Wednesday, November 30, 2005

Pro-Christmas Forces Prepare for Final Stand 

Yesterday, we brought you the news that anti-Christmas forces were amassing outside Manhattan, in New Jersey and the Outer Boroughs. This morning, listening to NPR as artillery shells bearing the words "Holiday Greetings" were being lobbed into Central Park, we learned where the Pro-Christmas forces (freedom fighters? insurgents? who knows?) will stage their final redoubt. Heavily fortified Rockefeller Center, known as the Red-and-Green Zone, will be the site of a massive show of force tonight by Pro-Christmas partisans. As you can see in the linked article, liberal media charter member NBC has done an abrupt about-face, using the words "Christmas" and "Christmas Tree" with impugnity, lest the terrorists win. Harry Connick, Jr., Regis Philbin, and Brian Wilson will be among those present in defiance of the secularists.

Military experts say it is unclear if the defense fortifications, running along the outside of the Plaza, will hold through the end of the festivities.

God Bless, and God Speed.

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Insurgent Threats in War on Christmas 

The insurgents in the War on Christmas are gathering strength. One leader, Dennis Hastert, is finally making a stand for Christmas.
If it's a spruce tree adorned with 10,000 lights and 5,000 ornaments displayed on the Capitol grounds in December, it's a Christmas tree and that's what it should be called, says House Speaker Dennis Hastert.

Hastert, R-Ill., in a letter to the Architect of the Capitol, recommended that the annual Capitol Holiday Tree, as it has been called the past several years, be renamed the Capitol Christmas Tree.

"I strongly urge that we return to this tradition and join the White House, countless other public institutions and millions of American families in celebrating the holiday season with a Christmas tree," Hastert wrote to Architect Alan Hantman.

His office said the tree began to be referred to as the Holiday Tree in the 1990s. Spokesman Ron Bonjean said the reasons were unclear.
Will Hastert use his influence to launch suicide attacks on the secular liberal soldiers that currently occupy the U.S.?

Have the secularists considered that the Christmas-celebrators don't want them here? We all recall the days before the war. Secular liberals like George Soros claimed to secular liberals like me and Goldberg that we would be greeted as liberators. I think we all remember when the members of several Chicago-land churches gleefully tore down the statute of Santa Clause in our city square when we first invaded. But such gestures are looking like a distant memory.

Now, the insurgents like House Speaker Dennis Hastert are threatening to fight against the secularists. Can they win? Yes, Christmas is suppressed for now - according to Bill O'Reilly we can't even utter "Merry Christmas" in stores without fear of reprisal. But what will happen if they withdraw? How can the secularists declare victory? What is their exit strategy? How long before they demand that their leaders bring back their pre-war, secular, liberal everyday lives of cashing welfare checks and having unprotected, pre-marital anal and oral sex?

God damn, this war is fucking hell. When will it end?

Liberal Bias 

Liberal bias continues unabated in the media. I was flipping channels and came across a Barbara Walters piece on Condoleezza Rice. It started out by lauding the Rice family and listing Condi's many talents. It then showed her saying how "humbled" she was that Bush had appointed her National Security Advisor. But, liberal ABC had to go and include the dissenting view! Walters said (paraphrase - I'll post a link if I can find it):
But she's not popular with everyone. She is often criticized for being an African American conservative Republican.
And that was it... nothing about the substance of the attacks against her. Damn liberal bias.

I watched the special for about 2 more minutes. In other news, Tom Cruise is insane, and I think I mean literally insane.

EDIT: To fix a typo. As The Riz correctly notes in the comments, the piece was ON Condaleezza Rice, not IN her.

War on Christmas Update 

As Guthrie mentioned, we here at G&G will bring you live updates on the war on Christmas. And let me tell you, it's not looking good. We're in bunker mode here in NYC. I'm hearing reports that anti-Christmas rebels are amassing battalion-strength troop formations around Manhattan--apparently in the Bronx by the Triboro Bridge and in Jersey just before the Lincoln Tunnel. I think John Gibson and Bill O'Reilly are trying to mount a defense of the city to push back the insurgents. We'll keep you updated.

