Lawyer Mama

Women for John McCain

The most hysterical site I've seen in ages.  Go read it!

Women for John McCain

***********************

Also, I'll be on the MOMocrats Podcast again this Sunday at 6pm EST.  We'll be discussing the Dems' plans to turn key states from red to blue and having a follow up discussion on the Virginia and Texas Democratic conventions.  If you'd like to listen in, or participate in the simulcast chat, we'd love to have you.

MOMocrats Podcast

*******************

I also forgot to mention that one of my Virginia Convention posts for MOMocrats is up on the Huffington Post.  <shameless_self_promotion>Go me!</shameless_self_promotion>

At the Virginia Democratic Convention

I'm blogging from the Virginia Democratic Convention today.  I'll have posts up throughout the day at MOMocrats, so check out the site throughout the day.

Of course I'll have the inside scoop here later.

MOMocrats Nabs Obama Exclusive

Our press release:

Headline: MOMocrats EXCLUSIVE with Barack Obama

MOMocrats step up where mainstream media and traditional debates let the American public down, "Things we wish they'd asked in the debates..."

Recently, MOMocrats asked the Democratic Presidential candidates the questions we all wish reporters or moderators had asked in any interview or debate. Today, Senator Barack Obama sent back his answers to the MOMocrats questions. This is the latest example of the influence political blogging groups are showing in the presidential campaign

The most recent debate between the Democratic candidates was disappointing to most citizens. We felt that the questions were directed more towards mud slinging between the candidates than substantive questions about domestic and foreign policy. So the MOMocrats and their readers came up with a list of "Questions We Wish ABC Had Asked." Then we submitted them to the candidates.

In a MOMocrats exclusive, Barack Obama answers the questions that should have been asked during the last debate. Click here to read our interview, in which he finally gets to discuss the issues, not his apparel or acquaintances.

We haven't heard from the Clinton campaign yet, but the MOMocrats' invitation for her to weigh in remains open.

The MOMocrats are politically savvy and active pundit moms dedicated to putting a Democrat in the White House. You can read more about them at MOMocrats.


Obama selected 5 of our questions and responded, covering everything from human rights and poverty to the mortgage crisis and family friendly policies. I know you want to go read our scoop!

Get your butt over to MOMocrats, pronto!

The Parental Goes Political

The women of the Silicon Valley,Chicago, and DC Metro Moms Blogs have been talking about politics a lot lately. Have you noticed? In the year preceding an election, it's only natural that that so many well educated and articulate women are talking about the future of our country. The problem? We don't seem to be taken seriously. At least not as seriously as the "men."

A recent column in The Caucus, the political blog of the New York Times asks whether men are more involved than women in blogging about politics. The consensus seemed to be that, yes, they are, although no one seems to be able to explain it. I think the answer lies not in brash statistics, but in redefining "involvement."

Women bloggers, at least the bloggers I know, don't tend to blog exclusively about politics. We write about the environment, education, health care, our families, our jobs, our lives and politics. However, we aren't always looking for the next sound bite from a politician or dissecting the latest poll figures. We write about what concerns us in a way that concerns us and resonates with our readers. Read More....

I'm Such A GEEK!

I'm practically running around the house doing cartwheels because our meeting/conference call with Elizabeth Edwards has a write up by Tracy Joan on the Daily Kos website. She mentions the new MOMocrats site too. (Have you checked it out yet? Why the hell not?)

My completely embarrassing story about my kids screaming in the background while I was on the phone with Elizabeth Edwards has been quoted for all the world to see. I'm tickled pink.

I'm such a geek!

****************

On a more serious note, a fellow blogger needs our help. The lovely Jenn from Serving the Queens recently lost a family member in Iraq, Sgt. Matthew Blaskowski.

Jenn has put up a card of sorts, online for Matt's parents, Terry and Cheryl Blaskowski and they'd like to get as many "signatures" as possible before the funeral on Thursday. Please go over and send them your good thoughts. (No anti-war messages will be posted. They don't need that right now.)

Thanks for your help, my bloggy friends.

Hope: A Conversation With Elizabeth Edwards

I don't regularly discuss politics here on my personal blog. I'm not sure I can accurately articulate why that is. I guess Lawyer Mama has always been an outlet for what is going on inside of my head. My thoughts on politics and social policy usually aren't limited to the four squishy corners of my brain. I talk about them often, with friends, family and co-workers. But lately? My thoughts about the upcoming election and the direction of this country have been racing. So bear with me. I'm going to get all political on you, my dear readers, and it's going to probably happen pretty often until November 2008.

