life forever.  He is my best friend, the best of fathers, an amazingly caring and understanding husband, and the best man I've ever known.  He tells me that I give him too much credit, but he truly is my better half.

Together we have two beautiful little boys and will hopefully have another baby if my battered body, and my endocrinologist, will let me.  (No, not right now.  Mom, Dad, no need to alert the media.)

These three boys, one big, two small, are my world.  We were meant to be.

I met T when I was 21.  A mere babe.  We got married when I was 22 and he was 25.  Looking back on our very young selves, T and I both realize how incredibly lucky we've been.  So many of the people we know who got married right out of college are now divorced.  Some are even on their second marriages. If you think about it, 21 or 22 is really far too young for most people to get married.  I didn't know who I was or what I really wanted at 22.  Hell, I'll go so far as to say I wasn't really a grown up yet.

T and I will celebrate our 13th wedding anniversary in two weeks.  We survived because we worked hard at our relationship.  We grew together, instead of growing apart.  Still, T and I are just different enough to keep things interesting.  I'm a Democrat; he's a Republican.  I have a law degree; T has a masters in International Relations and undergraduate degrees in political science and history.  Wanna guess what we fight about the most?

Ah, the fighting.  I think that's actually what made me realize that T and I were going to be together for good.  The first time we had a conflict, he actually fought back.

You see, I'm a pretty stubborn person.  I'm also quite the steamroller.  And I can be a little intimidating.  (Or so I've been told.)  I'd never dated a guy before T who didn't just give in or only put up token resistance to my arguments.  I don't want someone who either agrees with my every thought or, disagrees but hates conflict so much he just lets me have my way.  I've had both of those.  Neither is conducive to a lasting relationship that grows.  Boooooorrring.

I'm convinced that fighting is what makes our marriage work so well.  Some think that any conflict is a sign of trouble.  I think that's ridiculous.  Conflict is a sign of passion.  Conflict is also a sign of two independent-minded people who have to figure out their differences and compromise in a way that works for both of them.  A marriage without conflict is boring as shit.  A marriage without conflict never grows.

So you see, T and I, we're for good.

I spend about 99 percent of my time on this blog talking about myself (well, it is my blog), my kids (they're so darn adorable how could I not?), and my husband (just to keep him on his toes).  The other 1% of my time covers political posts that leak over here from MOMocrats and people from my past.  That pretty much sums up what's important to me and in what proportion.

So read my blog or don't read it.  Pretend I don't exist and delete me on Facebook.  (By the way, ouch. That stung.)  But this is the last post directed to you.  Perhaps your very own blog post seems like overkill, but this is something that I need to say and obviously it's not going to happen through direct communication. That's too bad, but I'm not going to be dragged into a drama that doesn't concern me.

My blog is more or less anonymous.  Some people know who I am because they are my friends or I've let them know.  But if you look at my blog, my full name doesn't appear anywhere on it.  And honestly, if I'd thought anything I wrote here on my blog would hurt anyone, I wouldn't write it in the first place. If passively aggressively hurling insults makes you feel better, knock yourself out.  You're free to write anything you want on your blog, just as I am free to write what I want on mine. 

You don't have to read it if it bothers you so much.

I have the kindest of thoughts, wishes and hopes for you and your husband.  Whether you believe that, and how you feel about me, is entirely within your control.  But don't make me larger than I am.  Don't make me more important than I am.  Don't make him more important to me than he is.  Because he's not.

They are:

He is:

I don't know how to make this any clearer.  Got it?

*** No, that isn't our wedding picture.  It was taken at T's brother's wedding in January of 2002, I think. Jamie, correct me if I'm wrong!

Let's Keep 'Em Poor & Uneducated

Updated to add conference call link below.

This afternoon I participated in a blogger teleconference with John McCain to discuss the statements he made earlier today about how he foresees his first term in office. Because apparently it's very presidential to pretend that you've already won the election before you even officially have the Republican nomination.

First, I have to mention that MOMocrat Joanne Bamberger got a scoop on the call.  In response to her questions and several follow up questions, he stated that he will appoint Democrats to his administration.  (Assuming he has one.  And you know what happens when you assume?  You make an ass out of u and me.)  After listening to her dogged questioning, I can understand why Joanne is such a great journalist.  I bet she was a hell of a lawyer too!

