Merry Christmas!

It's after midnight, the pumpkin pie is in the oven, and the cherubs are asleep. Was that the sound of hoofs on the roof? It must be time for me to do the elf thing before dawn.

Merry Christmas to all my family and friends.

And as Tiny Tim observed, "God bless Us, Every One!"

Drew Peterson is at it again

Drew Peterson is at it again.

You remember him: the ex-policeman whose fourth wife "disappeared" under suspicious circumstances, and whose third wife's death has recently been ruled a homicide. Guess who is the prime suspect in both cases?

And now he's working on acquiring a fifth victim - oops, I mean wife. A dolt is supposedly engaged to this "Most Eligible Bachelor." She denies it, but a police source and her own father have confirmed it.

First of all, why is Drew Peterson still walking the streets, cruising for chicks?

Secondly, does this woman read? Does she watch TV? Maybe she only watches cartoons instead of the news. How can she consider any relationship with this possible serial killer?

Her father claims he will do everything in his power to keep her from Peterson. Too late, sir! You had your chance to instill basic common sense in your daughter all during her childhood.

Imagine what this poor father must be thinking now: Where did I go wrong? How did I manage to raise an idiot for a daughter?

Why do some women gravitate toward such men as Peterson, OJ, and the other Peterson (Scott)? They've been violent toward women in the past - or at least have great suspicion on them of violence toward the women they loved and swore to love "til death do us part." Yet there's always at least one woman willing to date them. How sweet-sounding do they have to be to make a woman ignore those suspicions? How do these guys convince these gullible women of their innocence?

There seems to be a similar pattern of abusive men talking their victims into staying with them. I'll change, baby! I'll never do it again! Maybe they tell future fiancees, "My wife was a whacko who made my life miserable. It's all her fault, if I did anything wrong! She deliberately disappeared [or got herself killed] to ruin my life!"

Some women fall for it over and over again. I'll never understand that.

And poor Drew Peterson claims that "the media has kind of ruined every relationship I've had, so it scares people."

Yeah, right. It's all the media's fault. You're innocent, huh.

Twice - and counting...

darn yard decorations!

As I mentioned before, I love everything about Christmas. Well, almost everything. I hate the commercialism. And I hate detangling lights, or worse yet - trying to figure out why a strand of lights isn't working. That can take hours! The set usually ends up in my trash can.

Patience is not my forte.

And the fact that many light sets are $2 or $3 instead of $15 doesn't hurt. Why is it okay to throw out a $3 set of lights, but if it cost $15, we check each bulb to see which one is the problem? Hmmm...

My current Christmas battle: the outdoor decorations versus the wind.

I guess I pick defective decorations because I don't notice my neighbors' decorations blown over. I have many flat, lighted decorations in the yard; they require stakes to secure them in the ground. The manufacturers always include stakes, but what they provide never seems sufficient to endure the December winds.

I've checked at hardware stores; they're useless in this situation. Why can't someone make stakes that truly secure lawn decor? Maybe the stakes need to be 3 feet long instead of 5 inches!

Poor Snoopy and Frosty are doomed - for now!

This can't be good...

I hate misleading headlines. You know the ones: the wording suggests one thing, but when you read the story it's not the way you took it.

Take this story by Fox News for example: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,461928,00.html

A palm pistol "aimed" at the elderly and disabled?

Turns out it's an ergonomically designed pistol so that the elderly and disabled can use it more easily. Oh.

Poor word choice, people!

I have arthritis, so I can sympathize with people who want to protect themselves but might have difficulty physically pulling a trigger.

I have a few problems with this supposed palm pistol, however:

1. It looks like an asthma inhaler, not a gun. How are police supposed to recognize this as a gun instead of as a toy or simple plastic apparatus?

2. How are grandchildren going to know that this is a gun and not some toy to play with? And if it's easier for the elderly to use, it's certainly going to be easier for kids to just push a button and fire.

3. Why would the gun manufacturer get approval from the FDA (Food and Drug Administration) instead of the ATF (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms)? Is it a food or drug? No, it's a gun! How were they able to go that route and still get approval for a gun design?

4. A doctor just writes a prescription for it? And Medicare (i.e. taxpayers) pay for it?

This is a good thing?

Can we get past Thanksgiving first?

I love Christmas. It's my favorite holiday for so many reasons: the sights, the sounds, the smells, even the fact that it's an entire season.

