The Soccer Mom Vote

The League of Maternal Justice

If you haven't already learned about Facebook's deletion of photos of nursing mothers - on the grounds that they violate the site's terms of use - I really can't summarize it any better than this blogger already did.  While many of us have been writing about our bewilderment with Facebook's reasoning, he went a step further and corresponded directly with a Facebook representative about the situation.

As you might expect, this exchange shed little light on the subject.  Additionally, the situation is compounded by the presence of pro-anorexia groups that Facebook allows to remain intact.  Basically, bloggers have been asking "What gives?" with respect to the inconsistent application of the terms of use.

And now the rest of us are taking it a step further as well.  Behold, the League of Maternal Justice!

We're calling for bloggers - parents or not, lactating or not - to deactivate their Facebook accounts, and TELL FACEBOOK WHY.  Tell them that breastfeeding is nourishment, not obscenity.  Tell them that their inconsistent application of the terms of use will not be tolerated.

If, for some reason, you cannot deactivate your Facebook account purely on principle, you can still speak out against their policies and practices.  Write a post and put up a button - check the League of Maternal Justice for details.

But wait...there's more.  The Great Virtual Breast Fest of 2007, on Wednesday, October 10 - an online nurse-in.  Details to come later this week.

There are too many good reasons to breastfeed - and too many moms who are prejudiced against it for whatever reason - to let this issue slip past us.  Join the movement!

Would you ever think to ask...

...if there are loaded guns in the home of your child's new playmate?

I posted about this topic on my personal site two weeks ago, drawing comments from all over the world, representing a wide range of positions on gun control.  It was certainly illuminating.

A lot of people hadn't considered the topic before as it related to their children's playmates.  Many commenters who live in Canada and Australia expressed surprise that such a question might even come up, given that guns are so rare (except hunting rifles) in their countries.  On the other hand, commenters in Texas and Louisiana and even Brooklyn spoke of the prevalence of guns in their areas.  Spouses of police officers spoke up to describe how they secure their service revolvers.

Some commenters at Sk*rt (where I cross-posted) resorted to snap judgment - "You ask the question because that is your responsibility as a good parent."  I have to wonder if they've ever asked the question themselves.

One commenter on my personal site really threw me for a loop.  He stated that: "I don’t see the utility of the question. If I had a gun, and I knew you would be uncomfortable with it, I’d just lie to you."  I think that sort of dishonesty is an even bigger problem than a gun.

In spite of the statistics cited by some of my commenters outside the US, I still have to wonder if tougher regulation would make a difference in gun ownership and accidental gun discharges.  Drugs are illegal - not even regulated - and yet the government still spends a great deal counteracting drug commerce.  Is it making a difference?  It doesn't seem so.

Likewise, I tend to think that tougher regulation of guns - or even outlawing ownership of handguns by private citizens - would suck funding without much to show for it.  People would still obtain (and traffic) guns just as they currently obtain (and traffic) drugs.

Which leads me to wonder why people keep handguns in their homes.  I tend to think it's because they feel unsafe, as self-defense is a common reason cited by gun owners.  But why do they feel unsafe?  Does it come down to the prevalence of crime - or even the possibility of crime (for those in areas that wouldn't be considered particularly dangerous)?

Instead of tougher gun regulation, which addresses the symptom, what about addressing the probable cause - namely, that people often don't feel safe?  That they aren't confident in law enforcement's ability or willingness to enforce the law - not just to catch those who have already committed crimes, but to deter those who may be considering committing a crime?

Instead of creating more laws, what about expanding our police forces?  Better equipment, better training, working more closely with private citizens in their neighborhoods to reduce the probability of crime.  And better pay, of course.

Granted, such changes require funding.  But I'd bet that the money would be much better spent on deterrence than on prosecuting offenders.

Who's Changing and Who's Dying? Part Two

On May 11, I posted here about Exxon Mobil's stance on the environment.  Today's post will cover the opposite end of the spectrum - General Motors and their efforts, both planned and actual, to diversify in light of environmental considerations.