The big news in John McCain's remarks this morning was, of course, his statement that,

By January 2013, America has welcomed home most of the servicemen and women who have sacrificed terribly so that America might be secure in her freedom.... The Iraq War has been won. Iraq is a functioning democracy, although still suffering from the lingering effects of decades of tyranny and centuries of sectarian tension....

Senator McCain didn't get to my question (although he did answer questions from MOMocrats Erin Kotecki-Vest and Joanne Bamberger).  I couldn't believe that not one person asked exactly how McCain intends to change the course of the war so dramatically in 5 years.  Because, despite McCain's claims that he's going to focus on what's "doable" I'm not seeing victory in Iraq, particularly in 5 years, as "doable."

I forwarded my questions to someone in his campaign in the hopes that he will answer them.  Here they are in full:

1. Senator, you said you agree that the war in Iraq was mishandled for the first 4 years.  Can you give us some specifics about what you perceive as the current administration's mistakes in Iraq and what you would do differently to achieve such a marked decrease in violence in the region by 2013?
2. Do you foresee adding troops or continuing the surge in the area? Or do you foresee implementing a national draft to increase troops with our current forces under such strain?
3. You've stated that you are in favor of increasing GI Bill educational benefits for soldiers.  I've also read that you, and others, believe that the educational benefit as currently implemented, encourages soldiers to leave the military in pursuit of education and that the length of time soldiers should serve before receiving benefits should be increased. Has there been any research on this issue or is this just based on supposition?  It seems to me that any extended length of time might actually discourage some from joining the military.

While, I would love to receive answers regarding the first 2 questions, I don't expect to get back much of substance.  What I really want to know is McCain's answer to my third question regarding GI Bill benefits.

While McCain made a point of mentioning on the call that he is in favor of increasing educational benefits for soldiers, he also indicated that he thinks we should work on ways to retain soldiers.  What he didn't say is that he thinks the benefit should be increased, but soldiers should only be able to get it if they stay in longer.

For those of you unfamiliar with GI benefits, after a certain term in the military, usually 3-4 years, you receive a certain amount of money to use for college, living expenses while in school, and graduate school.  It's definitely worth it to some people, particularly those who can't pay for college any other way.

My husband, in fact, got through college this way.  He joined the Navy at 17, spent 3 years on active duty and then went into the reserves.  He finished college in the 3 years after he got out of the Navy and then went on to graduate school, where he met me.  Even with his GI bill money, he was basically living on Ramon noodle.

So basically, certain people in Congress, and apparently John McCain, want to keep people who can't pay for college in the military to be used as cannon fodder for a bit longer before they hand over the school dough.  They want to keep poor people in the military and out of college.

Think about that for a minute.

The military is already disproportionately made up of men and women from the lower socioeconomic strata in this country.  Why?  Because the military provides training and good benefits, like money for college.  Many people, like my husband (and my brother) join the military specifically so that they can pay for college.  So what better way to keep them in the military then to keep them uneducated and relatively poor for as long as possible?

Hey, maybe McCain will get lucky and those kids who might have left for college after 4 years will pick up a spouse and children during the longer wait.  Once a college education becomes economically impossible with a family to support, they'll have them for life. 

Bravo.  Brilliant plan.

I admit that this post is snarkier than usual because John McCain managed to really piss me off during the call.  Why?  Erin asked him a hard question he didn't want to answer, so he was patronizing and condescending to her, telling her she either hadn't read or didn't understand his statement earlier today and, "I'll try to clear it up for you." But I'm sure Erin will have plenty to say on this topic over at the BlogHer, so I'll leave it to her to tell the whole story.

Updated to add:

****You have no idea how much I had to fight the urge to name this post, "McCain you ignorant slut!"

Cross posted at MOMocrats.

Everyone, Meet Jimbo The Sexist Moron

I recently wrote a post for D.C. Metro Moms about sexism in advertising. You might want to read it if you want the back story.

Well, I got a comment last night from my post that I just had to share with everyone. It's from someone aptly named, Jimbo. I'm picturing him in a wife beater t-shirt, with a remote in his hand, screaming at his wife, "Bring me another beer, b*tch!"

Here's his comment in full, typos and all:

You broads are really something else. I feel so sorry for your husbands, if they are still around.

