Okay, this is hilarious. The thought pattern to get me to this place was completely random, but I had to share what I'd learned. Apparently Anthony and Jeff have been wiggling together for a long time. It seems the Cockroaches were quite the '80s band in Australia.

For those of you with no kids, the Asian guy on top and the guy in the red shirt are Jeff and Anthony from the extremely popular kids' group, The Wiggles (Bryant's personal favorite). I've just learned that they toured together for several years in this rock group. When the band broke up, Anthony enrolled in an early childhood education program, where he became friends with two of the programs' other male students (apparently a rarity, as you might imagine) who just happened to be Greg Page and Murray Cook (the other two Wiggles).

They originally got together to do a music project for school, but soon decided to record a children's album. Anthony called his old buddy Jeff to join them.

And for those of you who care, you now know... the rest of the story.

Who's Your Daddy?

It is now 12 minutes after 7, and GMA has already referenced the George Tenet "bombshell" three times. They've quoted the same two sentences from his book and repeatedly stressed that this is devastating to the administration.

What did Tenet say? “There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat,” Mr. Tenet writes in a devastating judgment that is likely to be debated for many years. Nor, he adds, “was there ever a significant discussion” about the possibility of containing Iraq without an invasion.

What is new here? We've known from the beginning that they believed Iraq was a threat, but they actually made great pains to not use the word "imminent." If I remember correctly, the President's point was that to wait for the threat to be imminent would put our nation in extreme danger, something that still makes complete sense.

Why is it that the facts can so completely be ignored? The fact that it was not just American intelligence indicating that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. The fact that Bill Clinton made almost the exact same statements about Iraq and Saddam, as well as the Democratic members of Congress when Clinton was in power. Virtually everyone in the world believed that Iraq was a huge threat to international security. George W. Bush just happened to be the guy in charge when it was crucial to make a decision about what to do.

"No significant discussion" about containing Iraq without an invasion? What about the 14 UN Resolutions that were passed and summarily ignored by Saddam Hussein? What about the years of UN inspections leading up to the point when Saddam mysteriously kicked them out? The idea that we "rushed to war" is completely overstated.

If you look at the rest of what's in Mr. Tenet's book, it's actually not that devastating at all, which is why the media will focus on these two supposedly new revelations, a move from their playbook that gets rehearsed every single time someone close to the administration decides to unload some frustration. Because clearly George Tenet has reason to be frustrated. He did pretty much get thrown under the bus, but it was the MEDIA who demanded it. President Bush tried to hold on to him for quite a while. The truth of politics and media in this country is that scapegoats are demanded. Those playing the game are aware of this, and they all know that their number could be up any day, no matter what level they are playing on. George Tenet was media enemy #2 (after Bush) until he came out with these supposedly shocking revelations. All it takes to get on the good side of our esteemed news agencies is to slam President Bush, period. Need to regain your credibility, write a book about how terrible the Bush administration has been. It works every time.

From The New York Times: Mr. Tenet takes blame for the flawed 2002 National Intelligence Estimate about Iraq’s weapons programs, calling the episode “one of the lowest moments of my seven-year tenure.” He expresses regret that the document was not more nuanced, but says there was no doubt in his mind at the time that Saddam Hussein possessed unconventional weapons. “In retrospect, we got it wrong partly because the truth was so implausible,” he writes.

Would that be the truth that Saddam didn't actually possess weapons of mass destruction, even though quite a few defected scientists have said that he did? Even though there is evidence that they were moved out of Iraq into Syria before the invasion? Even though he actually used chemical weapons against his own people? Just because we didn't find them doesn't mean that they weren't there. Anyone even slightly familiar with the madness of Saddam Hussein has to consciously make an effort to conclude that he wouldn't have been seeking these weapons, and that he wouldn't have used them at the first possible opportunity. Or are we supposed to have faith that he actually was just a misunderstood nice guy, and he really didn't mean us any harm? Give me a break.

What's interesting about Tenet's book is that he expresses surprise that Al Qaeda hasn't sent suicide bombers into American malls on any given day. He says, "I do know one thing in my gut. Al Qaeda is here and waiting." And yet that is less newsworthy than the fact that President Bush found Iraq to be a serious threat that needed to be dealt with swiftly and harshly. You're right, Diane, that's just shocking.