This weekend, the Silicon Valley, Chicago, and D.C. Metro Moms bloggers had an opportunity to speak with Elizabeth Edwards. The Silicon Valley moms met with her in person and some of the Chicago and D.C. Metro Moms bloggers participated by conference call, including yours truly. Joanne was the spokesperson for the D.C. Metro Moms on the call and she did a fabulous job. You all know what a big Elizabeth Edwards fan I am, so I was thrilled to have the chance to ask Ms. Edwards substantive policy questions. (If you'd like to see live blogging of the whole shebang, go here and here.)

I did, however, have a moment of sheer mortification. I was on the conference call on my cell phone parked at my laptop in the dining room. My husband has been transferring the contents of said laptop to an external hard drive for the last 3 days, so I was grounded, so to speak. I couldn't lock myself in the bedroom away from the chaos created by two small boys.

During the introductions, I accidentally un-muted my cell phone. Of course, H&H began screaming and running around on cue. I didn't realize that anyone could hear them until Elizabeth said "Whoever has the kids in the background, don't shut them up! I might have to bring my own in here too." Everyone laughed while I was staring at my cell phone in horror and frantically pushing the mute button! Of course, I got over my embarrassment immediately. This was a conference call with mothers. Elizabeth is a mother too. She and my fellow mom bloggers certainly weren't going to judge me for showing a bit of humanity.

Elizabeth (she asked us to call her that!) was, as always, articulate, funny, and a font of information. She answered our questions about health care, her role as first lady, and, most impressively, how John Edwards will make our world better and safer for our children. This was Amie's question and, man, it was a good one.

Elizabeth went on to talk about universal health care, college for everyone, and reestablishing our moral authority in the world. She was up front about change being a slow and difficult process. But she also told us that we need to be engaged to make it happen. "We don't get the change we want unless we're willing to work for it."

Elizabeth talked about not just making this a better America, but about creating a better world.

Creating a better world.

What I like most about Elizabeth and John Edwards is that they both have a touch of idealism in them. They don't talk like politicians. They haven't given up on making positive changes. In fact, they've both dedicated their lives to trying to make that happen and they have concrete plans to do it.

I voted for John Edwards in the last presidential primary. I'll be doing so again in early 2008 and, hopefully, in November 2008. I hope that when my children are older I'll be able to tell them about a phone call I had with our future First Lady and about how she gave me hope. Hope that this world and our United States can be better.

Of course, I'll have to tell Hollis and Holden about how our future First Lady commented on their hooligan noise and roughhousing. But I'm quite certain she did it with a smile.
Cross posted at D.C. Metro Moms Blog and MOMocrats.

***************
I'm also excited to tell you all that I've joined another blog, this one with a solely political purpose. It's called MOMocrats and it's a group of moms who are supporting John Edwards for president. You can read all about our bloggers here. I'm thrilled to have this opportunity and I hope you'll stop by often to hear what we have to say.

We Won't Be Ignored

I have a new post up on the DC Metro Moms Blog. Head on over to read my latest rant. But here's a little teaser....

Last week on our sister site, Silicon Valley Moms Blog, Rebecca wrote a post she has come to regret. In it, she called Elizabeth Edwards, wife of Democratic candidate John Edwards, a "terrible mother" for taking her kids on the campaign trail. Rebecca, and the rest of us, got a big shock. Ms. Edwards replied to her post within a few hours. And the media picked up on it. The original post no longer appears on the site, but our own Joanne wrote about the exchange for DC Metro Moms.

My point in dragging all of this up again is not to rehash the argument between Rebecca and Ms. Edwards. I had the opportunity to hear Ms. Edwards speak at BlogHer in Chicago this Summer and I'm a big admirer. I'm not here to start another Mommy War. I just want to point out that the response from Ms. Edwards should be a big reminder to everyone, candidates and media alike, of the power and exposure women are gaining on the Internet. Read More....

Of Privilege and Prejudice

A few years ago I got into a heated debate with an extended family member. I don't recall how the topic came up, but lots of alcohol had been ingested and I think she finally got up the cojones to ask me about my decidedly liberal tendencies. The subject was the U.S. "welfare" system.

I explained that I felt fortunate to have my brain, education, and upbringing and that I saw nothing wrong with paying a bit more in taxes to help those not so fortunate. My, (I thought) relatively reasonable opinions, brought forth a spew of vitriol against "those people." "Those people" on welfare. The words were so forceful that spittle sprayed my face. In the interests of keeping our vacation somewhat peaceful, I walked away. But I was very disturbed.

Over the last few years I've returned to this exchange in my thoughts and wondered what it was about my relative's views that I found so unnerving. After all, I usually have no problem shunting off the views of hateful people without a second thought. Now, I think my unease arose from a sense that we weren't just talking about welfare. We were talking about a whole world view.

What was left unsaid, but implied, by my relative, is that "those people" are somehow different. They aren't white. They aren't middle class. They don't work hard. They have children they can't support. They aren't us.

