RE: DAY BY DAY

Fair use, my friend. Fair use.

RE: DAY BY DAY

Let's just call that cartoon you clipped Summary Judgment Exhibit A.

(BTW, nice save with the acknowledgement of Muir: we don't want to provide basis for any infringement counterclaims while we focus on achieving our handsome payday, do we?)

RE: DAY BY DAY

So, you see similarities here, eh?

(Thanks to Chris Muir!)

RE: RE: MATRIX PARTY

And why is it you find NPR so enlightening? I don't know the Day By Day characters' names. I think the two I'm thinking of might be Damon and Matt. Very suspicious, indeed.

RE: MATRIX PARTY

That's how I feel about NPR. I mean, I listen faithfully just about every day, because they actually are very good. But they're way out on the Left and seem incapable of seeing it.

They'll run a zinger of a story about some some nefarious plot hatched by Congressional Republicans, get quotes from Democrats and testimonials from sweet-sounding old ladies, have this go on for about five minutes, and then tack on at the end: "Republicans say none of this is true. This is NPR." (Guitar interlude.)

RE: DAY BY DAY

Of the four, which two are we?

THE "DAY BY DAY" IDENTITY THEFT SITUATION

The more I read Day By Day, the more I become thoroughly convinced that two of the lead characters were cobbled from the likenesses of Dave and I. I don't recall ever signing a waiver or receiving any type of royalty payment. Can you say multi-plaintiff action? Can you say, state court? Can you say, punitive damages? Can you say "Dave and Mark Day By Day"? I'll have your Macs!!!

You feelin' me?

MATRIX PARTY UPDATE

Bleah.

That's the sound I made when I read this headline at Yahoo! It flat out made me sick, not because the slant surprises me, but because, for a change I actually took a moment to think about it. I've concluded that when it comes to news, Yahoo! is a flat out tool of the Left. I mean it's the flying monkey to the Left's Wicked Witch. It's my dedicated start page at home only because I check my personal e-mail in their wonderful, free (i.e., wonderful) e mail account system.

But I'll bet you a week's rent that you've never seen a headline that once seemed slanted from a conservative angle, or, for that matter, did anything but support liberalism and undermine conservatives. The headlines ususally read something like:

Judge Alito made anti-civil rights comments.

More failure and despair in Iraq.

Blacks hate Bush.

Or occasionally, the headline will contain a statement that the left-wing Berkley grad news editor, really, reeeeally wants to say for himself, but can't directly so that he can maintain plausible deniability with regard to his lefty bias, so he will paraphrase some leftist already out of the closet to say it for him, and the headline will end up reading something like this:

Bush's agenda has failed us all: Democrats.

Or . . .

Analysts: Republicans lie to America.

And the 'analyst' will happen to be some think tank director at some ambiguously named institute such as, say, Consortium for American Liberty, so named to mask its political leanings; and then you'll Google the guy's name and find out that he was a regular contributor at Slate and has been a guest speaker at 12 MoveOn.org-sponsored lectures in the last 4 months while promoting his new book aping Paul Krugman.

Ah, but you'll never, ever, ever - I mean if you live to witness Castro's dirt nap-type never - see a Yahoo! headline that reads something like "Bush optimistic about '06 chances for Republicans," let alone a headline stating an implication from the underlying news report that undermines a liberal theory or supportive of a conservative one.

And for the capper - as if you needed more proof that Yahoo! was a card carrying member of the Matrix Party - that Left wing Holy Trinity consisiting of the MSM, academia and liberal elites (including the Democratic Party and Hollywood), whose sole purpose is manipulating the masses through Jedi mind tricks, note that when there's a video news link at Yahoo! the news source is none other than . . . CNN.

Seems you were expecting Fox News?

RE: HOMELAND SECURITY HOAX

Possibly my favorite part of the story you linked, Dave, is the part that essentially reads, "it is unclear what the student's motivation was." Hmmmmm, let me think. He's a 22-year old college student in Mass. who lies about DHS's survelliance activities in a manner embarassing to DHS - at a time when homeland security efforts are under fire and the Patriot Act in political jeporady - and that strongly undermines homeland security efforts in the eyes of civil libertarians on both sides of the political fence, as well as President Bush. Gee. I don't know what he possibly could have been thinking. At age 21 when I was writing "Sheppard's America" in the Collegian, I hadn't a clue of my motivations either.