My daughter has a passion... about bugs. She loves them all. Roly polies and ladybugs are her special favorites. Every chance she gets, she's turning over rocks and bricks looking for her treasures.

I can choose to be grossed out by this, or celebrate her passion for life and her unique interest. Of course it's really no choice. If she wants to be a bug scientist, then I hope she's the greatest one this world has ever seen. Because I have a passion... for her.

But I do make her wash her hands a lot.

I've not been blogging the past few days out of fear that it would just be bad. I haven't really had anything to say. Last week was overwhelmingly defined by sadness and pain. From the national news to the international news to those people all around me, it seemed like everything I heard was unbearably sad. So it made me go inward instead of wanting to be open with my thoughts, which was probably not a bad thing. Even now I'm struggling with what to share, so I think it's best that I keep it close to the vest. Maybe things will lighten up a bit soon.

I have gotten serious amusement from the whole Sheryl Crow one-square-of-toilet-paper-per-bathroom-visit-will-save-the-planet thing. (Which, by the way, she claims was written as a joke. That's probably true, but when it coincides so beautifully with the rest of her message, it's kind of hard to tell.) It was funny to begin with, but then to hear about Rosie O'Donnell's comments on The View, I actually laughed out loud at something Rosie said for its hilarity rather than its absurdity for the first time in years. It was totally unexpected. I'd link you there, but I just don't have the energy. Google is a beautiful thing.

So, good night for now. Hope to be back soon. After all, in the words of my favorite heroine, tomorrow is... another day.

ABC News has posted a link to the interview with Dr. Welner this morning. Interestingly enough, most of their website coverage is now devoted to whether or not the media should have released the tape. Pretty fascinating. Maybe this backlash will teach them something for the future. Should we dare to hope?

I just witnessed the most amazing interview on GMA.

Those of you that are news junkies know that Cho Seung-Hui mailed a video of himself to NBC news on Monday in between his killing sprees. It is full of rage, hatred, profanity and utterly disturbing images. When I heard last night that he had done this, I immediately flipped over to the news channels to see if they were actually running the footage. Of course, they were. This is so sick.

Sadly, I know that there were executives at NBC who were ecstatic to have been the chosen network. Because every other news channel is showing the video with a big "NBC News" logo in the corner. Reportedly they copied the contents and then handed it over to law forces. They began releasing the footage during last night's evening newscast with Brian Williams.

Okay, I'm not an idiot. I know that it would be ridiculous for me to assume that news organizations would show some restraint and compassion for the victims of this horrible episode and not plaster the image of their child's killer all over the television. In one of the pictures, the observer is actually looking straight into the barrel of the gun, much like the victims did before they died.

If I was in one of those rooms that day and survived only by jumping out of a window or playing dead, those images are going to be burned into my brain forever. Can you even imagine the nightmares that these people will live with for the rest of their lives? And now the man who did this to him is being allowed to dominate American society with not only news about him, but images and video of him. It is so twisted. Is this not what inspires other sociopaths to want to go out and do the same thing? Why reward him with fame for one of the most evil acts in American history?

So, back to the interview. Robin Roberts just interviewed a forensic psychiatrist named Dr. Michael Welner. She thought he was going to give insight into the mind of this madman. Instead, he was appealing to ABC and all the other networks to take the video off the air NOW. He was practically begging. Robin was completely thrown off balance, and admitted that they had had a very "heated debate" in their newsroom that morning about what to show. Dr. Welner said that it is delusional ramblings that we can learn absolutely nothing from. It is pure voyeurism to watch and listen to what he had to say and it is glamorizing what he did and making it seem appealing to all the other crazies out there. It was utterly amazing that this doctor didn't kowtow to what he knew were the expectations of the network, but instead appealed that they would be the first to pull the footage. I'm sure the interview will show up on You Tube at some point, and it would be worth the time it takes to look for it.

Robin also admitted that the message boards were lit up with people demanding that the footage be pulled. This is very encouraging to me, that there are a lot of people out there more concerned with the victims than trying to "figure" this guy out.

Because, can we just agree that we will never be able to understand why he did this? There is no mystery here. The guy was evil. There is absolutely nothing that could have been done to prevent his actions, outside of him being locked up. In our country, we don't lock people up for being suicidal or strange. If he was intent on killing a bunch of people, he would have done it one way or the other.

