When I was dating my current husband, his family didn't much care for me. (They never did, but they're all dead now.) Christmas was particularly painful, because his parents weren't interested in going to the trouble anymore, either with holiday decorations or buying presents.

One Christmas when we were visiting between semesters, during the Great Unwrapping, my husband's aunt plopped down a cheap dimestore cactus, saying "There! That's for you!" It was unwrapped, unribboned, and apparently hadn't been watered for a long time. As it happens, I'm a real fiend for cacti, and I didn't have any of this type - an "old man" cactus. I thanked her for it profusely. She replied ungraciously "It's the ugliest thing I ever saw!" and turned away.

I still have it, and it's done well for itself over the years - nearly a foot tall, and covered with fur-like needles. I feel like it's a kind of revenge that it's done so well for me.

Mr. Keillor is right, most holiday letters are pretty positive. Maybe even positively self-promoting. Are they actually true? Who knows.

I have an aunt whose Christmas missives are just the opposite. They're long lugubrious litanies of woe: from dream vacations that ended up in the hospital -- oh, and the dog died, too -- to children who "you might not believe it in this day and age" ran off to join the circus. Decaying cabins requiring major architectural renovations in what was supposed to be a vacation, sinking boat docks, children divorcing their spouses and moving in together, you name it.

I was afraid I was the only one who looked forward to these things, when one of the letters started with "I didn't plan on writing one of these letters again, but everyone begged me to."

I get a real feeling of relief that I have some relatives who don't enjoy near-perfect lives. It looks as if several of my other relatives feel the same way.

Maybe we all do.

Robert Gates as our new Secretary of Defense. Okay, he admitted the US is not "winning" the war against Iraq. Okay, he sounds like the Un-Rumsfeld. Maybe he's changed since the days of Iran-Contra. He certainly comes across as more reality-based and mature than the current architects of US foreign policy.

However, if you go back to Iran-Contra and look at what Mr. Gates did then, you'll find that he said what people wanted to hear, on command from the President, and manufactured analyses and evidence to support policies he was told to support. He lied before Congress, on command. I'm sure he sounded mature and reasonable then, too.

Yes, maybe Mr. Gates has changed -- or maybe it's just same old, same old.

A fair number of people have been arguing that the Democrats need to rush immediately into impeachment proceedings. Per the analysis presented in this article, I disagree.

Right now, a fair number of people want to impeach Bush. I believe, once Democratic hearings have uncovered the extent of Bush's incompetance and criminal behavior, and the corruption his administration has encouraged and depended upon, we may very well get MOST people demanding impeachment. And then would be the time to go for it. As an added advantage, the investigation and enumeration of crimes would already be done.

But now, there's just too much work to do, repairing the damage of Total Republican Rule. Speaker Pelosi's "First 100 Hours" agenda is brilliant in that respect: first, take care of the People's work, on the most pressing, no-brainer issues. No time for vengeance; work for justice.

Remember, Democrats can legislate and investigate at the same time. They're better at this "government thing" than the current crop of Republicans, and don't have the Republicans' ideological fixation against it. ( "Since gummint can't be used for good, I might as well enrich myself from it.")

Finally, I personally would like to see Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney in the Hague on trial for war crimes by the International Criminal Court, rather than mere impeachment. Something that carries the potential of a long prison sentence.

Another good idea would be to require Viagra/Cialis/etc ads to talk about how romantic and responsible it is to wear a condom. ("Show her how much you care.")

Several condoms need to be included with each prescription, plus an insert written in a font large enough for the elderly to read (say 12-14pt) telling them how "some types of VD can't be cured...to protect yourself and the ones you love" yada yada yada. Put it in blunt, Hemingway-style English, not legalo-medical jargon. Make it brief.

Perhaps a pictorial guide on how to put the things on without tearing them, too. Warn that they can tear. Make it brief, though, so it'll be read. The whole insert should take up no more than one page, big font, diagrams, and all.

A lot of the "old guys" used to be familiar with the VD drill from WWII. But old guys are outnumbered 8 to 1 by old women, most of whom were not in Army. And the venereal diseases of days gone by were all curable - and transmitted largely by paid "sex workers," not the grandmother down the street.

As the article points out, when you've got selfish, irresponsible men and willfully ignorant, submissive women, an AIDS epidemic is pretty much inevitable - unless drug distributors, manufacturers, and prescribers go out of their way to make sure potential victims know the score.

Having read the responses to this article, I'm frankly amazed. I expected the responses to be overwhelmingly the standard rabid, pro-Israel line. Instead, nearly all of the earliest responses were thoughtful. The balance of responses are likewise, er -- balanced.

There are relatively few of the froth-at-the-mouth Israel booster letters, which generally dominate responses to articles that address the Palestinian conflict.

Either Salon is screening postings, or the Angry Jews are focussing their attention on poor old Garrison Keillor, who dared to say that he likes Christmas in his latest essay.