Listen carefully: Feeding your kids is not a bad thing. Keeping a clean home is not a bad thing. It is part of mommy's responsibility, and she should do it happily. This is not sexist. It is woman's work. And it is a lot easier than typical men's work.

Even in a family where both parents work, it is the man who generally makes much more money. This is also not due to sexism or a glass celing. It is because he has chosen a much tougher, dangerous job and works more hours. Also, in the majority of these duel income families where the man earns more, he contributes a greater % of his income to the family's necessities and bills. The wife gets to "play around" with her income, spending it on herself and "fun stuff". The man contributes more financially.

In a family of a man and a woman, there are gender specific chores. Ever notice which gender an auto part store targets? It's men. Does that infuriate you too? When mommy drives for two weeks with the check engine light on, it's daddy's job to fix the car. He also does repairs around the house, mows the lawn, takes out the trash, and does most of the heavy lifting. If there is an unwelcome guest or intruder, it is the daddy's job to handle the situation and keep his family safe. While, hopefully, this is not an everyday duty, it is a man's responsibility that no woman would want.
Bottom line, until you are ready to do man's work, don't complain about your woman's work.

Personally, I think Black Eye Peas send a much more negative messege to kids than "mommy is racing to feed us".

Apparently Jimbo didn't do his homework before he commented on a post written by "Lawyer Mama." (And he doesn't know how to use spell check.)

Discuss!

Oh, and if you'd like to comment to email Jimbo directly, his email address is jimbojonesx@hotmail.com and his IP address is 99.163.183.176. Just to help everyone out, I'll tell you that the IP address is located in Los Angeles.

Welcome to 2008, Jimbo. It's full of uppity women. Enjoy!

Everyone, Meet Jimbo The Sexist Moron

I recently wrote a post for D.C. Metro Moms about sexism in advertising. You might want to read it if you want the back story.

Well, I got a comment last night from my post that I just had to share with everyone. It's from someone aptly named, Jimbo. I'm picturing him in a wife beater t-shirt, with a remote in his hand, screaming at his wife, "Bring me another beer, b*tch!"

Here's his comment in full, typos and all:

You broads are really something else. I feel so sorry for your husbands, if they are still around.

Listen carefully: Feeding your kids is not a bad thing. Keeping a clean home is not a bad thing. It is part of mommy's responsibility, and she should do it happily. This is not sexist. It is woman's work. And it is a lot easier than typical men's work.

Even in a family where both parents work, it is the man who generally makes much more money. This is also not due to sexism or a glass celing. It is because he has chosen a much tougher, dangerous job and works more hours. Also, in the majority of these duel income families where the man earns more, he contributes a greater % of his income to the family's necessities and bills. The wife gets to "play around" with her income, spending it on herself and "fun stuff". The man contributes more financially.

In a family of a man and a woman, there are gender specific chores. Ever notice which gender an auto part store targets? It's men. Does that infuriate you too? When mommy drives for two weeks with the check engine light on, it's daddy's job to fix the car. He also does repairs around the house, mows the lawn, takes out the trash, and does most of the heavy lifting. If there is an unwelcome guest or intruder, it is the daddy's job to handle the situation and keep his family safe. While, hopefully, this is not an everyday duty, it is a man's responsibility that no woman would want.
Bottom line, until you are ready to do man's work, don't complain about your woman's work.

Personally, I think Black Eye Peas send a much more negative messege to kids than "mommy is racing to feed us".

Apparently Jimbo didn't do his homework before he commented on a post written by "Lawyer Mama." (And he doesn't know how to use spell check.)

Discuss!

Oh, and if you'd like to comment to email Jimbo directly, his email address is jimbojonesx@hotmail.com and his IP address is 99.163.183.176. Just to help everyone out, I'll tell you that the IP address is located in Los Angeles.

Welcome to 2008, Jimbo. It's full of uppity women. Enjoy!

Three for the Price of One

New post up on Lawyer Mama Dabbles. It's all about where I live, in case Jenny wants to stalk me.

New post up on DC Metro Moms. The sexist commercials just finally went too far!

New post up on MOMocrats. Want to read about the Evolution of a MOMocrat?

Three for the Price of One

New post up on Lawyer Mama Dabbles. It's all about where I live, in case Jenny wants to stalk me.

New post up on DC Metro Moms. The sexist commercials just finally went too far!