Let me add that this whole episode with the faux DHS monitoring story demonstrates why there are now two media in this country, one on the left and one on the right. At least these days, going forward, there are some media outlets that will look at these types of stories with great skepticism before running with them willy-nilly, finding out they're a hoax, and never reporting the fraud after maximum damage to whatever political demon of MSM the hoax had targeted had already been inflicted. Two Americas? Hardly. Two media? For sure.

ISRAEL SURROGATE STRATEGY UPDATE

Sorry to hear that your posting days are almost over, Dave. In the meantime, this is part of a great post from Stanley Kurtz at NRO regarding the Israeli surrogate strategy needed with regard to taking out Iran's nukes:

Yeah, going into Iraq was the right thing. The real problem is that it was only the least we could do, and not nearly enough to take care of the problem. In the game of nuclear terror, I fear it's the rogue states who have the advantage. All they need is a bomb or two. Maybe Israel will do our dirty work for us in Iran. Ahmadinejad's wild remarks have made that a lot easier to contemplate politically, not only in Israel, but here and in Europe. But the Iranians are hiding what can be hidden, and the Koreans may even now be selling what can be sold. Meanwhile, the Democrats are too busy purging Joe Lieberman to have figured out we're at war. Even our hawks are more focused on the democracy issue than the nuclear threat. Israel at least understands that they are just a bomb away from disaster.

Given that, in today's political climate here - with Democrats making the war about whether or not we're upsetting the rest of the world by not playing nice enough, and Republicans backtracking on the whole notion of ending nuclear proliferation due to their being on the defensive because we found no WMD in Iraq, we lack the temerity to really go after Iran, Syria or North Korea - if Israel doesn't do it, no one will.

I recommend you breathe deeply. Promotes living.

HOMELAND SECURITY HOAX

Turns out that student who was "questioned" by "DHS agents" for requesting Mao's Litte Red Book made the whole thing up.

From this point forward, I will not take another breath until the revelation of the hoax gets as much play in the MSM and on paranoid Lefty blog sites as the hoax itself did.

As such, this might be my last post. Keep the faith, Mark.

IF THE TERRORISTS WERE DOMESTIC RIGHT-WINGERS

Would the ACLU or anyone on the Left have the slightest problem surveilling them by any means whatsoever?

Experience tells us "no."

CHRISTMAS EVE IN MY HOMETOWN

No clue what it looks like, because I'm not there -- but here's one day of the year I wish we could have snow in my current town.

The usual confections have been made and will be consumed with a fury. While it's non-traditional in the, er, TRADITIONAL sense, tomorrow's lasagne dinner has a long, rich history with my personal Christmas experiences. If pizza is The Italian Pie, then lasagne is The Italian Fruitcake -- and what could be more Christmas-y than fruitcake? Except that trays of it disappear with some haste, of course.

So, a merry, merry one to all -- I'm off to wrap a few lingering gifts and listen to a little Nat King Cole, a little Andy Williams and Perry Como, some Bing, and some Old Blue Eyes.

RE: NICER SORT OF PERSON UPDATE

Well, that goes to show you it's okay to be the Grinch who stole the hobos' Christmas as long as you're a DEMOCRAT who's donning the green body suit.

NICER SORT OF PERSON UPDATE

Oh, man -- this one's a doozy:

Unfortunately for the once-homeless who now live at Dome Village, the Los Angeles Timesarticle earlier this month that mentioned Hayes's political leanings. Perhaps Milton Sidley--a partisan Democrat who contributed $4,000 to the John Kerry campaign in 2004--noticed the article: all of a sudden, the landlord has announced that Dome Village's rent will increase by over 630% when the lease comes up in late 2006. Each month, Dome Village will have to come up with $18,333 plus property taxes in order to stay afloat, or the residents will face homelessness once again.

According to a recent press release from Dome Village, when asked about the rent increase, Sidley replied, "This Democrat is tired of supporting Ted and his Dome Village."

So much for the self-proclaimed compassion of Democrats!

You! This homeless shelter is run by a RETHUGLICAN -- out on the street!

In any event, one might review the legal concept of "unconscionability."

RE: SO WHAT IS IT

I know. They are such riots. Har har harrrrrdey har har. Rethuglicans. Good stuff. Now go to your room or no supper, waif!!!

