I think one thing to keep in mind in this situation is that we are only hearing it from one side, the LWs. Not to say what she's saying is completely inaccurate but clearly biased.

1) the wedding. Did MIL really insist on inviting 80 friends? I somehow think the real number was lower. And in any case they didn't get invited. Her MIL does have reason to be a little aggravated. Weddings are complicted matter, as it's never truly clear whom they are for. Both children and parents make sacrafices on the invite list.

2) As for the television situation if the LW is truly kind and pleasant as she professes to be, it's quite possible that the MIL had no idea it was such a big deal to her aughter in law. Maybe the MIL just put her husband too high on the priority list.

3) Thanskgiving. The baby was just born. Is it so suprising that the parents in law come to visit. I know that's what my parents would do. Of course the expectations that DIL do all the work is clearly unreasonable. If anything here it seems like the son should be doing the work. Why isn't the wife mad at him? And if she isn't you have to assume to he actually helped out quite a bit.

4) Mother's day. Most people don't like univted guests. However from the DIL tone's she sound presumptive that mother's day is only her day. Mother's day is for all mothers.

5) Her daughter's name. Since her daughter does share a name with her MIL, it's not so presumptive to think that she would be named after the MIL. Somehow I'm sure that the son had this in mind when the name was chosen. I'm sure there are other reasons, and other people for whom the name can be attributed to, but it certainly does not stretch my imagination to think that the daughter was named with the grandmother in mind. Even if it were not true, sometimes it's best to humour people, and the DIL in that situation should've done that. Let the old woman have a little joy.

As the DIL pointed out her husband grew up in happy idyllic household. It can't be that the MIL is truly dreadlyful. I'm sure the relationship between the MIL and DIL is indeed dreadful, but MIL may not actually be a dreadful person. I think we often assign blame on problems in a relationship with the persons involved rather than the relationship itself. Deriding her MIL as witless, and undeducated, the DIL has set herself up not to get along with her. The MIL is probably equally guilty, but as it's the DIL who has written for advice, Cary truly can only advise what the DIL can do. I say let go of the anger, put yourself in her shoes, be accomodating, and try to like the old bag.

I feel like Cary tossed himself a softball on this one. Maybe there have been enough heated debated. Enough angry posters. Enough that Cary wants to restore some a calm and good will. I'm curious to see if there are those who think different from Cary. I for one have never felt attending a wedding to be an obligation. Sure it's great to be there for your friends or family, but it's the responsibility of the couple to either try to maximize attendance or minimize it. Their choice one way or another. I think by choosing a destination wedding, one implicity understands not everyone can make it due to either cost or time. If someone's attendance is so important then it's incumbent on the engaged couple to make arrangements.

I like this couple. I like this woman, her BF, and the father of her child. They are the sort of people I would probably be friends with. Selfish and selfless. I think for many people and their careers, they don't have as much of choice in terms of the location of their work. In a couple, there is almost one member who makes a sacrafice for the other. And Cary is exactly right when he says this man does not love her enough. He may love her deeply, deeply enough that he would stay if his career was in this town. But he doesn't love her enough to sacrifice his ambition or to ask her to sacrifice everything she has to move with him. Maybe he's just coward and looking for an exit, but just maybe he's a thoughtul soul who has searched his heart and found that he has enough doubt that he couldn't and wouldn't demand this woman and her child to follow him. That doesn't make him a bad guy, it just make him a guy who isn't committed. Better to make no promises than to break them. If the LW had no child and was not deeply rooted to her career, maybe she should take that risk and move to be with this man even he doesn't demand it. But ultimately she know she has to do right by her child first.

While I think these photos should be published, and the adminstration admonished and ultimately put out of power, I also think we need to take a practical approach towards the level of anger in the muslim world. I fear not for us westerners, but rather the person who gets crushed in mob in some muslim country. I'm not fan of rioting, or inciting mobs. Given the anger around the globe, I'm not sure we should be adding the fuel to fire. As Spiderman might say with great power comes great responsibility. And I for one am not sure Salon is acting in a responsible manner. Sometimes it's best to wait til things blow over a bit before acting. Sure the photo should be covered, and US policy diligently reviewed and criticized. It's question of picking a time and place to do so. I'm not sure this is the right time.