New post up on MOMocrats. Want to read about the Evolution of a MOMocrat?

Driving Public Policy

Edited: Well, it seems that the AP is reporting that John Edwards is dropping out of the race. So much for my steadfast loyalty. I still think that he's played an important role in this campaign. I know he says he won't be the vice-presidential nominee, but a girl can hope, right?

I know you want to know who I'm supporting now. I don't think I'm going to decide yet. Virginia's primary is a week after Super Tuesday, so I don't have to decide until then. I know which way I'm leaning, but I want to see where HRC and Obama's policies lead me.

One of the bloggers over at Chicago Mom's Blog drafted an open letter to the Democratic Presidential candidates. You can see it on all of the sister sites, including the D.C. Metro Moms Blog that I contribute to. Veronica's letter is a wonderful idea. Several of the D.C. Metro Moms have been trying to get through to the presidential candidates for awhile. We even started topic days on all the sister sites to increase awareness of the political motivations of parent bloggers.

To a certain extent, it worked a bit. We had a wonderful meeting/teleconference with Elizabeth Edwards. We had some feelers from Senator Dodd's campaign. The Obamas basically told us, "thanks but no thanks," and I don't think we ever even heard from the HRC camp or anyone else. As for the Republican candidates? Bubkus. (Granted, I could really care less, but I do understand that not every mom who blogs is a Democrat.)

The problem I have with Veronica's letter is that it ignores my candidate, John Edwards. People can say whatever they want about his campaign being essentially over, but he is still in the game. CNN can pull him from their polls, but that doesn't change the fact that John Edwards has been driving policy in the Democratic primaries.

Even if Senator Edwards doesn't have a chance at the nomination any more, he's staying in the race to hold the nominee's feet to the fire. To make sure that Senators Obama and Clinton don't kill each other in a toddler temper tantrum, to make sure they don't forget about poverty, and health insurance, and economic reform, and environmental policy, and all those other things that we care about.

So let's not leave John Edwards out because, based on past experience, he's the candidate most likely to listen to us. Edwards does still have a role in this election. If I didn't truly believe that, I wouldn't still be beating the John Edwards drum over at MOMocrats.

For all we've heard about the presidential candidates *cough*OBAMA*cough* being socially media savvy, moms who blog have been pretty much ignored, except by the Edwards campaign. While companies and PR people can't wait to market to us or hear what we think about the latest mop or kid video on the market, nobody besides Edwards seems to give a flying fart what we think about public policy.

And it's not that no one cares what bloggers think. Hop on over the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. Oh, the politicians care. They just don't care unless they can directly see a result in terms of political support or money. It's not so clear cut with us, the mothers who blog about anything and everything. But make no mistake, we vote, we're well educated, and we talk and write about politics in a personal way. People read our blogs. Some people actually do care what we think.

So, here's what I say:

Take heed, politicians. The internet is viral. If one of our fellow mom bloggers can get thousands of women across the country heading to the gym in an attempt to replicate her Big O on the treadmill, just think what we could do for your ideas and your campaign.

Ignore us at your peril.

Sincerely,

One Pissed Off Mommy Blogger

***********

As usual, I have new photos up at Lawyer Mama Dabbles. Is anyone other than my mother even reading that site? Give a gal some love, would you? Mwah!

Edited to add: Nancy, babe. I added an O link just for you! I meant to link it, so thanks for reminding me.

Driving Public Policy

Edited: Well, it seems that the AP is reporting that John Edwards is dropping out of the race. So much for my steadfast loyalty. I still think that he's played an important role in this campaign. I know he says he won't be the vice-presidential nominee, but a girl can hope, right?

I know you want to know who I'm supporting now. I don't think I'm going to decide yet. Virginia's primary is a week after Super Tuesday, so I don't have to decide until then. I know which way I'm leaning, but I want to see where HRC and Obama's policies lead me.

One of the bloggers over at Chicago Mom's Blog drafted an open letter to the Democratic Presidential candidates. You can see it on all of the sister sites, including the D.C. Metro Moms Blog that I contribute to. Veronica's letter is a wonderful idea. Several of the D.C. Metro Moms have been trying to get through to the presidential candidates for awhile. We even started topic days on all the sister sites to increase awareness of the political motivations of parent bloggers.