But I have a problem with celebrating Christmas long before Thanksgiving. Heck, stores start putting out Christmas candy and decorations before Halloween! Why is that? Do they think people are trying to get a jump on their Christmas decorating and stocking stuffers in October?

Even one local radio station started playing all-Christmas music all the time in October.

So why wouldn't I, a proclaimed Christmas-lover, like seeing people start celebrating early?

First, because it seems to negate the other holidays that precede Christmas.

Second, because by the time Christmas day arrives, it's anti-climactic. By December 25, I'm sick of looking at the tree, watching "How the Grinch stole Christmas," and hearing carols. And that, my friends, is so unlike me!

When I was a younger woman, I used to have all my shopping and wrapping done by Thanksgiving. Then the first week of December I worked on the decorations, the second week I wrote out and mailed the Christmas cards, and leading up to Christmas eve I baked cookies. I was a regular Christmas elf.

Of course that was all B.C. (Before Children.) Now, I'm lucky if I remember to schedule the kids' portraits in time to get the photos into the cards that I'm writing out December 23. Cookies? Who has time for that? Rush, rush, rush. That's reality anymore. And early reminders that Christmas is only so many days away puts people in that secular mindset of what's "expected" to be done by the 25th.


It shouldn't be about buying, buying, buying and debt, debt, debt. Christmas should be recalling the beautiful story of the birth of Jesus. It should be about advent, reflection, and prayer. It should be about doing small kindnesses for others - maybe singing carols to neighbors or the elderly, or making a collage for the special people in your life, or just setting up a manger instead of the 10,000 lights outside the house.

Hmmm...maybe we should be grateful to those "organized" people who have their decorations up by November 15 and start our thinking about Christmas so early.

Nah!

teachers' conferences

It's that time of year again....

The crisp, fall air is turning colder, the whiff of Halloween chocolate is but a faint memory, Thanksgiving is just around the corner - and teachers' conferences have begun.

You know your child. You know his or her strengths and weaknesses, favorite and least-favorite subjects, interactions with peers, behavior issues, etc.

Or do you?

The most surprising comment at a teacher's conference: How respectful and polite your son or daughter is in school.

Yet you've seen Dr. Jeckyll become Mr. Hyde when it's time to start homework. Why is that?

Do you mean it's not normal to have your child freak out because he wants to do only 5 math problems instead of 20? Don't all children throw their pencil across the room, storm to their rooms, and slam the door because you told them to erase a mistake instead of writing over the wrong answer darker so you could tell which answer he meant to write? Or how about the child who cries for 10 minutes if she got one homework problem wrong?

Is it because the teacher is a different authority figure? Is it because our kids need to vent, and they know that if they vent in front of us, we'll still love them so it's okay to have a meltdown over homework?

Is it time to stuff the turkey yet? Please? Anyone? Anyone?

8-year old shot father?

It's always shocking to hear of a child killing someone. Often the case is accidental.

But in small-town St. Johns, Arizona, officials are calling a double homicide "premeditated," based on the fact that the two men killed were found in different areas of the home: one at the entrance and one in an upstairs room. One victim was the father of the shooter, an 8-year old boy.

A third grader?

Premeditated?

Speculation already abounds in the news - the first naturally being abuse. Yet the local sheriff's office has no record of calls to the home, and the school counselors have nothing on file indicating any concern about the child and his home life. The boy has nothing negative in his school record.

The family priest told reporters that the father had recently consulted with him for advice on whether the boy should have a gun. The priest did not say what his advice was. One can only hope, in hindsight, that it was, "No."

What parent would even consider giving a gun to an 8-year old? According to the L.A. Times, the father came from a family of "avid hunters," and he taught his son to shoot prairie dogs.

The weapon used was a rifle, powerful kick back and all. The boy shot it, then shot it again, presumably within minutes.

What could possibly have been this kid's reason to aim it at his father and his father's friend/co-worker, who rented a room from the family?

I'm sure details will unfold in the next few weeks. But for now, this tragedy is simply incomprehensible to me.

And so it begins...

Sigh.

It's hard to believe that so many people bought into the phony promises of "tax cuts" from the "most-liberal" Senator in decades.

Mark my words: Within 30 days of Obama's inauguration, he will tell the American people why he can't implement his plan for tax cuts after all. He'll say that the economy was worse than he realized - naturally blaming W. for everything. He won't simply adjust his plans for tax cuts, but rather scrap that promise altogether.