Now, are there implications here about privacy laws in healthcare? Perhaps. Cho's parents were not informed of his erratic behavior because it was not legal for anyone to alert them. Could they have done anything? There's no way to know. What about the antidepressant medication that he was on? It's not the first red flag that some of those medicines cause suicidal and violent tendencies when the recipient withdraws or stops taking them cold turkey. I think a very serious look is needed at restrictions on prescribing these drugs.

But I hope the networks will seriously consider pulling this footage. I'm reminded of the days shortly after 9-11 when they made the decision to pull the footage of the airplanes and the towers crumbling out of "respect for the victims." The images were just too disturbing to show over and over again. The psychopathic ramblings of a deranged serial killer are pretty disturbing to me.

The best quote of the interview was when Dr. Welner said, "Listen, if you can take Imus off the air, you can certainly keep [Cho] from having his own morning show." That about sums it up.

Why is it when something so tragic and unexplainable happens we feel compelled to blame the innocent? I'm watching GMA this morning and I'm just astounded at the attacks on the president of Virginia Tech. Why didn't you lock the school down after the first shooting? Why didn't you let everyone know that this had happened? Are you going to resign? Don't you think if you had acted differently 30 people could have been spared?

This man is most likely in the midst of the biggest crisis he has ever faced, certainly in the professional realm. Doesn't he deserve support instead of suspicion? Clearly they believed that the dorm shooting was an isolated incident. They informed those in the general area of what had happened. They were investigating and believed that it was over. There was absolutely nothing to point to the rampage that was to occur. Why is it assumed that if they had immediately let everyone on campus know that anybody would have acted any differently? I guess they could have cancelled all classes, but who can say that the gunman wouldn't have just gone into another dorm or the student center or anywhere else that he found people?

I know if I was a parent of a slain student, I would be second-guessing everything that happened. I would be searching for someone to blame. Obviously the shooter is to blame, but he's dead, so there's no satisfaction there.

But shouldn't the media be more responsible than that? Hindsight is always 20/20, but it doesn't change what happened. It just sickens me that this university president may end up run out of his job to satisfy the hunger of the media monster. The power of the media to destroy lives is a huge problem in this country. Just ask the Duke lacrosse coach, who resigned in disgrace over a crime that never happened. Or the players, themselves, who just spent the past year living in fear of serving life sentences for something they didn't do. This is just one situation that shows how the media can get out of control when they smell blood in the water, but there are thousands more.

Please, take a breath. Blame the one who is responsible, the man who pulled the trigger. Not the gun. Not those who were struggling to contain a situation based on the information available. Not the NRA. Not George W. Bush. (Trust me, they will find a way.)

We live in a fallen world. There are messed up people living among us. Things like this will happen. We pray for the victims and their families. We pray for those who will be faced with a serious spiritual crisis in the face of death, that they will find the Truth. And mostly, we pray come quickly, Jesus. We need you so.

First of all, this press conference yesterday was one of the most amazing things I have ever witnessed. I was STUNNED by the frank candor of the attorney general, and just shocked that he actually declared these guys innocent. I figured the best they could hope for was a dropping of charges based on there not being enough conclusive evidence to prove their guilt. The fact that the North Carolina AG said there was no evidence, and never had been any evidence, was totally unexpected, but the fact that he so unequivocally threw Nifong under the bus was just a jaw-dropper. If you haven't read the transcript, you should.

The obvious question then becomes, will Jesse Jackson rush down to North Carolina now to defend these boys' honor? Will he recant his article from last year, "Duke: Horror and Truth"? Strangely, all we're hearing from the Sharpton/Jackson camp are some pretty loud crickets.

I'm sure that they are just annoyed that this bombshell came at such a time that it would distract observers from their lynching of Don Imus. Surely Jesse was a little disappointed that Imus has already been pulled from MSNBC before he could get his boycott going. He didn't really want this to be over too quickly, because his phone had just started ringing again.

If only those boys could have hired Johnny Cochran long ago. Can't you just hear him from the grave... "If the glove don't fit, you must acquit!"

Al, Jesse, your transparency has never been more obvious. Can I dare hope your irrelevance is not far behind?

Bryant's Mohawk

Who needs mousse when you've got bananas and time on your hands?

