I've got my mom, sister, auntie and several cousins and their spouses plus baby Ian here with me and it's fabulous. Lots of family time, some sight-seeing (Sedona pictures to come), some shopping and a ridiculous amount of food. TONS of peekaboo with Ian who is about 22 months and pushes me behind things so that I can pop out and scare him.

That's all for now, more when I get back to LA tomorrow maybe. If I'm not too exhausted. Hope everyone is having a safe and merry Christmas!

God forbid we are attacked by terrorists once again, but if it does happen, next time we'll know exactly where to assign blame. [sarcasm]I'm sure that the suicidal terrorists will tell us everything we want to know about their planned attacks on our troops and innocent Iraqis if we would only ask politely.[/sarcasm]

This is what I mean about liberals wanting things both ways, while paying no attention to the boundaries of reality. The left wants top quality intelligence but they also want to make sure our intelligence agents have their hands tied behind their backs. Being idealistic is one thing, but the left is just stupid and illogical most of the time.

Me: I'm baking brownies.

Paul: Um.......are you sure that's a good idea?

Me: Sure, why wouldn't it be?

Paul: Well, um, are you sure it's going to come out right?

Me: Are you trying to say my brownies are going to suck?

Paul: Have you ever made them before?

Me: I watched my sister make them.

Paul: Ookay...

Oh, I was just informed by Shep that voting is already over there but turnout was high and violence was relatively low. Lots of Sunni participation. It's lookin' all good from the first reports.

Gee, I hear crickets chirping from the left side of the aisle. Who were those people saying maybe Iraqi's aren't ready for democracy, maybe they don't even want it? Maybe they're just "used to" living under a brutal dictator that murders their children in the dark of the night? I should go track down some of my old UCLA classmates and tell them "told ya so." Apparently the Iraqi's aren't a bunch of uncivilized, brutal sectarians who are incapable of peaceful cooperation and doomed to civil wars unless there is a murderous dictator at the helm.

I must say, beyond the good feeling of being able to point to something concrete and laughing at Democratic naysayers, there's this amazing sense of WOW, I'm watching history unfold. A democratic Iraq, who woulda thunk? Wow.

So I got a topic request yesterday (my first!) from a friend who told me the Christmas controversy is driving her nuts. I've actually been thinking about it a lot due to all of the Gibson, O'Reilly, etc. coverage so here goes...

The term "holiday tree" really bugs the hell out of me. Why? Which "holiday" is this "tree" for? Hanukkah? Is it a Hanukkah tree? No, of course it's not. It's a freaking Christmas tree. If someone is buying a tree in December, my guess is that 99.99% of the time once the tree has been brought home it will be called a CHRISTMAS tree and no children will be saying "Let's put our presents under the *holiday* tree Mommy!" So if a "holiday tree" can really only be for the holiday of Christmas, then isn't it just a Christmas tree? Yes, and if you call it anything other, you are an idiot. And calling it a Christmas tree is not "exclusionary," if someone is not a Christian and does not celebrate Christmas can't they still appreciate a beautiful Christmas tree? Or does the sight of a Christmas tree automatically bring a wretched feeling of disgust to all non-Christians?

That being said, I don't have a problem with stores that say "happy holidays." It would be nice if they could say "happy holidays and merry Christmas" since 96% of the country does celebrate Christmas but, eh, that's a lot to say. Happy holidays covers all the bases, especially in a place like West Los Angeles, which, some of my Jewish friends at UCLA called it JewCLA.

I guess that's sort of the sillier side of this whole Christmas controversy thing, but there is a more serious and scarier side of it. Like this case:

In addition to banning Christmas colors, school officials have prohibited students from exchanging candy canes and pencils with religious messages on them, using reindeer symbols, or writing "Merry Christmas" on greeting cards to U.S. soldiers because the phrase might "offend someone." The district has even applied its policy to parents involved in school activities, barring them from exchanging "religious" Christmas items with other parents.

I know I'm getting a little off topic but this is something I feel the need to ramble on about. It really worries me that so many Christians out there don't recognize the dangerous road the Democrats want to take us down in this country and how it is directly contrary to so many key Christian values. Jesus may have LOVED sinners but he did NOT enable, make excuses or make it easier for them to sin.

The tough thing is, most churches are reluctant to discuss current politics because the church does not involve itself in "man's law" but I think a lot of Christians and churches are failing to recognize how man's law can directly impact us as Christians. Liberals always say we should look to Europe as our example, well a pastor in Sweden was convicted for preaching that homosexuality is a sin (his conviction was overturned by the Swedish Supreme Court).