How can I be so sure? Clinton pulled the same routine in 1993. I voted for him way back in 1992 (last time I ever voted for a Dem) because a "panel of economists" judged his economic plan - including tax cuts - the best one for the economy. If I had judged him by his voting record rather than his campaign commercials, I probably wouldn't have been so shocked when he announced - within weeks of his inauguration - that the economy was worse than expected (Bush Sr.'s fault, of course) and that he wouldn't be able to put his plan into action. Not just modify it. No, never even consider using it! And of course, Clinton had no idea things were that bad, even though he started the chant, "It's the economy [stupid]!"

Anyone want to speculate how many days it will take before Obama delivers the same message?

And now, Reid and Pelosi unveiled a plan to take everyone's 401K. They must have worked on this baby for weeks, but never said a word to voters before the election. Heaven forbid a politician should disclose all their plans so that voters can make informed decisions in the voting booths.

So, the government, which has never run any program efficiently and without fraud, is going to take your hard-earned retirement savings. You have no say, unless you want to get hit with heavy penalties for early withdraw. The government will take this money out of Wall Street investments, leading to the official collapse of the market, and invest them in government bonds.

Yes, they're dangling a bone: restoring your portfolio to August figures. But for the rest of your working lives, you will have no control and no say in your investment, with a cap on how much you can contribute and a cap on your return. And Congress will "handle" your money for you!

With Dems controlling the White House, Senate, and House of Representatives, who will stop them?

Bend over and grab your ankles for the next four years. This is just the beginning...

Who is truly worse: Dubya or Reid/Pelosi?

The current congress has the lowest approval ratings in history. Even lower than Bush.

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi have been dubbed the "Do-Nothing Congress."

During the height of the bank failures and economic concerns among all Americans, Reid and Pelosi went on vacation - early. (Did they go to the same spa that AIG executives went?) When Americans couldn't afford to put gas in their tanks to go on vacation or had no home to vacation from, our elected officials broke early to relax rather than deal with our country's economic problems head on. Pathetic.

Yet somehow, the Dems can just keep repeating how Bush caused everything that's wrong in America. And people seem to believe their lies. I'm not saying Dubya has been perfect. He has made mistakes, and I don't agree with everything he has done. But the main economic debacle that everyone seems to blame him for is all due to the Democrats.

The Dems were the cause of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's meltdown. It began with Clinton when he forced these two banking behemoths to make mortgages to low-income families, regardless of their ability to pay the loan. Actually, this idea was relatively good. But...

Problem 1: Clinton created a quoto, and a mimimum percentage of the banks' portfolios had to fit this criteria of money lent.

Problem 2: In 2004, when Republicans tried to sound an alarm over the record number of loan defaults and mortgages at FMae/FMac, Dems (Barney Franks, Maxine Waters, etc.) said there was no problem. See: http://www.redstate.com/diaries/redstate/2008/sep/28/shocking-video-unearthed-democrats-in-their-o/

Problem 3: W. tried to implement greater oversight at FMae/FMac, but again Dems, who had taken money from the banking leaders to keep regulators out, fought Bush's attempts. See: http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/easescredit.asp

Problem 4: Pelosi and Reid's ONLY solution to fix the mess that they blamed on W. was to pass a pork-laden bailout bill with barely any criteria to hold these provenly inept bankers accountable with this new money.

Bush and the Republicans tried over and over again to create oversights for FM/FM. The Dems fought it over and over again. Then Reid, Pelosi, Obama, et al., had the audacity to praise Barney Franks and slam W.

If I had any say, here's how I would have "fixed" this mess:

Solution 1: Make all adjustable mortages illegal. People shouldn't lose their homes because they were offered only an adjustable-rate mortgage; they can afford the mortgage payments based on the monthly payment they start at, but once the rates skyrocket, they can't keep up with the payments and end up losing their homes.

Lenders will say that adjustable rates are a tool that allows them to lend to poorer-risk clients. Bull! I've worked in the banking industry. Lenders just apply higher rates for those with less than perfect credit scores, tighter income-to-bills ratio, etc. But people should not have to face ever-increasing monthly payments. There's no way that they can stay afloat financially with an adjustable rate on their home.