RIIIIIIIIGHT.

I'm sorry; I don't believe this for a second.

Internet news site Capitol Hill Blue founder Doug Thompson wrote in his column on December 9 that in a private meeting with congressional leaders, President G.W. Bush was urged to take caution in implementing his new Patriot Act because it would potentially "alienate conservatives." According to Thompson, the president retorted by saying, "I don't give a g-d-, I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way!"

During that same meeting, Thompson quotes an aide as telling Mr. Bush, "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law [the Patriot Act] undermine the Constitution." Thompson quotes the President as screaming back, "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It's just a g-d- piece of paper!"

Thompson said he talked with three people who were present for that meeting and that they all confirmed that President Bush called the Constitution a "g-d- piece of paper."

How hard do you think it would be to prove actual malice here?

THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Released a memo giving its legal opinion on the wiretaps:

LINK

Thanks to NRO.

SO WHAT IS IT . . .

. . . about Lefty message boards that they're incapable of using a person's or organization's actual name when posting?

RE: HERE IT IS

There are only a few ways to combat terrorism:

Prevention.

Reaction.

Both.

What is absolutely clear is that the Democrats, the left, flatly reject #1, where Bush and the Republicans (and large majorities of American people) prefer #1, but also acknowledge that things may happen which require #2, so they are chiefly worried about #1 while planning for #2.

But the Democrats are entirely hostile to prevention. They don't accept any reasonable means of gathering intelligence to detect and break up plots before they happen. They scoff at the idea that we should fight the terrorists overseas to prevent them from attacking us at home. John Kerry made it clear that an American response is only appropriate after an attack has already happened and if the world at large happens to agree we should. And they of the "root causes" crowd excoriate any idea of trying to eliminate some of those root causes, such as building democracy where it doesn't exist, in the Middle East.

We need to be aggressive on the ground. I'd prefer that prevention take the form of killing the terrorists before they have a chance to kill us rather than impinging on freedoms at home. The more we do of the former, the less we have to do of the latter.

But that's not what the Democrats want. They don't want either. They are not serious about preventing terror.

The simplest confirmation of that is that not one of them has offered any alternative plan to what the Administration has done.

And, well, considering the strong impulse to look inward for blame and condemnation after September 11, their idea of "reaction" doesn't instill me with much confidence, either.

RE: HERE IT IS

With regard to the burning evesdropping issues, here is an interesting take from Clinton's former Assistant Attorney General that seems to make sense:

Should we be afraid of this inherent presidential power? Of course. If surveillance is used only for the purpose of preventing another Sept. 11 type of attack or a similar threat, the harm of interfering with the privacy of people in this country is minimal and the benefit is immense. The danger is that surveillance will not be used solely for that narrow and extraordinary purpose.But we cannot eliminate the need for extraordinary action in the kind of unforeseen circumstances presented by Sept.11. I do not believe the Constitution allows Congress to take away from the president the inherent authority to act in response to a foreign attack. That inherent power is reason to be careful about who we elect as president, but it is authority we have needed in the past and, in the light of history, could well need again.

This intelligent take both justifies Bush's action and acknowledges the legality of it, but also notes the risk of unfettered use of governmental power to spy on its citizenry. Ultimately, we will have to decide how much freedom we wish to sacrifice to be terror-free. It's pretty close to a zero-sum game.

RE: ISLAMOFASCISTS

Oh, I have indeed noticed it.

One of the more laughable ironies is that it's OK to call Christian fundamentalists "the Taliban" or compare them every which way to Islamofascists and terrorists . . . but it's an extreme affront -- or at the very least "racist" or "intolerant" to suggest that some Muslims might be Islamofascists and terrorists.

What you say is correct, of course -- it takes a lot longer here, but what happens among the Left in Europe eventually wends it way across the Atlantic.

My profound hope is, if any animal tries to do something like that here, that an angry mob rips him to shreds.

RE: PLANET OF THE APES WATCH

The undeterred rise of radical Islam in Europe, which, at the moment, Islamofascism without de jure government power if you think about it, is a disturbing trend . In fact, if Europe remains complicit in Muslims' bully-at-the-bar-who's-holding-the-bar-staff-hostage act, Europe will indeed become a de facto Islamofascist state. What's troubling is that I'm not sure whether what's fueling Europe's capitulation is fear of a terrorist attack, which would be simply pathetic, or pure political correctness, which would be outright foolish. Either way, it's important to watch this trend, given that Europeans are basically an extreme version of American Lefitsts, and the former is a bellweather for where the latter is going.