War on Christmas 

As I was walking to work this morning, I was saddened by the total lack of Christmas decorations in downtown Chicago. Goldberg, have the secular liberals taken over New York as well?

As we enjoy the holidays, as we focus on our jobs and our families, we should never forget that there is a war on Christmas going on. Christians suffer silently, as the soldiers of the secular liberals attack the holiday they love so much.

At Goldberg and Guthrie we will not be silent. We will bravely report on the War on Christmas over the coming month, even as the mainstream media - much like they did during the Iraq War - ignores the truth.

In the mean time, I highly suggest you read John Gibson's book: The War on Christmas: How the Liberal Plot to Ban the Sacred Christian Holiday Is Worse Than You Thought. Although I have not read it, it appears Mr. Gibson is the one man brave enough to defend something as unpopular in this country as Christmas.

Sunday, November 27, 2005

Plan if Saddam Found Not Guilty: Just Keep Trying Until He's Guilty 

According to Drudge, this is the White House plan if Saddam is found not guilty:
"There will be more charges filed against him, and more charges after that, if needed... he has committed tremendous crimes," a top Bush source explained last week from Washington.
Look, I'm pretty sure Saddam is a murderer, the worst kind of person, someone who deserves the worst kind of punishment, etc. In fact, I support the death penalty only for the crimes of genocide and treason (in some instances), and our boy Saddam probably committed both.

But the fact is, millions of Iraqis supported him. I know this is very hard for some people in this country to accept, but it is nevertheless true. Many Iraqis may look back on his reign fondly, and no matter how misguided they are, those Iraqis deserve a voice in an Iraqi democracy. There could be a lot of good reasons to find Saddam not guilty, or to send him into exile, or to do something else that will help lessen the anger of the pro-Saddam forces in Iraq. If we are really going to let Iraq form a democracy, this seems the epitome of a decision that should be made by Iraqis. Saddam's victims were almost all Iraqis, as were the soldiers who carried out his orders. Outside of providing security for whatever the government decides to do, why should we have anything to do with what happens to Saddam?

Friday, November 25, 2005

One Minute Movie Review--Walk the Line 

An excellent film. Joaquin Phoenix and Reese Witherspoon both were extremely impressive, as was the supporting cast (esp Robert Patrick of Terminator 2 fame as Johnny Cash's father). Did a very good job of giving us a lot of concert scenes, but not too many. Highly recommended film. And a great love story to boot.

Tuesday, November 22, 2005


Some wonderful day, historians will realize that we had the equivalent of a temper-tantrum throwing 10-year old on the Supreme Court.
U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says the high court did not inject itself into the 2000 presidential election.

Speaking at the Time Warner Center last night, Scalia said: "The election was dragged into the courts by the Gore people. We did not go looking for trouble."

But he said the court had to take the case.

"The issue was whether Florida's Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court [would decide the election.] What did you expect us to do? Turn the case down because it wasn't important enough?"
That's sort of like blaming Dred Scott for Dred Scott.

Monday, November 21, 2005

One-Minute Movie Review--Crash 

I just watched Crash. I had heard good things, and, well, it was the most disgusting, manipulative piece of horseshit I've seen in several years. The fact that it had quite an impressive cast (all of whom acted quite well in it) only adds to its overall insulting qualities.

Paul Haggis, the writer/director, should never be allowed behind a camera again (which I already know isn't true, since I just met someone who is cast in a pilot Haggis got based on this film. Oh, and the pilot is based on Irish-American hoods in NYC. I'm sure that his portrayal of NYC race relations will be as subtle and provocative as his look at that subject in LA).

I may elaborate on this review at a later date, but for now, rest assured that this film is a true pile of steaming shit.

Some Random Thoughts 

(1) Dear World. Stop calling me, stop e-mailing me and stop telling me that I should be happy that the Bengals "looked good" against the Colts. Fuck that shit. And fuck all of you. First of all, they didn't really look all that good. Second of all, I don't really care if they did. Thank you, Guthrie.