Solution 2: These lenders who were so quick to foreclose and evict people but then stick their hands out for a government (i.e. taxpayer-financed) bailout to cover their bad debt should be forced to refinance these loans at fixed rates. By refinancing, their borrowers still owe the money but get a clean slate in that nothing is past due anymore. They start fresh with payments.

This allows borrowers to stay in their homes, take these houses off an already oversaturated housing market, allow the lenders to move the loan from the "red" to the "black" (meaning that the loans are being paid), and improve sales of other real estate across the nation.

For borrowers who already lost their home: if they can prove that they were evicted because of an adjustable-rate mortgage that spiraled the payments, then the original lender must make them a new loan to purchase another home. Again, this would improve the housing market while allowing more people access to home ownership.

Cost to the taxpayer: $0.

And no pork for Hollywood and Arrow Shafts.

Shame on Pelosi and Reid!

Don't get disheartened!

I have to admit, I made a mistake.

My husband will probably chuckle at my rare revelation/confession.

I was curious about the electoral map since the most recent polls show McCain is getting closer to BO's numbers, so I checked it out. Mea Culpa! RealClearPolitics made it look like BO had already won the election, so why should anyone bother voting on Tuesday?

After I scraped my jaw off the floor, I called my conservative BFF (thanks for the boost Kath!) and then looked at how skewed some of these sources are. That cheered me up somewhat.

The next shocker: my mother, whom I consider to be an intelligent woman, told me that she is voting for Obama.

My mother is pro-life, so I naturally reminded her of BO's stance on that issue. She replied that there are more issues than just that one. (Pardon me while I scrape my jaw off the floor again.) The economy is all she is concerned with anymore.

Confirmation that the economy is the main issue on Americans' minds now: On Hannity and Colmes tonight, Governor Huckabee pointed out how the hotbed issues during the primaries (the Iraq war and illegal immigration) aren't even mentioned anymore. The economy is it. Period!

This is what the McCain camp should be hammering home. McCain's TV and radio ads have been incredibly weak so far. Many different fronts have been suggesting ads that conservatives should run to help sway the undecided.

(BTW, are there truly any undecideds out there? I don't know any of them.)

For those who still want to waste money pointing out the long-time alliances (not mere associations) that BO has formed with anti-Americans like Rev. Wright (to whom BO dedicated one of his books, calling Wright his "mentor of 20 years"), Bill Ayers, Bernardine Dohrn, etc., I say that it won't make a difference. It's been out there over and over again; if it hasn't mattered to people over these last few months, then it won't matter to them these last few days before the election.

For the most impact, these final ads should focus on BO's plan to allegedly "cut" taxes. Show Obama - in his own words - stumping for the state senate seat on the platform of cutting taxes, only to raise them once he got elected. Show him saying the same exact thing when he ran for the US Senate seat - and again raising taxes once in office. The bill he wrote and tried to push through in the scant 5 months he spent in the senate was the Global Poverty Act, which tried to tax Americans to redistribute the wealth around the world. Also, point out the campaign promises that he has already broken. Then ask, "Why should he keep his campaign promises this time?"

Don't give up. The polls are getting closer. And those skewed electoral maps are based on polls.

Plus no one has polled me, so I know the polls couldn't possibly be accurate. ;o)

gas prices

Did you notice?

When gas prices jumped from $3 to $4 per gallon, prices for everything else went up (food, clothing, retail). All the companies justified the higher prices based on rising gas and transportation costs.

Now that the gas prices have dropped below $3 a gallon, why haven't the food and retail prices come down yet?

And I'll bet that if gas prices go up again, the costs of other products will go up again, regardless of the fact that they didn't first lower the prices when transportation costs came down.

I think the only reason why they are coming down now is because our U.S. Presidential candidates have been talking up drilling and alternative resources to reduce our dependence on foreign countries. Hey, OPEC doesn't have any dummies. They don't want to lose their cash cow (i.e. us!) any time soon.

So what happens when the political rhetoric ends and the campaign promises are gone? Prices will zoom up again if the U.S. does not act on all this talk. Of course, since prices have come down, there's suddenly less talk about this issue on the campaign trail...

Unfortunately, most voters care about issues that affect them only in the here and now, not in the long run and not necessarily what's best for everyone and for our country.

Here's hoping the prices stay under $3 per gallon.

And yes, my fingers are crossed!

Wake up people!

Wake up people!