Last January and February, I had the pleasure of attending two auto shows - one in Detroit, one in Chicago - as a guest of General Motors.  After I returned home in February, I wrote this piece for The Imperfect Parent - Who Reincarnated the Electric Car? - outlining everything I had learned about GM's environmental and technological initiatives in as much detail as my editors would allow.

Suffice it to say, GM knocked my socks off.

Much fanfare accompanied the unveiling of the Chevrolet Volt at the Detroit show - a car that incorporates four different fuel options (gasoline, E85, biodiesel, and electricity) into one vehicle.  The Volt can drive up to 40 miles on battery power alone, which means that if you drove it to and from work every day (assuming your round-trip commute is less than 40 miles, which is true for 78% of commuters according to GM's research) and plugged it in each night, you would never have to put a single drop of gas in it.

Even though the Volt is a concept vehicle - meaning it is not slated for mass production but is intended to showcase features and capabilities - it is by no means a pipe dream.  All of its features are readily available for mass production, except for the battery.  GM continues to award R&D contracts to battery suppliers such as Johnson Controls and Cobasys, which demonstrates their financial commitment to making the features of the Volt available on mass produced vehicles.

While Exxon Mobil downplays the potential role of ethanol as a fuel alternative, GM is already producing vehicles that use E85 ethanol (a mixture of 85% ethanol and 15% gasoline).  More accurately, these models are called FlexFuel Vehicles because they can use E85, or gasoline, or a combination of both.  What's more, the 2007 FlexFuel models include Chevrolet trucks and GMC SUVs - notorious gas guzzlers.

The US Department of Energy has an Alternative Fuel Station Locator that allows you to find service stations that dispense E85.  Considering that many of us already drive out of our way to save five or ten cents per gallon, it's really not that inconvenient to be restricted to service stations that sell E85 ethanol (which, according to the most recent report from DOE, was 20 cents cheaper per gallon than gasoline when prices across the US were compared).

Finally, Chevrolet will launch a market test of fuel cell vehicles this fall.  The test, dubbed Project Driveway, will include deployment of 100 Chevrolet Equinox Fuel Cell vehicles in California, the New York metro area, and Washington DC in an effort to evaluate real-world performance of an entire fleet of fuel cell vehicles.

Side note:  While the Project Driveway vehicles will be powered by the fourth-generation fuel cell propulsion system, GM has already incorporated the fifth-generation system into the Chevrolet Volt - further evidence of GM's continuing commitment to pursue research and development in conjunction with testing and evaluating existing technology.

But while GM proceeds with market tests such as Project Driveway, they are well aware of the inherent challenges of an eventual complete transition to fuel cell technology.  Migration from carbon-based fuels to hydrogen-based fuels involves not only cost and safety considerations, but parallel operations of different technologies will exist throughout the migration period - and possibly beyond.

Even so, these challenges pale in comparison to that of establishing a new infrastructure and/or converting existing infrastructure to handle production and distribution of hydrogen-based fuels.  In GM's discussion of this point, the onus comes back around to the energy companies, like Exxon Mobil:

"While automotive companies are developing fuel cell vehicles, they cannot develop the necessary supporting infrastructure on their own. GM is in active discussions with stakeholders in government, academia, energy companies, and with other automotive manufacturers and suppliers. But, ultimately, the challenge falls on the shoulders of energy companies and government."

As you can see, based on this discussion of GM's efforts and my earlier piece regarding Exxon Mobil, the two companies - perhaps even the two industries, oil and gas versus automotive - are at opposite ends of the spectrum where it comes to diversification in light of environmental concerns.  Exxon Mobil continues to make arguments for expanding current drilling operations and plays up the challenges of moving toward alternative fuels, whereas GM invests heavily in the development of technology that will use alternative fuels and expresses willingness to partner with other industries to make the transition a reality.  Based on the limited research I've done, the government - specifically, the US Department of Energy - seems to side with GM.

What are the next steps?  As I see it, technology will drive action on the part of the government, and eventually on the part of the oil and gas industry as well.  That is, once the challenges of cost and safety no longer impede mass production of fuel cell vehicles, it will only be a matter of time before the incentives to migrate to hydrogen-based fuels will overcome the stonewalling of the oil and gas industry and the inertia of the government.