(2) The NFL's policies for showing national games suuuuuuccccckkkkkkkksssssssss. Why did I have to miss the first quarter of the best game of the day so I could watch Tommy Maddox and Kyle Boller, two of the worst quarterbacks never to don a Bengals uniform, battle it out to a "thrilling" finish. Just to clarify, Steelers/Ravens wasn't even the early game here. THERE WAS NO EARLY GAME. They just started showing that overtime at 3:00 PM, in lieu of a pre-game. So I missed the whole first quarter of the Colts/Bengals. Also, apparently, you couldn't even get the game if you had direct TV (the bar across the street wasn't showing it).

(3) I don't really know much about Harry Potter. I think I'm going to start reading the books soon. But it seems to me that every Harry Potter movie has been advertised as "the dark one" or "much darker." How dark can it get? At this pace of growing darkness, I imagine the last movie will portray Harry as a vengeful serial killer who brutalizes the prostitutes of London (with wizardry, of course).

(4) Why isn't there a national advertising campaign explaining that Judge Alito is going to overturn Roe v. Wade? It's quite obvious that he will. It seems that if someone is a halfway decent person (Roberts, Alito), nobody cares that he's going to change the law so that women can't get abortions. In his view, the state legislature has more of a right to control a woman's uterus than a woman. Why aren't Democrats trying to stop this? Oh, I forgot, our new policy is to simply wait for Bush to self destruct. More on this later, although my promised future posts have a way of never materializing.

Friday, November 18, 2005

Kinsley on Abortion 

Michael Kinsley, back in form after a few years writing mostly garbarge:
In a 1986 case called Bowers v. Hardwick, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws against homosexual sodomy do not violate the U.S. Constitution. In a 2003 case called Lawrence v. Texas, the court ruled that on second thought, anti-gay-sodomy laws do violate the Constitution. Liberal politicians cheered this rare and unexpected admission of error by the court. They did not express any alarm about the danger of overturning precedents. Plessy v. Ferguson, upholding racial segregation, was a major precedent when the court overturned it and ended formal racial segregation with Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. Liberals did not complain.

These days, the vital importance of respecting past Supreme Court rulings is an urgent talking point for Democratic operatives, liberal talk-show hosts, and senators feeling their way toward a reason to oppose Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito. Olympia Snowe, a Republican liberal from Maine, said Wednesday that Alito's respect for precedents will be "the major question" in her decision whether to support him.

The major question for Snowe and other liberal senators actually is not respect for judicial precedents. The major question is abortion. They want to know whether Alito would vote to overturn Roe. But by the absurd unwritten rules of these increasingly stylized episodes, they are not allowed to ask him and he is not allowed to answer. So the nominee does a fan dance, tantalizing the audience by revealing little bits of his thinking but denying us a complete view. And senators pretend, maybe even to themselves, that they really care about precedents and privacy in the abstract.
As they say, read the whole thing. A corrolary to this is that, since Alito wrote them memo in the 1980s saying he strongly disagreed with Roe, isn't that just the type of "pre-judging" that apparently precludes nominees answering questions? And if so, shouldn't Alito be estopped from using that lame-ass defense.

And shouldn't I get a pony (or at least a cookie) for using "estopped" and "lame-ass" in the same sentence?

And, for the kids, our favorite Kinsley column ever.

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

Rockin' in the U-S-A 

Via Atrios, please, please listen to this rockin' new song from that hip conservative band The Right Brothers entitled "Bush was Right."

It's already stuck in my head: "Ted Kennedy--wrong!/Cindy Sheehan--wrong!" oh, yeah!!! If you end up thinking that the next line should be "We didn't start the fire," you are forgiven, as this is basically a worse version of that terrible song.

No one rocks out like conservatives. Also, no one would steal rythyms and cadences from bad Billy Joel songs like conservatives.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Return of the Blog 

Guthrie and I have been discussing returing the blog to active status, and I think we should. So, here it goes. Since last posting, I've moved from Chicago to New York City, so this blog is actually a good way for me and Guthrie to remain in contact (along with the old regular commenters).

This is really just a re-introductory post--substantive posts will hopefully follow from the both of us. On that non-substantive note, I strongly urge all NYCers to go see "Bach at Leipzig," now playing at The New York Theater Workshop. It's extremely funny, well written and well acted. Go see it.

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?