Christmas is coming and I hate Christmas shopping. Truth be told, I was more excited about the 787 taking it's first flight today than I am about Christmas. Does that make me Scrooge? Ehhh...so be it.

But I have to admit I love the new Gap commercial for "comfy sweaters." Scratch that. Like Racked NY said, the phrase "I love my comfy sweaters" simultaneously fills me with joy and yet also makes me want to put a bullet in my brain.

If you haven't seen it yet, well then I am pretty sure the CIA needs to talk to you because you obviously have been living in the cave Osama Bin Laden is living in. But just in case here you go...


But then it got even better. What's better than cute girls excited over Christmas? That's right: 20-something boys imitating cute, excited girls. Enjoy!



Enjoy the holiday fun. I'll be sure to write something more thought provoking later.

We did a show the other night on the 7 lessons of the Tiger Woods affair. But Allen missed one important one: IF you are going to cheat, use a call girl instead of a mistress.

How's that for controversial?

It should be stated for the record that I vehemently appose cheating - both personally and in principle. Some have questioned me on this from time to time because I seem liberal on some of my theology pertaining to sexuality. Despite this assumption being irritating to no end, it isn't the focus of the post. However, let's make something clear: Tiger was wrong.

But this post isn't about cheating. It is about confidants. While reading an article in the New York Post, I came across Ashley Dupree (remember: Elliot Spitzer's call girl) lashing out at the 6 7 mistresses of Tiger. Saying that:

"Here you have all these girls accepting gifts, money, trips from Tiger in exchange for sex -- all the while knowing he is married. And now they all can't wait to tell their stories in exchange for even more money from the tabloids? And I was the hooker? At least I kept my mouth shut."

There you go folks: hookers jumped past grocery baggers for the number 4 spot of people I trust.

1. Attorneys (attorney-client privilege)
2. Doctors (doctor-patient confidentiality)
3. Priests (notice I didn't say Pastors)
4. Hookers
5. Grocery Baggers (bagger-shopper confidentiality)

In college I got into an argument in one of my Pastoral Leadership classes on what to do when someone confesses that they had abused a child. California law requires that you turn them in. I took the unpopular (and right) view that I would not turn them in, and suffer the consequences, because I viewed a pastor-parishioner confidentiality trust to be sacred and necessary for the betterment of the individual and culture as a whole. Why?

Living in a culture where attorneys are the only people we trust with our secrets does not produce healthy people that are empowered to change and better themselves. Many of the problems we face in relationships, marriages, and the like are due to the secrets we carry around.

The purpose behind the sacred trust of attorney-client privilege is that no one would tell their attorney anything if it weren't there. And just as this is necessary for a good defense, having a trusted confidant is necessary for personal and spiritual growth.

It probably seems a bit odd - given that I live so publically - but I take privacy and secrecy very important. People in my life have confessed to a myriad of past inequities - including cheating, abortions, serious drug use, and the like. Stories and circumstances that I will take to my grave. The relief you see in someone's face from the cathartic release of a burden being lifted by openly discussing past transgressions in an open, honest, and non-judgmental environment only speaks to the importance of such exchanges.

So in an odd turn of events, society could take a lesson from Ashley Dupree. When entrusted with private information, keep your mouth shut.

As the esteemed 17th President of the United States Andrew Johnson once said, "Someone cue up Gwen Stefani. I need some banana-related background music."

The case of Eric Holder and the Obama Administration transferring the Khalid Sheikh Mohammed 9/11 trial from military court to civilian federal court sets quite a unique precedent.


None of these per se are wrong. But they do establish a different precedent and it doesn't appear the Obama administration has thoroughly thought through the ramifications completley (as evidence in the Lindsey Graham questioning of Eric Holder).

But what drives me most bananas about the KSM trial transfer can best be explained by another case Holder represented while an attorney at the very prestigious, DC-based firm Covington & Burling.

Let's get one thing straight, Eric Holder is a very smart man and a damn good attorney. You wouldn't so much as get your resume looked at for an internship at Covington & Burling with out being intelligent, gifted and talented, let alone land a job there. While at Covington & Burling, Holder represented Chiquita International Brands (you know, the bananas) in the first case of a major U.S. corporation being convicted of financing terrorism.

What basically went down was Chiquita paid $1.7 million dollars to the terrorist organization United Self-Defense Forces of Colombia as "protection money." According to the United States government, this money was used by the USDF to purchase arms and commit terrorist acts of violence.

So what does this have to do with KSM and 9/11? Chiquita is an American company based in Cincinnati, OH. As such, they are protected under the U.S. Constitution and are granted rights and protections.

• Chiquita was innocent until proven guilty.
• Chiquita was not required to testify against themselves.
• Chiquita deserved fair (and probably received fantastic) legal counsel.

Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others are not Americans. They have never been Americans. And nowhere in our Constitution does it grant rights to non-Americans. Nor can it. The jurisdiction of the Constitution ends at the United States borders.

So why if terrorism is an act of war, and the terrorists are not legal citizens of the United States, are we now establishing a precedent that they should receive the same rights and privileges as civilian Americans? What purpose does that serve?

Now I don't know if the Obama administration is just moving the trials so as to expedite the process of closing Gitmo, or if they are trying to establish new policy and precedent for all terror related cases. But I do hope they have thought through all of the ramifications of their actions, as it is doubtful one could argue their actions are making the US a safer and more just society.