Who's changing and who's dying?

Change or die has been the prime rule of business for the last 2 decades. It is a rule that the oil and American auto industries seem to feel shouldn't apply to them.

I’m quoting from a comment left by my fellow soccer mom Lisse on my post here last month. These two sentences in particular jumped out at me because this year I’ve had the opportunity to speak with executives from both industries – namely Exxon Mobil and General Motors – about their plans to diversify in light of environmental considerations. I’ll address Exxon Mobil in this post and General Motors in my regularly scheduled post on May 24.

On February 12, I participated in a conference call regarding climate change with Ken Cohen, Vice President of Public Affairs for Exxon Mobil, along with several other, much harder-hitting political bloggers. While I didn’t approach the call with the animosity of some of the other bloggers, I had recently attended two auto shows as a guest of General Motors, and I was quite interested to learn about Exxon Mobil’s role in researching and pioneering alternative fuel technologies.

When I did ask my question, Mr. Cohen reminded me that Exxon Mobil was not an auto manufacturer and proceeded to list all the obstacles to mass production of alternative fuels.

While I was somewhat surprised that Mr. Cohen felt compelled to clarify what business he was in, based on the reading I did prior to the call – namely, a speech given by Exxon Mobil Chairman and CEO Rex Tillerson – I wasn’t surprised by the litany of obstacles he rattled off.

From Mr. Tillerson’s speech on November 30, 2006:

"By the year 2030 – less than twenty-five years from now – the world’s energy needs will be almost 50 percent greater than they were last year, driven mostly by growth in developing countries.

The gap between U.S. energy consumption and domestic energy production – a gap on the order of 15 million barrels of oil equivalent a day, or 30 percent of daily demand – is filled primarily with imports of fossil fuels.

More efficient use of energy can reduce demand, and increased use of alternatives can increase domestic energy supply, but no conceivable combination of the two can realistically close the gap. To leave the gap unfilled would have dire consequences for our economy and possibly our security. It would jeopardize the American Dream for our children."

“Jeopardize the American Dream for our children”? Wow.

In the same speech, Mr. Tillerson discusses alternative fuels such as ethanol:

"Biofuels, like many alternative sources, play an important role. But they too currently face significant obstacles.

In the United States, corn is the principle source of ethanol. Currently, 13 percent of the U.S. corn crop is needed to meet 2 percent of U.S. total gasoline demand by equivalent volume. By 2012, mandated ethanol production would drive ethanol’s share of total U.S. gasoline demand up to 3 percent. But to achieve this, about 21 percent of the U.S. corn crop will be needed – an increase of about 50 percent.

As these trends indicate, we cannot produce enough ethanol from corn in this country to meet all of this country’s gasoline needs, much less total oil needs."

The stage is set; we need to produce more oil, right here at home:

"Federal and state governments in this country have ruled off-limits an estimated 31 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 105 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. And the majority of those amounts are not found in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. They are found in the Rockies and off many of the coasts of the continental United States.

Industry has developed the technologies and acquired the experience to produce these resources safely and with a minimal environmental footprint and we are doing it around the world today. What we lack is the permission to access them. Access granted could lead to imports reduced."

I understand that Exxon Mobil is a petrochemical company, and they are in business to make money while meeting people’s needs. People need energy, and Exxon Mobil knows how to provide it – in the same form that they always have. Reducing imports reduces our dependence on foreign oil, but be honest – it also leads to greater profits for Exxon Mobil. Sure, it seems like a win-win, but wouldn’t it be a bigger win to work toward mass production and mass distribution of alternative fuels?

Which brings me to the part of Mr. Tillerson’s speech that really bothered me:

"Oil, like all fossil fuels, is indeed finite, but it is far from finished. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that approximately 2 trillion barrels of conventional oil resources remain – or about twice the amount produced since the dawn of time."

Do the math, and that means we’ve used one-third of the available oil resources, “since the dawn of time.”