Question: Prior to the events of the past week, how many of you were even aware of Don Imus? If you happen to live in listening range of one of the 70 stations that carry his show, you might have heard him. (In comparison, nationally-syndicated talk show host Glenn Beck is heard on over 230 stations, Sean Hannity on over 500, and Rush Limbaugh on over 650 nationwide.) If you have ever been channel-surfing past MSNBC in the morning, you've seen an old geezer in a cowboy hat kind of mumbling into the microphone. Most likely you either became quickly bored or got tired of not being able to understand what he was saying and surfed on past.

I'm going to take a guess and say that the ladies of the Rutger's women's basketball team are probably not frequent listeners, although admittedly I have no way of knowing that. But I seriously doubt that they were offended by Imus' remarks last Wednesday, because I seriously doubt that they heard them. But things obviously changed.

Now the idiotic ramblings of Don Imus are being shoved down all of our throats. Now, I imagine, the Rutgers players are humiliated. Because, thanks to the nationwide media frenzy, the entire country and beyond have heard them called, "nappy-headed ho's."

If Al Sharpton actually cared about their feelings, then he could have handled this so much differently. But obviously Al Sharpton doesn't care about these players. All he cares about is his newest racist soundbite that he will now fully exploit as proof that racism exists in America. Well, of course racism exists in America. Racism exists everywhere around the world. It's part of life. It's not right, and I'm not defending it. But what I find incredible is that Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are allowed to act the part of the self-appointed judge, jury and executioner to those that they deem racist.

I've said it before and I will say it over and over, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson are two of the most racist men in America. They thrive on it because it keeps them in the public eye. Where would they be without it? Because, honestly, isn't this the only time anybody ever gives them a voice, when something comes up in the race category? How many people would have known that Al Sharpton has a radio show if it hadn't been such a spectacle yesterday?

Let's just pretend that Don Imus had said something racially derogatory towards the white players on either team. I know some wouldn't accept this hypothetical, but just work with me. If he had, would Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson be demanding his head on a platter? I don't think this will require much brain power to think through.

If Al Sharpton is serious about putting out the fires of racism in this country rather than fanning them, then the most effective thing he could have done would have been to dismiss Don Imus's comments as ignorant and unworthy of response. He could have suggested that the women of Rutgers were strong, confident women who would not find it necessary to dignify the remarks of a radio has-been, and express confidence that the people of this great country would see the remarks for what they were, stupid and insulting, and move on.

We live in a society based on capitalism. The most successful way to fight something is to cut it off financially. If Don Imus wants to have a radio show, then more power to him. We still have freedom of speech in this country, despite the many attacks it comes under. If you don't like what someone has to say, don't listen to them. If his ratings go down, the stations will drop him. If he doesn't have listeners, then he becomes irrelevant. I have serious qualms with people demanding he be fired for what he said. Because many things might be considered offensive to many different people. Just because you disagree with what I have to say doesn't mean that I don't have the right to say it.

Don Imus is learning what it feels like to be a Dixie Chick in the South, Mel Gibson or Michael Richards. This, too, shall pass. Then maybe our attention can turn back to the Middle East and those who are seeking our annhilation. But maybe not, because that's just racist.

10 Things I Learned Three Years Ago Today...

1. Good Friday can be good... or not so much.
2. When your 2-yr-old daughter sees you on a ladder and sternly reprimands, "No, Mommy! Get down!" you might be wise to listen.
3. When you get to the place on the ladder that says, "Warning! Not a step," do not go any further.
4. It is possible to fall seven feet without losing your grip on a solo cup full of paint.
5. When in shock, you can make completely irrational demands, and people will agree to them through vicarious shock, which explains why my sweet husband did, indeed, roll in the paint I splattered all over the wall on my way down.
6. Pain and shock can make your teeth chatter worse than those poor people at yesterday's sunrise services.
7. ER triage nurses who say, "If you want my opinion, I think it's broke," don't seem especially helpful in a moment of crisis.
8. It is completely possible to shatter a bone into hundreds of tiny, indistinguishable pieces, and you should just take my word for it.
9. Morphine, while potentially dangerous stuff, can be a very, very good friend.
10. One should be careful of what one says and/or shows while under the influence of morphine, or at least surround oneself with friends who won't bring it up later.