They bring poverty and misfortune on themselves.

Sigh.

Now, I know you're all thinking "Oh, she's going to talk about welfare in the U.S. OK, let's just get through this post." But no, I'm not. I'd like to take a look at the broader picture. Because this "us" and "them" mentality isn't limited to class and race wars within the U.S. It's not simply used to bolster a "have" and "have not" system of economics. Rather, some people use this view to internally validate an entirely isolationist view of the world. After all, if people unfortunate enough to have been born into poverty, or in another country, speaking a different language, or with a different religion, just aren't as good as "us," it makes everything so much easier.

It makes it easier to turn the TV channel when you see conflict in the Middle East on the evening news. It makes it easier to buy a People magazine instead of the newspaper when the headline about genocide in Darfur is screaming at you. And yes, it makes it easier to walk by that obviously mentally ill pan handler, keeping your eyes averted at all times. Those people aren't like you, like me, like "us." And hence, their suffering is not our problem.

I fear that I am making some of my regular readers uncomfortable with this diatribe. I can almost feel you pulling away. So I feel as if I must clarify my views even further. This is not a diatribe against fiscal conservatism or even Republicans. Republican does not = racist. I know many compassionate people who have dedicated their lives to helping others and who believe that social welfare is simply not the role of our government. This I can respect. What I cannot respect are those who turn a blind eye (regardless of political persuasion) and simply say "It's not my problem." Because it is your problem. As a resident of this Earth, as one of the privileged simply by happy accident of birth, it is your problem.

It's "our" problem and we all need to open our eyes and see.


This post is part of Julie's latest roundtable discussion. Our topic for this week was quite broad - "accident of birth." I'm sure others have tackled this topic of privilege with more clarity and erudition, but this is a post that's been brewing for quite some time and I had to let it out.

******************
In other news, I finally got off my tushy and put something up on my review site. I put up my submission for the new PBN Blog Blast for Sk*rt, "What Are You Hiding Under Your Skirt?" Go check it out! And vote for my post.

Conflict of Conscience

I generally try to avoid blogging about my job, other than in the most general terms. I don't want to run the risk of insulting people with whom I work and negotiate on a daily basis. But something tragic happened to the family of a lawyer with whom I work recently and it's really made me think.

On November 11, 2006, Elisabeth Kelly King Reilly, was shot during a robbery at an upscale shopping center in Virginia Beach. According to witnesses, she had handed over her belongings to the robber and both Kelly and her robber had turned to leave when the robber turned and shot Kelly in the back. Kelly died at the hospital later that evening. She was 25 years old and a newlywed - she had been married for only four months.

People in the area are in an uproar. Because of the tragic nature of the crime, because of the circumstances, and because it might have been avoided. You see, the suspect, 19 year old Christopher Hagans, had quite a criminal history and was out on bail when Kelly was murdered. The judge did not have Christopher Hagan's criminal history before him when he released him on bail. Of course lots of finger pointing is now happening, with prosecutors claiming they don't have the man hours or the money to do a background check before every hearing. I'm sure the issue will be debated in the area for years to come, but that's not really what I'm writing about. You see, Christopher Hagans, who has been arrested and charged in Kelly's murder, is almost certain to face the death penalty if convicted. The fact is that a death sentence in Virginia really is a death sentence - Virginia executes more people than any other state except Texas.

I've hinted about my conflicted feelings about the death penalty before, but I guess I'll explain a bit more now. Until my mid-20's I really had no strong feelings about the death penalty. If asked for my view, I would have told you I didn't really have one. But when I entered law school I was forced to actually think rationally about the death penalty and examine my personal views. I educated myself on the issue and my conclusion was that the death penalty was applied irrationally, irregularly, and along racial lines. What's more, you don't have to be a "liberal" to realize that it costs a lot of money to have prisoners on death row with years of automatic appeals. And I have to admit that there is something a touch barbaric about keeping a man in a cage for 20 years before finally hauling him off and executing him for a crime committed years before. Now there's no need to flame me if you disagree with my views. I know all of the arguments for and against the death penalty. Trust me, there's no need to educate me on the matter. What it comes down to, for me, is whether the risk of executing even one innocent person is worth the price, both in terms of money, revenge, and "justice." I don't think it is. Now that I have children, however, my thoughts on the death penalty have become more conflicted. Let me just say that if anyone hurt one of my children, I. would. kill. them. Or at least I would want to. How do I rationalize this feeling? I have no idea. I haven't even tried. I've never really been forced into a situation where my principles would be challenged and I hope to god I never am.