In another speech the day after our conference call with Mr. Cohen, Mr. Tillerson made these statements:

"The good news is that abundant oil resources are available to meet the projected growth in demand. According to the U.S. Geological Survey the earth was endowed with more than 3 trillion barrels of conventional oil. This estimate has grown steadily over the years as our industry has developed new and more sophisticated technologies to locate and produce these resources.

If we add estimated “frontier” resources, such as heavy oil and shale oil, this total rises to over 4 trillion barrels. Considering we have used 1 trillion barrels of oil in the history of mankind, the outlook for future supply is positive."

(Well, he did say that the USGS “estimate has grown steadily over the years”, but I’m fairly shocked that the estimate rose from “approximately 2 trillion” to “more than 3 trillion barrels” in less than three months.)

Again, Mr. Tillerson states that we’ve used “1 trillion barrels of oil in the history of mankind”. Have we been refining petroleum since the dawn of time? Throughout the history of mankind?

A petroleum timeline published by the Energy Information Administration (a statistical agency of the Department of Energy) documents the following milestones:

1859 – Oil was first discovered when a homemade rig drilled down 70 feet and came up coated with oil. This rig was near Titusville (in northwestern Pennsylvania) and was owned by Colonel Edwin L. Drake.

1950 – Oil became our most used energy source because of automobiles.

1970 – Production of petroleum (crude oil and natural gas gas plant liquids) in the U.S lower 48 States reached its highest level at 9.4 million barrels per day. Production in the lower 48 States has been declining ever since.

2001 – U.S. petroleum consumption reached 19.7 million barrels per day, an all-time high. To meet demand, crude oil and petroleum products were imported at the rate of 11.9 million barrels per day, while exports measured 1.0 million barrels per day.

How many of those 1 trillion barrels were used prior to 1859? Or even prior to 1950?

With misleading language like that used by Mr. Tillerson in these speeches, it’s difficult to believe that the oil and gas industry is being honest in other regards. While they no longer deny the science behind climate change (but caution that further study is warranted, and I agree), their stubborn insistence that plenty of oil and gas remains to be drilled (and that alternative fuels are not realistic – that is, not a realistic business proposition) betrays their commitment to the status quo. I agree that the demand for oil and gas will not disappear overnight, but perhaps Exxon Mobil – and the rest of us – would be better served by efforts to expand their business model to fit the direction the rest of the world is heading.

Please check back on May 24 for the second half of this discussion – how the auto industry, particularly General Motors, is handling environmental challenges.

A bit of inconvenience for everyone

I finally watched Al Gore's documentary - "An Inconvenient Truth" - a few weeks ago.

In the interest of full disclosure, if you don't already know, I'm a registered Republican.  I also have a B.S. in Environmental Science, which included an internship (and a follow-on part-time position) with an 8(a) minority-owned environmental consulting firm.  My father started the Environmental Management office at one of the US's largest military bases, and then went on to become the site manager at a Superfund site.

My point?  Conservative thinkers are not necessarily anti-environment.

But environmental hysteria does not impress me.  Likewise, callous dismissal of evidence as mere "hysteria" doesn't impress me either.  Objective scientific research, presented in a thoughtful manner - that's what gets my attention.

I was surprised to find that I really enjoyed this documentary - well, apart from being a bit disconcerted by some of the evidence presented.  I've never thought Al Gore was an engaging speaker, but he held my attention throughout the environmental discussions.  I could have done without his personal vignettes, which really added very little to the topic.

But while I took away some new information from the film, I also kept in mind that the environment is Al Gore's passion (sloppy kisses at political conventions aside).  It's in his interest to present evidence that supports his conclusions.  After alll, the man is a lawyer.

I've since done more investigation and found some critical analysis of "An Inconvenient Truth".  The Competitive Enterprise Institute published "A Skeptic's Guide to An Inconvenient Truth".  I haven't yet read the entire document, but the executive summary has piqued my curiosity.

I'm curious NOT because I want to prove Al Gore wrong or discredit his claims.  I'm curious because that's how we LEARN.  If you take the word of one source - be it Al Gore or President Bush or a nightly television news anchor - as the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth - you will come away no wiser, regardless of your political leanings.