To a certain extent, it worked a bit. We had a wonderful meeting/teleconference with Elizabeth Edwards. We had some feelers from Senator Dodd's campaign. The Obamas basically told us, "thanks but no thanks," and I don't think we ever even heard from the HRC camp or anyone else. As for the Republican candidates? Bubkus. (Granted, I could really care less, but I do understand that not every mom who blogs is a Democrat.)

The problem I have with Veronica's letter is that it ignores my candidate, John Edwards. People can say whatever they want about his campaign being essentially over, but he is still in the game. CNN can pull him from their polls, but that doesn't change the fact that John Edwards has been driving policy in the Democratic primaries.

Even if Senator Edwards doesn't have a chance at the nomination any more, he's staying in the race to hold the nominee's feet to the fire. To make sure that Senators Obama and Clinton don't kill each other in a toddler temper tantrum, to make sure they don't forget about poverty, and health insurance, and economic reform, and environmental policy, and all those other things that we care about.

So let's not leave John Edwards out because, based on past experience, he's the candidate most likely to listen to us. Edwards does still have a role in this election. If I didn't truly believe that, I wouldn't still be beating the John Edwards drum over at MOMocrats.

For all we've heard about the presidential candidates *cough*OBAMA*cough* being socially media savvy, moms who blog have been pretty much ignored, except by the Edwards campaign. While companies and PR people can't wait to market to us or hear what we think about the latest mop or kid video on the market, nobody besides Edwards seems to give a flying fart what we think about public policy.

And it's not that no one cares what bloggers think. Hop on over the Daily Kos or the Huffington Post. Oh, the politicians care. They just don't care unless they can directly see a result in terms of political support or money. It's not so clear cut with us, the mothers who blog about anything and everything. But make no mistake, we vote, we're well educated, and we talk and write about politics in a personal way. People read our blogs. Some people actually do care what we think.

So, here's what I say:

Take heed, politicians. The internet is viral. If one of our fellow mom bloggers can get thousands of women across the country heading to the gym in an attempt to replicate her Big O on the treadmill, just think what we could do for your ideas and your campaign.

Ignore us at your peril.

Sincerely,

One Pissed Off Mommy Blogger

***********

As usual, I have new photos up at Lawyer Mama Dabbles. Is anyone other than my mother even reading that site? Give a gal some love, would you? Mwah!

Edited to add: Nancy, babe. I added an O link just for you! I meant to link it, so thanks for reminding me.

Post-Election Revelry

I'm thrilled that elections are over for this year. First, the Democrats took control of Virginia's Senate. Wooooooo Hoooooooo! But more importantly, those annoying political ads have stopped.

For now.

I'm fully aware that next year's crop will be even worse and will last longer given the upcoming presidential primaries and election. I cannot stand political ads. It's not just because I've already picked my candidate. No, the negative campaigning just makes me want to shriek in agony and throw things at the TV. And then rip up my voter card, burn it, and stomp on the ashes for good measure.

I can't be the only one annoyed and, yes at times, infuriated by these commercials. They're all pretty much a carbon copy of one another:

{Cue ominous music}

Jane Smith voted to raise taxes on Virginia's working families 5,345 times while accepting campaign donations from evil pharmaceutical companies/oil companies/Chinese lead factories.

{Insert unflattering, grainy photo of Jane Smith with mouth pursed or wide open while she appears to be drop kicking an infant or stealing a lollipop from a toddler.}

{Music perks up}

{Insert clip of John Doe with Stepford family and
then shaking the hands of working folk.}

John Doe understands the needs of Virginia families. He walks on water and is the second coming of Christ. He'll drop down to his knees and pleasure each of you individually if you vote for him. He'll even enjoy it if you'll also give him money.

{Cheesy, smiling photo of John Doe with waving flag in
background.}

John Doe, working "hard" for Virginia families.

"I'm John Doe and I approved this message."

(Those annoying automated phone calls are also frustrating to me. I hang up, but they just keep calling!)

If you actually go do your research, you discover that Jane Smith has never actually voted to increase taxes, but has voted for bills that indirectly increase fees or has voted in committee for bills that *might* potentially raise taxes 85 years from now.

Why do politicians do this? These commercials insult our intelligence and lower the discourse of political debate. I know, I know. Negative campaigning works. But I don't have to like it. In fact, I'm going to keep bitching until a nice guy or girl finally wins.