I feel like I'm somehow called to reach out to Christians and try to involve them in the political process, that perhaps this is my "spiritual gift" but I'm really not sure how to put it into action. Plus, I don't know if this is just a California thing but a lot of Christians are ignorantly liberal here because "Republican" is a dirty word here on the left coast. I know I felt that way in high school. I remember taking a "political spectrum" test in my government class senior year and being dismayed to discover I scored "moderate-conservative." I truly believed I was a "liberal" because "conservatives" were old white-haired, cigar smoking, mustache-twisting, rich men (or so my ever-so-unbiased public school teachers led me to believe).

But I digress. Merry Christmas everyone! We are trying to teach the Honeybees (2-3 year olds) about Christmas and how we need to get ready for Jesus. Last Sunday was my turn to prepare the craft so I had them make playdough cribs. I think out of about 18 little ones, two managed to 1) successfully create a cradle type object and 2) not roll the picture of baby Jesus which we placed in the crib into a ball. It was a nice reminder to me though that we really need to spend this time thinking about the TRUE reason for the season.

*hops of soapbox*

A prison official was going through the execution process with a reporter and she mentioned that right before the lethal injection is to be administered, Tookie would be asked if he had any last words.

For some reason this detail stuck with me. It made me think about how, almost unfairly, humane our executions are. I wonder, those who say that the death penalty makes our society "brutal" and "cruel," do they think about Tookie's victims, Albert Owens, Tsai-Shai Yang, Yen-I Yang and Ye-Chen Lin? They died horrific, bloody, BRUTAL AND CRUEL deaths, and I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume that Tookie didn't ask any of them if they had any last words before he shot them with his sawed off shot gun almost 25 years ago.

First he was tried by a jury of his peers (which was NOT an all-white jury as saint Tookie claims) and found guilty. Every single court has upheld the verdict, including THE most undeniably liberal court in the US. He has had every opportunity to "prove his innocence" and the problem is he can't because the evidence is against him because (drumroll please) HE'S GUILTY.

So now that we've established that this man is a brutal murderer, we punish him by? Offering him his choice of a last meal (which I know he rejected, but the point is it was offered and I don't think he extended Albert Owens or any of the members of the Yang family the same courtesy), asking him if he has any last words and then injecting him so that he will gently fall into a deep sleep from which he will never wake.

It almost seems too peaceful considering the way he murdered his victims.

It's too bad Tookie's supporters never even got the opportunity to hold a candle light vigil for "clemency" for Tookie's victims. The difference, of course, being that Tookie took it upon himself to play judge, jury and executioner.

At least tonight (29 minutes and counting) justice will at long last be served.

Okay, that's not true. If you're one of those people who is just against the death penalty no matter what (like you'd spare Hitler's life if given the choice), then that's fine.

But the people who are arguing that Tookie has somehow been redeemed? What the hell are you people smoking?

In Thursday's filing, however, prosecutors noted that Williams had refused to cooperate with San Quentin state prison's "debriefing'' program, in which current and former gang members provide information about gang operations. In a "60 Minutes'' television interview last year, Williams said "debriefing'' was "a euphemistic term for snitching.'' - SF Gate

Not to mention the fact that this *saint* has never even admitted to his crimes. This whole thing is just ridiculous. If ANYONE deserves the death penalty, this man certainly does. Wow, he wrote a children's book. What does he want? A cookie? Those four people he killed are still dead and buried. The blood of the COUNTLESS victims of HIS gang (which he still refuses to "snitch" on, despite being oh so reformed and so sowwie for forming the naughty wittle gang) is on his hands and he deserves to be put to death not only for his crimes but as an example of what can happen to you if you do decide to join a gang and commit disgusting acts of random violence.

If the Governor decides to grant this guy clemency he can kiss an already uncertain re-election goodbye.

I think it's pretty hilarious that CNN and the rest still haven't figured out that there IS a reason FoxNews has been killing them in the ratings for such a long time.

David Asman asked Charlie Rangel why it is he thinks that our servicemen and women who have actually fought in Iraq have such a high retention rate. First Charlie talks about how the Pentagon is offering them a lot of money and people in the military mainly come from poor areas and so money gets their attention blah blah blah. Then Jim Saxon says that the reason they're re-enlisting is because they've BEEN there and they've seen WITH THEIR OWN EYES that we're doing something good over there. Charlie Rangel responds with, "They all want to come home."

So, Charlie, they all want to come home, oh so badly and yet they're volunteering to stay there and fight for a war they don't believe in based on purely monetary reasons? Yes, that certainly makes a lot of sense. So I guess our military heros are just a bunch of honor-less mercenaries eh? I can't believe he managed to cough up such a disgusting argument with a son in the military.