By the way, ever notice how the extreme Muslims actually view the world in the same manner as liberals believe that Christian fundamentalits view it?

PLANET OF THE APES WATCH

As shocking as this story is by itself -- about an upsurge in rape in Sweden, largely by Islamic immigrants, and being shluffed off by a Copenhagen Islamic Mufti with a dismissal as vile as this:

An Islamic Mufti in Copenhagen sparked a political outcry after publicly declaring that women
who refuse to wear headscarves are "asking for rape." Apparently, he's not the only one thinking this way. “It is not as wrong raping a Swedish girl as raping an Arab girl,” says Hamid. “The Swedish girl gets a lot of help afterwards, and she had probably f**ked before, anyway. But the Arab girl will get problems with her family. For her, being raped is a source of shame. It is important that she retains her virginity until she marries.” It was no coincidence that it was a Swedish girl that was gang raped in Rissne – this becomes obvious from the discussion with Ali, Hamid, Abdallah and Richard. All four have disparaging views on Swedish girls, and think this attitude is common among young men with immigrant background. “It is far too easy to get a Swedish whore…… girl, I mean;” says Hamid, and laughs over his own choice of words. “Many immigrant boys have Swedish girlfriends when they are teenagers. But when they get married, they get a proper woman from their own culture who has never been with a boy. That’s what I am going to do. I don’t have too much respect for Swedish girls. I guess you can say they get f**ked to pieces.”

What's even more shocking is the refusal of Swedish society to acknowledge it, lest they risk offending someone:

Sweden's largest newspaper has presented the perpetrators as "two men from Sweden, one from Finland and one from Somalia", a testimony as to how bad the informal censorship is in stories related to immigration in Sweden.

This is cultural suicide.

HERE IT IS

The fight is on regarding the government's use of evesdropping techniques to supposedly monitor the activities of suspected terrorists. Bush says it's legal and that he has constitutional authority to so monitor such persons. The Left has counter punched, led by Johnathan Alter in Newsweek, who claims that the leaker of the classified information about the evesdropping is a whistleblowing hero protecting American citizens against abusive presidential power.

This is probably the central debate in WOT, and it should be welcomed. Undisputedly, terrorists are like a cancer: just like a cancer exploits the body's natural systems, namely cell division, to prepetuate itself and eventually undermine the body, terrorists exploit the freedoms granted in a society such as ours to plan their dastardly deeds and eventually destroy people and buildings for intimidation purposes.

The question is clear: how much freedom are we willing to sacrifice in the name of security. There is no question that fighting WOT in the way Bush wants to, which is probably the proper way in most regards, will potentially curtail certain freedoms for us all. Is it worth it? This debate will test the words of Ben Franklin regarding liberty and security like none other before it.

RE: THE GREAT EXPERIMENT

By the way, I think a return to following constitutional principles is a noble and lofty goal. It would be just wonderful if the body public of Hanson's world view understood the concept. Still, I'll settle for having 9 people holding 9 particular jobs supporting that concept for a 20-year or so period as going a long ways towards completely satisfying me in this regard.

RE: THE GREAT EXPERIMENT

We're never doomed, Mark, unless we choose to be.

BUSH, PART DEUX

Excuse the French reference, GWB, if you're reading today. I also apologize for the infrequent posts of late. I just want to add, and Bush would agree with this - and is likely not bothered by it - that last night's speech (and his wonderfully snippy press conference today) won't win him any converts to his WOT philosophy among those whose minds are made up that WOT is bad and that greedy, evil, corrupt, imperialistic America is bad. It probably won't even win him any converts among those oft-celebrated undecideds.

Those bandwagoners and goalpost-shifters - er, make that those folks - won't be converted until more concrete signs of progress are made such as months without a GI death, stability measured in terms of an insignificant threat of a civil war, and perhaps captured terror stars such as OBL, assuming he's alive and not mountain goat feed.