When I woke up this morning, the first story I heard on the news was a gleeful report that President Bush's approval rating is under 40% for the seventh straight month. My first thought, of course, was "bless his heart!" because I do live in the South. I can't help it.

Then I started thinking, "Maybe if you would start sticking up for yourself more, people might come back around." I mean, the man is attacked each and every day of the year, and never responds. This is completely frustrating to those of us who still love and support him, despite the mistakes he's made or the times I may disagree with him on a particular issue. It makes me angry and I want to tell him to fight back a little bit. And maybe, just maybe, it makes me begin to perceive him as weak.

Then I came upon these verses from 1 Peter 2:19-24:

19For it is commendable if a man bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because he is conscious of God. 20But how is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong and endure it? But if you suffer for doing good and you endure it, this is commendable before God.

21To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps. 22"He committed no sin, and no deceit was found in his mouth." 23When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly. 24He himself bore our sins in his body on the tree, so that we might die to sins and live for righteousness; by his wounds you have been healed.

I immediately thought of our President. Knowing that he is a man of faith who strives to pattern his life after that of Christ, my perspective began to change a little. Because if he takes this teaching to heart, his behavior suddenly appears perfectly consistent with pursuing a godly lifestyle.

Now, if you are a man and you pattern your life after Christ, what is that going to look like? Were the teachings of Jesus what we would consider "manly"? Turn the other cheek. Love your enemies. Pray for those who persecute you. If you want to quote Jesus, you're going to have a hard time finding encouragement to stick up for yourself and demand that people give you the proper respect. In fact, He taught that you are to humble yourself, so that He can lift you up.

President Bush is no wimp. Consider the price he has paid for sticking to his pursuit of battling terror around the world. When it comes to his role as President and Commander in Chief, he fights for what he believes in. When he's doing that, he gets labeled as an arrogant and out-of-control cowboy. But I'm so glad that he puts the good of the country above his personal approval. We know what happens when the opposite is true. (And speaking of that, Bill Clinton pursued his own version of manliness while in office, and we all know where that got him.)

So, which would you rather have, a man who pursues manliness, or a man who pursues godliness? While the latter terrifies those who do not believe and therefore fear, to me the choice is obvious. So maybe next time I start wishing that he would defend himself, I'll remember that this is not what is important to him, and instead pray that he will continue to pursue the best interests of the country, while personally striving to live a life patterned after Christ. I don't think we can ask for more than that.

My friend Debo told me this morning that I am an expert in my own opinion. I think that's one of the truest, most profound things I've heard in a long time.

Happy Easter, everyone. Congratulations, Zach Johnson. That was awesome.

My head is literally about to explode. I would tell Speaker Pelosi to shut up and get her butt back home, but I don't want her here either. So how about just shut up.

However, if she keeps this up we won't have to keep pointing out her complete incompetency. She's doing a fabulous job on her own.

As a continuation of yesterday's rant, there's one more thing I failed to mention. Did you know that the Democrats in Congress are demanding that the phrase "global war on terror" be removed from future legislation in favor of more specific terms, such as "the war in Iraq" or "the conflict in the Horn of Africa"? The memo states that "global war on terror," or GWOT, is a colloquialism that is no longer acceptable, as well as any mention of a "long war."

I used to shy away from saying that the Democrats actually want to lose the war. (Keep in mind, I'm talking about elected, liberal Democrats when I use the general term. I know that there are many Americans who call themselves Democrats who do not agree with what's going on in Washington. This is why I'm imploring you who fit in this category to seriously think through next year's vote!) I can no longer hold to my optimism in this area. I think they actually do want to lose the war.

How can it be interpreted any other way? They want to cut funding. They want to set a deadline for getting our troops out of Iraq. Is there any other message for the terrorists to read into "we'll be leaving next March" than "let's hang on until March and then we can do whatever we want?" The entire idea is baffling to me if you have any intentions of actually winning the war.

But right now they are trying to deny the need for a war in the first place. They want to go back to the delusional mentality most of us were under before 9/11, where there aren't groups of people daily seeking to find ways to harm this country as much as they possibly can, who are seeking weapons of mass destruction and have absolutely no moral compass to keep them from pulling the proverbial trigger when it comes time. In fact, they follow a religion that they believe teaches them that this is the most honorable thing they can do for their god. There is no reasoning with people like this.

