facebook: "Whoa, hold the nursing and give them more suggestive ads."

Why is this:


More sexually explicit than this?:

The first picture was removed by facebook a few days ago. The other is one of many ads (and photos) that facebook allows (or gets money from!), and continues to harass people who aren't interested in prostitutes. What is up with our standards? facebook has been pulling pictures of mothers nursing their babies to make it a comfortable place for "everyone" to go, but yet they do nothing about the countless suggestive ads (like the one above, which is for a dating site--yes, a "real" dating site)? Here is an article that addresses their policy. It is not just facebook either. The media gets away with all kinds of material that is supposed to by "child" friendly... what about the above ad is child friendly? But gosh, if a woman's breast is shown in the context of nursing, then it's taken down? Aren't a lot of these children still nursing anyway? 

Perhaps breastfeeding babies cannot afford to be airbrushed, nor do they bring in the same revenue of more obscene content.

I don't have a problem with facebook specifically. They can set whatever rules they want to, no matter how ridiculous or inconsistent. It is our society that has produced these backwards standards.

If you're tired of the Mormon/Christian debate, don't read this

I'm writing on this never ending issue because I need some catharsis...

From an online debate this morning:
“Christianity is based on an entirely different gospel than what Mormons teach. If you believe that you have the truth, then why are calling yourselves Christians. Do you believe that Mormonism is true? I believe Christianity is true, and I call myself a Christian because I believe in the truth about Christ from the Bible and the bible alone. You follow Mormonism that makes you a Mormon. Call it what it is, and stop trying to make yourselves look good to the rest of the world. If you believe in your "religion" than stop being ashamed of it. The Buddha followers call themselves Buddhists, Jehovah Witnesses call themselves Jehovah witnesses. The people that practice Catholicism call themselves Catholics. Call yourselves Mormons so that you can be distinguished from Christianity."

I loved Elder Holland’s talk yesterday. But of course, now the online debates are raging once again. WE ARE WORKING WITH TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS HERE. The Mormon side says, “of course we’re Christian, we follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.” The other side says, “no you're not, you don’t solely believe in the Bible, and you don’t accept the Trinity.” AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAGGGGHHHHH! I’m normally one to be patient with ongoing debates like this one but it’s driving me crazy.

The writer above appears to be Protestant. Why doesn’t she call herself that? And Catholics aren’t Christian? I thought they were. “Christian” is a big label to me. Just like “Buddhist” or “Muslim”. In my mind the argument is flawed. It is saying we should call ourselves “Mormon” because “Buddha followers call themselves Buddhists,” but the term “Mormon” is not on the same systemic level as "Buddhist" or "Christian.”

Really the only frustrating thing about this is the debate will not end because we are arguing past each other. We are not talking about the same thing. When you are debating with someone, it’s generally a good idea to make sure you’re talking about the same thing, isn’t it? So in a stretch toward peace on this issue, I concede that by the definition above (i.e. only read the Bible), I am not Christian. By my definition (try to follow Christ), I am. It all depends on your definition.

Is my argument on this issue flawed? Let me know! I'm curious. What do you think on this issue?

I suppose Pema would tell me I need to "stay" with my annoyed feelings on this issue, and learn to connect with others in the world who also feel annoyed.

Hoops

This whole substituting thing N was supposed to start has been quite a pain. There have been so many tediously long applications to fill out, résumés to send in, recommendation letters to request, fingerprints (all ten) to be taken, etc. etc. In Utah they must desperately need subs because I think all they require is a high school diploma and a contract saying you won’t seduce any of the kids.

A lawyer friend of mine once said when he was applying to a state bar, they wanted to know the addresses of every place he had lived for the past 20 years. What is the point of all this? Sometimes I think Bureaucrats make up extra hoops to jump through just so they feel like they’re doing something. I know “there is always a reason for a rule”—someone at some time did something that required a new law—but when was there ever a substitute teacher who only submitted TWO letters of recommendation instead of the standard three, and turned out to be a psychopath? When has there ever been a lawyer admitted to the bar who only turned in former addresses of the past 10 years, and it later became known that fifteen years ago they were chummy with the Unabomber?

iPod touch is crippled

I didn't want a full PDA. I didn't want an iPhone. All I wanted was a functional calendar on my iPod. As a long-time Apple fan, it is dissapointing that they would intentionally cripple a product. When the new iPod touch was first announced, it was said that you could enter new calendar events on the device itself. Apparently Apple just backtracked and now you can't. They don't want it to be a PDA, they said. Isn't this false advertising? A 'bait and switch' for those who have already ordered it? I'm not boycotting. I just don't want one anymore. Apple is trying really hard to put themselves in the same category as Microsoft or Wal-Mart, as in, companies that are NOT cool.

An iPod (ex?)user from the message boards:
"I can just picture the scenario--I'm at the orthodonist, scheduling the kids' next appointments. I pull out my beautiful, expensive iPod, check the really cool calendar and come up with a day we are available. Then I pull out my Post-It note pad, scribble the new appointment and stick it to my iPod Touch, so I can enter the appointment when I get home."

They always get you

Thinking I was real clever, I applied for a Discover card so I could get 1% back on my massive tuition bills. Hah. What a joke. The dubiously "independent" service that the school uses just so happens to charge 2.75% to use a card for tuition payments. Hah. So with a 6k tuition bill this semester, I would get back $60, and then have to pay $180 for the service charge. What a deal. At the U. they charged a whopping $1 or something to use a card.