Rather, Bush's biggest victory at the moment is among his base, those committed to fighting the WOT the right way, under the belief that the terror mullahs are weilding a bastardized Islam to serve their radical ends, which might have been the most brilliant line in the Sunday's speech.

The base always agreed with POTUS on these issues, but now that we see that, after all of these years, he's finally willing to dig in his heels and fight, fight the way that the GWB of Texas did against Ann Richards and the Democratic machine when he showed all that promise of being a true right wing leader, he's given us a reason to more formidably fight WOT, and some rhetoric to more passionately stand behind.

I've got to say, I like Bush far more when he's angry and truly engaged than when he's playing nicey with the Democrats and being almost sickeningly PC. To bring it full circle, last night must have made a lot of liberals around the globe go, "le gulp."

BUSH

I didn't see the speech last night. I was too busy watching the Bears dismantle their opponent, in glee I might add. But I've read about it and the reaction to it and cannot be anything other than pleased.

So many right things were said by Bush. The most striking part of the speech is how clearly and understandably he explained the philosophical position supporting our decision to stay in Iraq and finish the job there. He effectively tied the war to our national security in a way he hasn't done before, and in a way that anyone capable of persuasion on the issue will understand and possibly be in concurrence.

Also, I love that he acknolwedged the position of the other side - those who disagree with the war decision. His most powerful words, or at least the more resonant, were that his decisions have led to terrible loss. But he showed no regret or intention to capitulate.

He even acknowledged the no-WMD, one of the primary bases for the war, and indicated he was wrong on that one. Yet he didn't just stop at saying, "well, we're still better off." No, he explained why we had basis to believe that Saddam had WMD, that the rest of the world believed it, and reminded us that Saddam was in position to stop himself from being invaded.

Bush is never going to finish with a Reaganesque popularity rating. Not in these divisive times in which all kinds of anti-Americanism and dispatriotism are en vouge. Not when there's no longer a baseline for conduct advocating their position and detrimental to America beneath which the mainstream Left will not go.

Still, GWB went a long way toward cementing himself as a stong leader who is willing to make difficult decisions and see them through despite his positions' divisiveness. More importantly, he also sent a message to the terrorists that we have no intention of giving up and that their friends on the Left in America and Europe who want to undermine the war effort by turning public sentiment against the war will not bear on our resolve to finish the job.

In other words, Bush's words were an important triumph in the war in Iraq and larger WOT. Also, they were just as important of a battle win as the 10 million Iraqis risking their lives last week going to the polls and the message the U.S. sent by reducing the certain attempts to thrwart that effort through violence to a mere whimper, demonstrating that we can now control the insurgency when we truly need to.

Dare I say it, but the president certainly saved some lives last night. How many is largely up to us to determine.

RE: THE GREAT EXPERIMENT

Sounds to me (ahem) that you don't think we're doomed, as others believe.

THIS

Will be cited frequently. I'm sure dozens of counter-studies are in the works, but for now, I'll take it.

THE GREAT EXPERIMENT

We've said very little about the namesake of our blog, and hopefully this will be the first of many posts discussing the most important document ever written, the second-greatest work of the mind of man(kind), the governing document of our great nation.

Jonah Goldberg has a little to say on it today, but it's meaty despite its brevity.

Now, I really don't care about "conservative reformations" or even the revitalization of the Republican Party for that matter. What I do care about is respect for the written word of the Constitution and respect for the intentions of its promulgators.

The Constitution, like Ben Franklin famously said of revolutions, is half-compromised and half-improvised. And because of it, it comprises the single most elegant and effective system of bulwarks against tyranny ever -- and I do mean ever -- devised.

The basis of the system is fairly simple, though -- it divides governmental power wherever and however it can. The traditional functions of government are split over three branches. Different types of laws have to originate in specific ways. The Federal government has only specific powers delegated to it; the rest are reserved to either the State governments or to the people at large. Military power, even, is divided between the government and the citizenry.

Divided government is much, much more difficult to usurp, and also much more difficult to paralyze. Of late we've heard of "nightmare scenarios" where, say, a terrorists manages to detonate Washington, DC while Congress is in session, the Supreme Court is holding court, and the President is meeting with his Cabinet, effectively wiping out the civilian Federal government. What then? We'll be leaderless!

Well, no. There are fifty state governments which would survive intact; every square inch of US territory would still be under civil authority.

