Botox Mom made it all up, was paid $200 by The Sun.

Rupert Murdoch can go burn in hell.

I'm kind of down with the Romans salt water and sponge approach.

I know that for a generation or so, the Sears catalog was housed in the outhouse.

Parents who've done this age already, how do you answer something like that?

I think all the advice you've gotten about reassuring Dylan is perfect, but I'd also emphasize all of the advantages of his age. Not just telling him what he can do but showing it to him in relation to Aeryn.

Matilda always likes younger kids in daycare and preschool because she likes being the helper. So you could start with her comment about Baby Carl's first birthday: "Baby Carl's just a baby. He don't know cake." And you can point out all the things Aeryn can't do, and how she's helpless.

"Oh, she's just a baby. Babies don't even know how to ask for ice cream. They don't know what dinosaurs are. Babies don't have favorite movies; they have favorite fingers to suck on."

Or, you could let him watch episodes of Archer with the Wee Baby Seamus. "Baby! You're pear-shaped."

Rupert Murdoch can go burn in hell.

On the plus side: one less nine year old on Botox in San Francisco.

On the plus side: one less nine year old on Botox in San Francisco.

Indeed. A friend of mine had a short story published in which she posited a modeling/acting school in which all the girls started botox at, like, 14. It's nice to know that's still fiction.

Speaking of babies, a baby white-cheeked gibbon at the Lincoln Park Zoo takes his first wobbly steps.

So sad about Jeff Conaway. Rupert Murdoch is, like, Hell's CFO.

Legal rebuttal: "vade et caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super aures tuo"

Eric Tukewitz, a New York lawblogger, was one of many, many people who wrote about a badly managed legal defense from an inexperienced lawyer representing an accused murderer. The defense was handled very badly, and resulted in a mistrial, and then observers remarked in depth on the website of Joseph Rakofsky, the inexperienced lawyer in question, and on the erroneous impression of vast experience that the website created.

Rakofsky has responded by suing everyone involved, from the Washington Post, who covered the story (in which they quote the judge in the case, remarking unfavorably on Rakofsky's legal prowess), to the American Bar Association, to the large number of lawbloggers who wrote about him.

Tukewitz is just one of the lawbloggers in question, but he's come up with a legal rebuttal to Rakofsky's suit, which he considers baseless: "vade et caca in pilleum et ipse traheatur super aures tuo," which, loosely translated, means "Go shit in a hat and pull it down over your ears" (lit., "go shit in a [knit] hat & let that same hat itself be pulled over your ears.").

Is gmail being fuckdiddly for anyone else today?

It's OK for me.

It was weird for me the other day, but today seems fine so far.