Post-Election Revelry

I'm thrilled that elections are over for this year. First, the Democrats took control of Virginia's Senate. Wooooooo Hoooooooo! But more importantly, those annoying political ads have stopped.

For now.

I'm fully aware that next year's crop will be even worse and will last longer given the upcoming presidential primaries and election. I cannot stand political ads. It's not just because I've already picked my candidate. No, the negative campaigning just makes me want to shriek in agony and throw things at the TV. And then rip up my voter card, burn it, and stomp on the ashes for good measure.

I can't be the only one annoyed and, yes at times, infuriated by these commercials. They're all pretty much a carbon copy of one another:

{Cue ominous music}

Jane Smith voted to raise taxes on Virginia's working families 5,345 times while accepting campaign donations from evil pharmaceutical companies/oil companies/Chinese lead factories.

{Insert unflattering, grainy photo of Jane Smith with mouth pursed or wide open while she appears to be drop kicking an infant or stealing a lollipop from a toddler.}

{Music perks up}

{Insert clip of John Doe with Stepford family and
then shaking the hands of working folk.}

John Doe understands the needs of Virginia families. He walks on water and is the second coming of Christ. He'll drop down to his knees and pleasure each of you individually if you vote for him. He'll even enjoy it if you'll also give him money.

{Cheesy, smiling photo of John Doe with waving flag in
background.}

John Doe, working "hard" for Virginia families.

"I'm John Doe and I approved this message."

(Those annoying automated phone calls are also frustrating to me. I hang up, but they just keep calling!)

If you actually go do your research, you discover that Jane Smith has never actually voted to increase taxes, but has voted for bills that indirectly increase fees or has voted in committee for bills that *might* potentially raise taxes 85 years from now.

Why do politicians do this? These commercials insult our intelligence and lower the discourse of political debate. I know, I know. Negative campaigning works. But I don't have to like it. In fact, I'm going to keep bitching until a nice guy or girl finally wins.

Facebook Sucks

I've been a bad bloggy friend lately, I know. I've been awfully busy at work and I have some other things brewing with the DC Metro Moms Blog (more on that below), so I haven't been visiting all of my blog friends regularly. I actually had to take drastic measures and mark the 205 (!) unread blog posts I had sitting in Bloglines as already read.

Please forgive me?

Now on to another rant:

Many people weighed in on the Bill Maher breastfeeding equals masturbation debate last week. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Only by discussing issues like this will we change public perception. In my post, I mentioned that Facebook had been deleting photos of breastfeeding women. You may have even seen the nifty "Facebook Sucks" buttons that have been popping up all over the Blogosphere.

Maybe Facebook has had enough thrashing for the year, but I'm not done yet.

David Westcott of It's Not A Lecture was the first blogger to bring the Facebook fiasco to my attention. In his initial post he pointed out that not only has Facebook pulled breastfeeding pictures from its site, it also banned one woman for life apparently because of her repeated and flagrant violation of Facebook's policies. I'm guessing that she continued to put up breastfeeding pictures. In fact, if you'd like to see the pictures that started it all, go here. (Thank you, Izzy, for the link!)

But wait, there's more. In David's post he pointed to something the Canadian media has picked up on. While Facebook apparently considers breastfeeding photos a violation of its Terms of Service, it permits some 300 pro-anorexia groups on Facebook. In these groups, women exchange tips on how to starve themselves and post pictures. Photos of themselves in an emaciated state.

Seriously.

These are a few of the groups that I found in a few searches on Facebook:

Karen Carpenter: Patron Saint of Anorexia
the "you know you want to be pro-ana really" society
Anorexia is NOT a disease, It's a LIFESTYLE
Get Thin or Die Trying
Us Size 0, UK Size 4
Size 0 to Hero

This is only a small number of the groups I found.

Now let's talk about why Facebook says it removed the breastfeeding photos.

David emailed Facebook and asked them about it. You can read his follow up post about his email exchange with Facebook here. Please go read the emails. They're awfully enlightening. Here's part of what Facebook had to say:

Facebook does allow mothers to upload and share photos of themselves breastfeeding their babies, and those photos remain available on Facebook as long as they follow the site’s Terms of Use. Photos containing a fully exposed breast do violate those Terms and could be removed.