I would have laughed out loud at Rosie O'Donnell's comments last week if I hadn't been screaming at her through the television. On The View, she said, "They're terrorists. They have two choices, faith or fear. Faith or fear. That's your choice. You can walk through life believing in the goodness of the world or walk through life afraid of anyone who thinks differently than you and try to convert them to your way of thinking…Don't fear the terrorists. They're mothers and fathers."

Rosie, do you think that if given the chance these people wouldn't cut off your head or blow you up because you don't fear them? I would just feel sorry for you if I wasn't afraid of how many people out there agree with your mind-numbing ignorance. It's pathetic. What a slap in the face to your fellow New Yorkers.

I know that there are millions of Americans out there who are also angry. They are angry at George Bush because they think this whole thing is his fault. They blame the war on terrorism (oops, it just slipped out) on our President rather than the actual terrorists. It is so screwed up. On Tuesday, there was a story from Reuter's that seemed to suggest that because President Bush has been so successful at protecting our country from attack, we are actually more vulnerable to attack in the future. Where is the logic??

I believe we are extremely vulnerable to attack in the future. But I believe the chances of us being attacked will go up immeasurably if we follow the course the Democrats are prescribing and give up. Did we learn nothing from Vietnam? The ONLY reason that America has ever lost a war is because Congress and the media did exactly the same thing back then that they are doing now. And they have no shame. They are proud of what they did back then. And they are smug and arrogant now. It's almost more than I can stand.

I apologize for the profanity in my earlier post. I was somewhat overcome by emotion at the time. I'm feeling much better now.

Chocolate. Chocolate is the key.

To all of you who voted the Democrats into Congress in the last election, are you pleased with what you got? Are you proud that your Speaker of the House, who was elected to represent the 8th District of California, specifically San Francisco, now thinks that she is the Secretary of State and has basically flipped our President the bird? Are you proud that she took it upon herself to visit the president of a country which sponsors terrorism, a country that our President refuses to deal with in the hopes of putting pressure on them to change their terror-driven ways? What exactly defines being a traitor in this country anymore? Is it not treacherous to give aid and comfort to the enemy? Who exactly does she think she is? I am so angry today that I want to physically inflict pain upon these people. They make me sick. She makes me sick.

Are you proud when you see Speaker Pelosi stand before the country and tell President Bush in the bitchiest, most condescending tone imaginable to "calm down" as if she was his mother? How dare she insult not only our President, but the integrity of the highest office of the land this way? When I heard her smug comments I wanted to reach inside the TV and just slap some sense into her. Again I ask you, is this what you were voting for?

Are you happy to hear Hillary Clinton warn the President that his veto against Congress' efforts to cut funding for our troops was not vetoing an obscenely left-wing, wacked-out bill, but that he was vetoing the will of the American people? Like hell. I still believe that if they had come out with all of this before the election and let people know what they were voting for that they would have lost in a landslide. Instead, they hid these polarizing figures in those last few weeks, trying their hardest to make America believe they were going to get change for the better. Well, we are getting change all right, and it may do us in. If you voted for these people, are you waking up? Or do you still believe that this is what we needed?

Are you impressed that John Murtha, the man whom Pelosi wanted as her second in command, has come out with a brilliant plan to reinstate the draft by lottery? Isn't this what they claimed Republicans had a secret plan to do? For a man who has made his distaste for our military known over and over again, it's no surprise to me that he would propose changing a system that puts forth the greatest Armed Forces in the entire world. It's just not fair that we should have a military that's so much better, is it? And yet, in case of attack, you'll be more than happy to allow them to protect you, will you not, Senator?

Are you hoping that we will slip so far down the global warming slope that we will follow in the footsteps of those in Wallonia, Belgium, who will now have to purchase a permit any time they want to grill out in their backyard or face a heavy fine? It sounds absurd, doesn't it? But if we keep swallowing the load of trash Al Gore is trying to feed us, it's not that many years away.

Yes, I am angry. I've been watching this go on for the past few weeks and it has grown up within me like a tumor. I hope you who voted for these people are paying attention to how they are systematically trying to destroy our military and our country. I hope it bothers you that the terrorist news network, Al-Jazeera, is praising Mrs. Pelosi for the message her trip is sending to the world. Al-Jazeera is as anti-American as you can get. What does that tell you?