But because there are so many governments, so many branches, each intended to deal with a different facet of governing, if one is corrupted or infiltrated, the others will keep it in check and root it out.

And that's only a few things among many which demonstrate the genius of the Constitution; there's so much at so many levels that it's far too complex to go into fully in anything like a blog post.

Suffice it to say, it's in all of our best interests to FOLLOW the system prescribed by the Founders.

Goldberg, while I like his perspective and his historical savvy, still seems to be treating the idea as either academic or something only achievable in small doses. He seems to be of the camp which thinks we might be able to do some good, maybe achieve some modest return to Constitutional principles, but doesn't have much energy behind it. I get the impression he sees it as trying to reclaim 50 miles of beach from the ocean using only a pail and shovel.

Well, as "realistic" as that may seem, it strikes me as similar to those who thought Soviet supremacy was inevitable.

To me, it's far too important an issue to treat as academic or pie-in-the-sky. Our very freedom is very much at stake, and punting isn't an appropriate response. I have no doubt in my mind that hard, tough work can restore the government to what the Founders intended. I have no illusions that it's not a mammoth, monumental task against long, long odds.

But it doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

RE: CALLING IT WHAT IT IS

Well, that didn't take long. The Democrat outrage at being quoted accurately and in context finds a voice in the Senate.

A couple of gems:

I also know what it takes to win a war, and I know that politics and an attack machine like the President’s plays no part in it.

I hope that President Bush realizes how shameful it is to play politics when what we really need is leadership, and that he will direct his Party to take down this ad immediately.

Apparently, Mr. Inouye's Left ear is deaf.

CALLING IT WHAT IT IS

The Republicans are going on the offensive, taking recent Democrat statement at face value and spelling out exactly what their logical conclusions are.

Good. The Democrats will cry foul, like they always do when someone takes them to task for what they say. Expect a lot of MSM condemnation as well.

LISTENING TO:

Diana Krall's "Christmas Songs," her album from this year.

Husband Declan McManus is a lucky, lucky bastard. (He's more than happy to agree.)

ONLY A LIBERAL . . .

. . . would see things this way (i.e., "trimming revenue").

THE CHRISTMAS TREE . . .

. . . is up. Waiting for that digital camera I want this year so that I can send all of those lovely Christmas tree photos to all of my friends and bretheren across the snow spangled lands! Largest memory card possible, please.

RE: DELUSIONS OF GODHOOD

That's correct, Dave. The problem has never been one of Zionist imperialism or arrogance or any of the sort. It has always been about one thing: Islamofascism. Speilberg can try and bring both sides together at the box office - the way they haven't been able to coalesce at the bargaining table - by pointing out the supposed wrongs of both sides. But the bottom line is that the other side, the dangerous side, the side that caused Munich to happen and caused the USS Cole, WTC 1993, 9-11, Iraq terrorism, Iran nuclearization, will not be swayed by any shots taken at them, particularly if the darts are directed by the movie directing hand of a Jew. If he's not careful, Speilberg may end up being carried by 6 pall bearers as opposed to carrying a golden trophy.

DELUSIONS OF GODHOOD

Steven Spielberg thinks his upcoming movie about the assassination of the 1972 Israeli Olympic athletes, by Muslim terrorists, will bring peace to the Middle East.

What a crock.

Does the name Theo van Gogh mean anything to the man? He was murdered for suggesting on film that Muslim extremism might be a danger.

Does Spielberg -- a Jew, no less, whereas van Gogh wasn't -- actually think extremist Muslims will watch his film and think "oh, yeah," forever to renounce violence, embrace their Jewish brethren, and live in peace?

More likely, there will be attempts on his own life.

LIES! ALL LIES!

In fact, you CAN be fan of both Billy Joel and Elvis Costello, as Mark and I agree (though it took Mark a while to get on board with the Cos).

You can't take "Just The Way You Are" as representative of Joel's work any more than "I Want To Hold Your Hand" is the pinnacle of The Beatles.

And, sadly, many of Costello's fans are jaded, arrogant wannabes who think they're too sophisticated for "pop."

So take that, Jody Rosen, and get the heck over yourself.

(Besides, I'm not about to take seriously music criticism from a guy who thinks "Stiletto" is a "boogie-woogie" song.)

24 DAYS

Until Christmas.