As always, my plea to all people - soccer moms or not - is to take a second look at all issues.  I took a second look when I watched this film, and I'm taking a third look by reading the CEI response.  But I can't stop there; I need to keep reading, keep learning, taking new information into consideration.  We all do.

He said, she said

Oh, that Maureen Dowd.  She just loves to stir the pot, doesn't she?

Given that I'm not likely to vote for either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama regardless of which one wins the nomination (and which one becomes the other's running-mate), it's easier for me to step back and look at the exchange from an objective point of view.  That is, while I don't plan to vote for either one, it doesn't matter to me which one I don't vote for.

What did David Geffen say?  According to the CNN article, the former president is a " 'reckless guy' who 'gave his enemies a lot of ammunition to hurt him and to distract the country.' "

Is he wrong about President Clinton?

The article states that Geffen was referring to the situation with Monica Lewinsky.  While he's not indicting Clinton for his dalliance, he's stating the effect of that dalliance.  I agree that the situation was a terrible distraction - thanks largely to the cable news channels - and that Clinton handled the situation in a way that ended up working against him and his efforts to lead the country.  And the President of the United States flirting with an intern, let alone having physical contact?  I'd say "reckless" is an appropriate characterization of that behavior.

Next, the CNN article states that Geffen is quoted by Dowd as saying, "Not since the Vietnam War has there been this level of disappointment in the behavior of America throughout the world, and I don't think that another incredibly polarizing figure, no matter how smart she is and no matter how ambitious she is -- and God knows, is there anybody more ambitious than Hillary Clinton? -- can bring the country together."

Let's break this down.

Is the world disappointed in the behavior of America?  Justified or not, I'd have to say yes.  We're not enjoying a great deal of support, at home or abroad.

Is Hillary Clinton ambitious?  Absolutely.  Her drive to succeed and her track record of success are unquestionable.

Is Hillary Clinton polarizing?  That's the first subjective question.  Aren't all politicians polarizing to some degree?  In most cases, they align with one party or the other - and even though the two major parties are not diametric opposites, they are certainly construed as opposites, moreso at election time than any other.

That said, there are a lot of people who hate Hillary Clinton, and there are a lot of people who love her.  To become president, she doesn't need everyone to love her.  To be an effective president, she doesn't need everyone to love her.  But she does need to convince the country - and the world - that her priorities align - in whole or in part - with theirs.

Which brings us to the final point, the second subjective question:  Can Clinton bring the country together?

I honestly don't know.  There's a lot in her past - ranging from college all the way through her tenure in the Senate - that might cause voters to hold a grudge.  Shortsighted and unfair?  Certainly.  But that's the reality that she and other presidential candidates must work within.

What I do know is that the rhetoric being traded by the Clinton and Obama camps is tiresome, but it's also politics as usual.  While I understand that, in the spirit of politics, neither side could let those remarks lie, I think Senator Clinton's spokeman was a bit irrational in his statement.  Likewise, while Obama himself was polite and to the point, his own spokesman matched Senator Clinton's in terms of overreaction.

It's a minor exchange, but it illustrates well the point that we need to get our information from diverse sources and consider it carefully before drawing conclusions.  I'm confident that even if the country can't maintain such objectivity, we here at The Soccer Mom Vote surely can.

Can America's Mayor become President?

I make no secret of my love for New York, nor of my admiration for Rudy Giuliani.  After he had to abandon his Senate campaign due to prostate cancer, I’m thrilled to see that he has continued to pursue his political ambitions and announced his presidential candidacy.

Although I didn’t move to New York until 2000, I began visiting as frequently as possible starting in 1995.  Over those five years, I observed from a tourist’s perspective how the city was changing.  Granted, I saw only a small fraction of the process in a very limited geographic area, but the changes were unmistakable.