Unfortunately, a partner in my firm is now in this unthinkable situation. Kelly Reilly was his cousin. And my co-worker, we'll call him Lawyer X, is an ardent critic of the death penalty. In fact, Lawyer X frequently represents prisoners in their death row appeals pro bono. Lawyer X has also been quite outspoken about his feelings in the media, locally and nationally. Lawyer X has had clients executed and he has witnessed them first hand. I honestly don't know how he does it. Setting aside the crimes for which Lawyer X's clients have been convicted, I don't know how he puts himself personally and professionally in such a losing position. I know that I could not handle the emotional pain and the responsibility of literally holding someone's life in my hands. Lawyer X is not a criminal defense attorney, but he has convictions and he has trained himself to use his exceptional legal abilities to support those convictions. I admire that.

But in a cruel twist of fate, Lawyer X and his family are about to go through a death penalty case from the other side of the aisle. And I am afraid to ask him about it. I'm afraid to ask him if his personal convictions have changed now that a dear family member has been cruelly murdered. In another world, a parallel world where Kelly Reilly is still alive, Lawyer X might have represented Christopher Hagans. So what does Lawyer X do now? I have no idea, and I suspect that neither does he.

Conflict of Conscience

I generally try to avoid blogging about my job, other than in the most general terms. I don't want to run the risk of insulting people with whom I work and negotiate on a daily basis. But something tragic happened to the family of a lawyer with whom I work recently and it's really made me think.

On November 11, 2006, Elisabeth Kelly King Reilly, was shot during a robbery at an upscale shopping center in Virginia Beach. According to witnesses, she had handed over her belongings to the robber and both Kelly and her robber had turned to leave when the robber turned and shot Kelly in the back. Kelly died at the hospital later that evening. She was 25 years old and a newlywed - she had been married for only four months.

People in the area are in an uproar. Because of the tragic nature of the crime, because of the circumstances, and because it might have been avoided. You see, the suspect, 19 year old Christopher Hagans, had quite a criminal history and was out on bail when Kelly was murdered. The judge did not have Christopher Hagan's criminal history before him when he released him on bail. Of course lots of finger pointing is now happening, with prosecutors claiming they don't have the man hours or the money to do a background check before every hearing. I'm sure the issue will be debated in the area for years to come, but that's not really what I'm writing about. You see, Christopher Hagans, who has been arrested and charged in Kelly's murder, is almost certain to face the death penalty if convicted. The fact is that a death sentence in Virginia really is a death sentence - Virginia executes more people than any other state except Texas.

I've hinted about my conflicted feelings about the death penalty before, but I guess I'll explain a bit more now. Until my mid-20's I really had no strong feelings about the death penalty. If asked for my view, I would have told you I didn't really have one. But when I entered law school I was forced to actually think rationally about the death penalty and examine my personal views. I educated myself on the issue and my conclusion was that the death penalty was applied irrationally, irregularly, and along racial lines. What's more, you don't have to be a "liberal" to realize that it costs a lot of money to have prisoners on death row with years of automatic appeals. And I have to admit that there is something a touch barbaric about keeping a man in a cage for 20 years before finally hauling him off and executing him for a crime committed years before. Now there's no need to flame me if you disagree with my views. I know all of the arguments for and against the death penalty. Trust me, there's no need to educate me on the matter. What it comes down to, for me, is whether the risk of executing even one innocent person is worth the price, both in terms of money, revenge, and "justice." I don't think it is. Now that I have children, however, my thoughts on the death penalty have become more conflicted. Let me just say that if anyone hurt one of my children, I. would. kill. them. Or at least I would want to. How do I rationalize this feeling? I have no idea. I haven't even tried. I've never really been forced into a situation where my principles would be challenged and I hope to god I never am.

Unfortunately, a partner in my firm is now in this unthinkable situation. Kelly Reilly was his cousin. And my co-worker, we'll call him Lawyer X, is an ardent critic of the death penalty. In fact, Lawyer X frequently represents prisoners in their death row appeals pro bono. Lawyer X has also been quite outspoken about his feelings in the media, locally and nationally. Lawyer X has had clients executed and he has witnessed them first hand. I honestly don't know how he does it. Setting aside the crimes for which Lawyer X's clients have been convicted, I don't know how he puts himself personally and professionally in such a losing position. I know that I could not handle the emotional pain and the responsibility of literally holding someone's life in my hands. Lawyer X is not a criminal defense attorney, but he has convictions and he has trained himself to use his exceptional legal abilities to support those convictions. I admire that.

But in a cruel twist of fate, Lawyer X and his family are about to go through a death penalty case from the other side of the aisle. And I am afraid to ask him about it. I'm afraid to ask him if his personal convictions have changed now that a dear family member has been cruelly murdered. In another world, a parallel world where Kelly Reilly is still alive, Lawyer X might have represented Christopher Hagans. So what does Lawyer X do now? I have no idea, and I suspect that neither does he.