(Emphasis added by me.) Basically what it comes down to is, Facebook says the breastfeeding photos violate its Terms of Use if they contain "a fully exposed breast." OK, so let's see what Facebook's Terms of Use really do say. (I'm going to repeat some of what I said in David's comments.)

Under the Terms of Use, users agree not to:

upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable;

(Emphasis added by me.) See anything about partial nudity or even full nudity or exposed breasts? Nope? Me neither. But Facebook's Terms of Use also refer to its Code of Conduct. So let's check that, shall we.

The Code of Conduct says this about Inappropriate Conduct:

While we believe users should be able to express themselves and their point of view, certain kinds of speech simply do not belong in a community like Facebook. Therefore, you may not post or share Content that:

* is obscene, pornographic or sexually explicit
* depicts graphic or gratuitous violence
* makes threats of any kind or that intimidates, harasses, or bullies anyone
* is derogatory, demeaning, malicious, defamatory, abusive, offensive or hateful

Honestly, I don't see how even a fully exposed breast (if one happened to be exposed during breastfeeding) could fall under Facebook's Terms of Use or its Code of Conduct unless company policy makes it so, unless "we" meaning Facebook deems it so. That's exactly what the Terms of Use say. It prohibits content that "we [meaning Facebook] deem to be [...] obscene [...] or otherwise objectionable."

That's what it comes down to, folks. Someone at Facebook made a policy decision that a breastfeeding photo is obscene or otherwise objectionable.

But pro-ana groups. Those are peachy keen. Here I give you another excerpt from David's email exchange with Facebook. When David pressed Facebook on the issue of pro-ana groups, here's what they had to say:

Facebook supports the free flow of information, and groups provide a forum for discussing important issues. Many Facebook groups relate to controversial topics; this alone is not a reason to disable a group. Facebook considers whether the content on wall posts and discussion boards of groups offer opinions on both sides of the issue. In cases where content is reported and found to violate the site’s Terms of Use, Facebook will remove it.

So breastfeeding = obscene or otherwise objectionable.

Pro-ana groups = "free flow of information" or "forum for discussing important issues."

Even though under Facebook's Terms of Use, I think a pro-ana group could definitely be considered harmful or otherwise objectionable, even without Facebook exercising its "discretion."

Dr. Leigh Ann Simmons, David's wife, wrote a wonderful post discussing one of the not so obvious problems with pro-ana sites. She points to a study in the International Journal of Eating Disorders that found that women feel heavier and less confident about themselves after viewing pro-ana websites.

So not only can the pro-ana Facebook groups help girls and women harm themselves physically, it can also harm them psychologically. My guess is that a teenager struggling with an eating disorder is certainly not going to receive positive help and support from a pro-ana website.

Facebook has a lot of explaining to do.

Today David let me know that, earlier this week, the For Immediate Release podcast (according to David, the top social PR podcast in the industry) discussed the Facebook breastfeeding/pro-ana debate and David's post. In it, they mention me and Izzy and quote our comments from David's blog. Here's a direct link to the MP3. The discussion is about 1/4 of the way into the show and lasts for about 5 minutes. When they talk about the lawyer who commented on David's post and read all the legalese you saw above? That's me. Thanks for the heads up, David!

*************
In other news, there are some exciting things happening for the SV Moms Blog, Chicago Moms Blog, and DC Metro Moms Blog posters. Elizabeth Edwards is meeting with the SV Moms on Saturday in California. Chicago Moms and DC Moms will be participating by conference call and apparently, the word is that Ms. Edwards would like to meet with the Chicago and DC Moms in person as well. I'm so excited I could pee myself! I'm glad someone is listening.

To continue this trend and to ensure that moms can participate in a serious discussion of the issues in the next election, we're going to try something a little new at the SV/Chicago/DC Metro Moms Blogs. Next Thursday, we'll all be posting about an important issue - health care. I've heard BlogHers Act is going to get involved and post about the issue too. If we get some good feedback, I'd like to do it every few weeks and hit as many social and political issues as we can. Check back for further details later on but I'm really excited about having the opportunity to speak up and have a great discussion. If any of you would like to participate, email me at lawyermama at gmail dot come and I'll give you more details.

I also have a new review of Phonics 4 Babies over at Lawyer Mama Review.