His record in New York is irrefutable.  While his tactics have often come under fire – such as how he addressed homelessness – and he has been criticized for his unfaltering support of the NYPD even in the face of such tragedies as the assault on Abner Louima and the killing of Amadou Diallo, it remains clear that his leadership was at the heart of New York’s revitalization in the 1990s.  Both his record as mayor and his post-9/11 leadership have led to his unprecedented favorability across the country, despite the issues on which he differs from mainstream conservative views.

But can he become President?  Can he even win the Republican nomination?

While many of Giuliani’s social views (such as his pro-choice stance and his support of same-sex civil unions) mirror my own, many Republicans - by virtue of their religious beliefs – do not agree and could not support Giuliani as a candidate.  In spite of his favorability, as well as his openness regarding his views and his somewhat checkered past, I wonder how much damage the Religious Right could do to his campaign.

Unlike past candidates like Ross Perot and Steve Forbes, I think Giuliani’s previous political experience gives him sufficient credibility among voters and adequate preparation for effectively navigating the bureaucracy of our federal government.  New York didn’t change overnight; neither will our country.  And as many checks and balances exist in the government of our country’s largest city, even more are present in the workings of our federal government.

I’m pleased that the Republican candidates who have emerged thus far – John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Giuliani – are moderate in their views and have demonstrated an ability to work well with both sides of the aisle.  Of the three, I think Giuliani is the long-shot candidate.  And whether he captures the nomination and ultimately wins the presidency or not, I’m confident that he will continue as a strong voice in American politics.

Show each other some love

“I don’t feel like I did something spectacular; I just saw someone who needed help,” Mr. Autrey said. “I did what I felt was right.”

- Wesley Autrey, quoted in The New York Times

The President had a lot to say in his State of the Union address last night.  And Senator Webb had a lot to say in the Democratic response.  There's much that deserves to be analyzed and commented upon, but what really made an impression on me was Mr. Autrey - the man who saved another man's life earlier this month in New York.

"Show each other some love," he said, according to President Bush.

Some love, indeed.

That doesn't necessarily mean leaping off a subway platform to flatten yourself against the floor of the tracks while a train roars to a stop above you.  You don't have to risk your life or empty your savings account.  But where you can give a little extra - time, money, consideration - why not do so?

Frankly, I think consideration would be the easiest and most effective means of showing love.  Make an effort to be kind to others - smile and say hello, chat with the grocery store cashier, allow another driver to merge, summon up your reserves of patience even when you think you might blow your top.

When I was assigned to the Pentagon, most people there walked around with sour expressions.  I understand - it's a tough place to work.  But I sailed through the halls, beaming and greeting every person who met my eye - "Good morning, sir!", "Good afternoon, ma'am!", "How are you, Sergeant?"  By the time my four-year tour was over, even the UPS delivery people recognized me and said hello back.

Love is such an easy thing to give, and it makes all of us feel so good.  There's plenty of time to argue about the viability of the new health care initiative and to debate the pros and cons of sending more troops to Iraq.  Let's temper the serious discussion with a little love now and then.

Where does the responsibility lie?

Colorado is setting records - ones that don't make us proud.  In 2006, there were more foreclosures in the local Denver area than ever before.

Stories like this one in the Rocky Mountain News attempt to downplay the situation.  The article quotes the president of the Colorado Mortgage Lenders Association as follows:  "It is a problem, a big problem, but it is not the worst it has ever been."

Naturally.  Statistics can be made to paint whatever picture you'd like, and the statistic to which he's referring is the fact that there are more homes in the Denver area than in 1988 when the last major economic bust took place.  That is, while more homes went into foreclosure last year than in 1988, the percentage of homes in foreclosure is lower than in 1988.

However, development is certainly not slowing down.  Builders are hard at work all over the metro area.  Many adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) are poised to go up in the next year, meaning that monthly house payments for many homeowners will increase drastically as their interest rates adjust upward - and sadly, many of these homeowners will default on their loans and will face even greater challenges when attempting to purchase another home in the future.  It's a vicious circle.

The president of the Colorado Mortgage Lenders Association goes on to say that:  "If everybody groans this is the worst it has ever been, it scares people out of the home-buying market."