I know this is a heated political season, and that no politician is perfect, but remember that since they are all politicians, expect spin doctoring and phony promises. Don't listen to eloquent speeches and assume that campaign promises equate to action.

McCain has had virtually the same message and voting record in his 26 years in politics. He doesn't change his message to suit different audiences on different days.

I have to say that Barack Obama's commercials are convincing. Quite slick in fact. He sounds like he knows what middle-class Americans want to hear. In fact, he sounds conservative! But the ultra-liberal Obama only has to sound conservative in order to get the middle-class votes. After all, no one runs on a platform of raising taxes and making government larger (i.e. big government spending). At least, no politician says any of that on the campaign trail if he or she expects to get elected. That's political reality.

But will Obama actually keep any of his conservative-sounding promises once elected? Look at his voting records and already-broken campaign promises.

During the primaries, in a final push to beat Hillary Clinton, Obama ran ads looking the American people in the eye and swearing that "lobbyists will not be a part of my White House." Of course he had already received the second-highest payoff from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to keep regulators out of their affairs. We all know what happened with that. [McCain also took a payoff - albeit a smaller one - but is also disappointing to me.] Plus Obama hired two lobbyists to work on his campaign. So much for that "sincere" promise.

Didn't Obama also promise to accept only public financing for his campaign? Oops! Once he locked up the Democratic nomination, he didn't need to honor that promise any more.

Obama's pet project in his 143 days as a US Senator was the Global Poverty Act. He wants American taxpayers to pay more than we already do - to the tune of $2000 per man, woman, and child - in order to abolish poverty around the world. If you are in a family of four, do you have an extra $8000 to spare? Too bad. Cough it up - somehow. Even at $2000 per American, we could barely make a dent in "fixing" poverty around the world, so Obama's plan would cost more exponentially each year. Does the author of such a bill sound like someone who will "cut taxes" for almost everyone once he's in office? Do you think he no longer cares about his most beloved and socialist bill?

He claims he will "find" the money for all of his spending projects by ending the Iraq war on some arbitrary date - despite what our miltary leaders recommend, and despite that the surge has worked and our troops are already back to pre-surge levels and counting! If it were up to Obama, the U.N. (not the US) should lead all our missions. Pelosi, Reid and Obama all wanted to wave the white flag. The Iraq region has fragile stability and democracy, yet Obama wants to cut and run to appease some voters. The majority of military members are conservative and support John McCain as Commander-in-Chief. And the majority of servicemen and women are voting for McCain: not just because McCain has served in the military but because he knows what it's like to be a serviceman on the ground fighting, to know what it's like to be a military leader and make difficult decisions, and to know how the president's decisions affect both the country and our miltary families - firsthand!


Obama declared to Planned Parenthood that the first thing he would do as president would be to pass the Freedom of Choice Act, which is a misnomer since women actually lose freedoms with this act - especially information about abortions and post-operative risks and symptoms. This act would also force taxpayers to pay for all abortions. Think about it: the nurse at your child's school cannot administer Tylenol, but Obama wants the government to perform a medical procedure on your daughter without providing her with full disclosure on the risks and complications - and certainly without any parent's or guardian's knowledge or permission.

Every person running for the office of President must show 1) proof of age and 2) that he or she is a natural-born citizen. That's it. Sounds simple, huh? No one else has ever had trouble handing over a simple birth certificate. Unfortunately, Obama eventually came up with only a copy posted on his website; the copy has inconsistencies and omissions which suggest it is fraudulent. Lawsuits have cropped up across the US demanding a legal birth certificate. What does Obama do? He hires attorneys to find ways to have the cases dismissed. WHAT?!? Why not just provide it? What is wrong with this picture? Hours after Obama flies to Hawaii, the State of Hawaii declares his birth records "sealed"? What is going on with this man?

Wake up people! Is this the change you want?

People accuse W. of arrogance. Obama has shown true arrogance, from prematurely creating a presidential seal to his "world-tour" in order to look presidential to the world. Couple Obama's arrogance with his scary socialist agenda and he'll make even Jimmy Carter look like Ronald Reagan!

And ask yourselves this: Who would Osama bin Laden want you to vote for? There are hundreds, if not thousands of lunatics who wish the US harm because we are infidels. It takes only one whack-a-do to fly under the radar. Who is more likely to prevent another 9-11? Obama?

Let's all sing Kumbaya, people! Ahmadinejad, handle the harmony for us...