Please, please don't make this mistake next year. If Democrats get control of the White House in '08 and keep Congress, God help us all.

As of this minute, Drudge's headline reads "America Loves Hillary, Top Fundraiser for Round One: $36 million."

Gag me. All that money really helped Howard Dean last time around, didn't it?

We celebrated Bryant's first birthday on Friday night. He thoroughly enjoyed his first chocolate cake, and we thoroughly enjoyed watching him eat it. This kid is just too adorable!

Someone asked me this week what I had been thinking about. I guess my blog has been much more familial lately than geopolitical. Frankly, everything that is going on is just making me tired. I am totally unimpressed by our "Decision 2008" lineup. I've decided to just not spend much time thinking about it at this ridiculously early date, because I don't wish to develop an ulcer. Yes, I would love to see Senator Thompson jump in, although I can't clearly articulate the reasons why. I know he has a pretty strong conservative voting record. He's from the South (Yee-haw!), and he seems to be a guy who shoots from the hip. Some worry about having an actor in the White House, because how can you ever know when to trust what he's saying? But really, how is that different from any other politician? I think that a background in theater can only help you when dealing day in and out with the players on the world stage.

It is amazing to me that Rudy is the current Republican frontrunner. Yes, he impressed us all with his crisis management skills post 9-11. But what else does he have to offer? It wasn't that long ago that being on your third marraige to a woman who's on her third marraige when you began your relationship when you were both married to other people would have had a negative impact on one's marketability. Guess we have Bill "personal life doesn't matter" Clinton to thank for this one. I don't mean to sound judgmental. It's just that I still believe ethics are important to the all-around character of a president. Mr. Guliani's ethics have been somewhat less than impressive, not to mention his liberal leanings on most social and moral issues.

It has been kind of fun to watch the Clinton campaign try to deal with her less than stellar poll numbers. For a candidate who supposedly had the nomination in the bag, her spin machine must be in high gear. As unbelievable as I would have once thought, Edwards could emerge as the Democratic nominee. Could we see an Edwards/Obama ticket? That would just be weird. Not as weird as Algore trying to make a comeback, but still weird.

On the world news front, I've just been trying to digest. It seems to me that Iran is testing the waters. I really believe that Ahmadinejad wants nothing more than to pick a nuclear fight with either us or Israel. If he can get us to strike first, then they can claim self-defense when they try to retaliate. I think it's interesting that they kidnapped British soldiers instead of Americans. Was it a mistake? Did they get the wrong guys? Or were they simply afraid to go after the big giant, and instead testing to see just how strong the coalition really is?

My thoughts on the months ahead: I think Iran will eventually go too far and will either attack or provoke a strike against them. In the aftermath of this war, I think it's highly possible that the 12th imam or Mahdi (the Muslim messiah) will emerge as a voice of peace and will set up a treaty with Israel that will allow them to rebuild Solomon's temple. The Mahdi will be the antichrist. Muslims believe that Jesus will appear shortly after the Mahdi to renounce Christianity and defer to his authority, enforcing Muslim rule over the world. I believe this is the False Prophet. Then I think we will be faced with 3 1/2 years of persecution, otherwise known as the tribulation. Yes, I am coming out of the closet. I am no longer a pre-tribber. I have every Left Behind book ever written, and I no longer believe in its basic premise.

This is what I've been studying the past several weeks. I was challenged as to why I believed in the pre-trib theory, and realized that I believed it because that's what I had always been taught. I began to study, and I have come to a different conclusion about what the Scripture has to say. I think this is a tricky issue, because there are so many brilliant Bible scholars who totally disagree about this. I don't think that it is supposed to be a divisive issue. But I also don't believe that we are supposed to blindly accept any theory without studying God's word for ourselves. So I encourage you to do that. Not just about the end times, but any and everything. What worthier use for your time?

So, there you have my thoughts in a nutshell. I believe that once Christians have endured the wrath of Satan via the Antichrist in the first half of the tribulation that the rapture will occur and THEN God will take care of some serious business here on earth. Perhaps not a popular theory among my Southern Baptist peers, but there it is. Look it up and study it. God's word never returns void, so I can assure you, your time will not be wasted.