Again, naturally.  Of course he wants people to buy homes.  But shouldn't they be able to pay for them as well?  Is it good business practice to sell homes to people who can't afford them, whose financial records and credit scores belie their inability to make their monthly payments?  Is it responsible to advocate interest-only loans and ARMs to people who don't fully understand the implications of these types of financing?

Buying a home - or even refinancing - involves many parties.  Where are the checks and balances to ensure that everyone - homebuyer included - is getting the best deal?  Why is the system not working?

Colorado is known for having an educated market of buyers and sellers.  Scrupulous brokers aren't able to pad their fees unreasonably - their clients usually know better.  Who's preying on the market of uneducated buyers, and how are they getting away with it?

Buyers need to take responsibility as well.  Questionable business ethics aside, a contract is a contract.  If you don't understand it, aren't prepared to understand yourself or pay someone to translate it, then perhaps you should wait until you are prepared.  Signing those closing documents is only the first step in the enormous personal responsibility associated with owning a home.  Slick advertising makes it look much simpler than it truly is.

So how do we fix the problem?

The Rocky Mountain News reported in another article that legislators are meeting with the president of the Colorado Mortgage Lenders Association.  Their intended focus is on deceptive business practices.

I think that's a good start.  Let's take care of the liars and cheats first and foremost.  But there's still the issue that ANYONE can be a mortgage broker in the state of Colorado.

That's right:  No licensing is required for brokers who originate loans.  According to the Colorado Mortgage Lenders Association website, potential brokers are encouraged to consult with the Colorado Secretary of State on general business registration requirements.  But essentially anyone can hang out a shingle and call themselves a mortgage broker.

The website also quotes the Association's official position on licensing of mortgage brokers.  While the verbiage indicates that they are dedicated to the protection of consumer interests - as well as taxpayer interests - but it seems that their position boils down to the belief that the industry is sufficiently regulated. 

Perhaps that is so.  Perhaps there are enough laws in place to protect consumers and allow brokers and lenders to make money.  But if that's the case, why aren't they being enforced? 

Sunk to a new low...or risen to a new high?

In May 2005, my family and I moved from the New York metro area to the Denver suburbs.

We used to live in a two-bedroom condo in a high-rise apartment building with a panoramic view of Manhattan.  Now we live in a tract house with more space than I can fill up and a view of the gulch behind us. (Where snakes reside when they're not slithering into my garage.)

I used to work as a project manager for a record company in Manhattan, with my own office on the 23rd floor and Indian food for lunch every day.  Now I chase my children, eat leftover macaroni and cheese, and type-type-type at my laptop, hoping that somebody out there likes what they're reading.  (I'm addicted to Sitemeter just like everyone else.)

I used to leave maintenance requests at the front desk.  Now I call exterminators, heating and air conditioning specialists, garage door repairmen, and ask door-to-door meat salesmen to please stop opening boxes of steak because I'm not interested.  (All of which took place within the past two weeks.)

I used to ride the bus and the subway.  Now I drive an SUV.  'Nuff said. (But so does everyone else in Colorado.)

Given the evidence presented above, I'm afraid I can't escape the truth:  I have become a soccer mom. (Even though my girls don't play and neither do I.)

My new identity has taken time for me to accept.  Blogging has aided me in the process; it's always good to get your thoughts and feelings out instead of letting them stew inside you, and it's even better when you discover that you aren't the only one thinking and feeling that way.

But much of the time, I've felt like a sell-out.  Like I was meant for more than this soccer mom gig, and that despite the trappings of apparent success (big house, big cars, cute clothes on my kids), I had failed nonetheless.

Writing on the web has slowly diminished those unfair accusations I've leveled at myself.  I'm one of thousands of suburban moms in my small corner of the world.  While I don't aspire to the presidency of the PTA, I can find other ways to make a difference in what's important to me.  The web gives us a voice that is louder and reaches farther than any we've ever had before.  And sites like this one are giving moms everywhere an opportunity to be heard.

Tell it like it is.  We're not all the same - we have different backgrounds, different experiences, different views.  Let's make sure that we're heard, and let's learn from one another along the way.