[Rob Instigator]

- dont know who coined it but there is a theory explaining the political power changes in the USA over the last 100 years, which describes it as a battle between two specific groups of very rich powerful people.

These are labeled the "Yankees" and the "Cowboys".

The Yankees are old-school New England/Old South money/power, the Rockefellers, the Bushes, the Kennedys, the Rothschilds, etc.

The Cowboys are newer-money/power players from Texas/California, fir example Bill Gates, The Hughes family, all the rich and powerful from Cali and Texas who made their money in oil and land and industry.

The past 100 years are a constant cycle of battle between the yankees and the Cowboys for control of the white house and government in general.
Party lines have nothing to do with it. The rich and powerful own both political parties (obviously) and use them as avatars for their own agendas.

check it out.

William H. Taft - Yankee: Yale grad, member of skull & bones, father was US attorney general and Secretary of War. Republican

Woodrow Wilson - Yankee: Johns Hopkins grad, Princeton president, old South family, Democrat

Warren Harding - outlier, neither Yankee nor Cowboy. won presidential nomination and election after the party could not pick one of the standard Yankee power players from "good" families. died in offfice from Cerebral hemorrage/heart disease . Republican.

Calvin Coolidge - Yankee, voted in as vice president. became president when Harding died. Lawyer from Vermont. father was rich land owner, politician. ancestros emigrated from UK in 1630. Republican

Herbert Hoover - Cowboy, Quaker born in Iowa and raised in California. Stanford grad. self-made man through mining interests out west. Secretary of Commerce. Republican.

Franklin D. Roosevelt - Yankee. born to rich as fuck old money Dutch family. Harvard Grad. Columbia Law School grad. Probably did more than any President to change US government. Served multiple terms due to war. Democrat.

Harry Truman - Cowboy. Born to farming family in Missouri. elected to public office as county official and worked his way to Vice presidential nomination after election as Senator. Democrat

Dwight D. Eisenhower - Yankee. Pensylvania Dutch heritage. 5-star general in WWII. Republican.

John F. Kennedy - Yankee. old super rich power family. Harvard grad. Military vet. massive social change advocate. assassinated. Democrat.

Lyndon B. Johnson - Cowboy (OBVIOUSLY). SW Texas State grad (now Texas State U), Texas congressman, Texas Senator, Majority leader in Senate. decorated Navy veteran. did NOT get along with his President Kennedy. Democrat.

Richard Nixon - Cowboy, Born in California. Served as US Senator from California. Raised a Quaker. Related to Bill Gates, Jimmy Carter and Grover Cleveland. Grew up poor, made himself who he was. Resigned Presidency. Republican.

Gerald Ford - Outlier. Became VP without being nominated or elected. became President without being elected. Only Eagle Scout to be US President. From Michigan. Navy veteran. Republican.

Jimmy Carter - Yankee. Raised in rural Georgia, part of large family of British settlers in 1635, all land owners and cotton farmers. Georgia senator and Governor. Navy vet. won the Dem nomination for President even though he was a political outsider in many ways. Democrat

Ronald Reagan - Cowboy. Raised poor in Illionois, lifelong Democrat who switched to Republican after being elected President of Screen actors guild and spending his time outing commies. Governor of California. Republican.

George H.W. Bush - Yankee. super old rich money New England. Navy veteran. started oil company with daddy's yankee money and became a millionaire by age 40. entered politics soon after. Congressman, ambassador, and Director of the CIA. Republican.

Bill Clinton - Cowboy. Born in Arkansas. Georgetown grad. married to old-money Yankee Hillary Rodham. Rhodes scholar. Oxford grad. Yale Law School GRaduate. Governor of Arkansas. Democrat.

George W. Bush - Yankee (disguised as a cowboy). Born in New Haven Conneticut. Old money power family. Yale grad. Harvard Business grad. Texas Governor. son of a president. Republican.

Barack Obama - Cowboy. Hawaii born. Columbia grad. harvard law grad. civil rights attorney. Illinois senator. Elected president. Democrat.

Donald Trump - Yankee. Born in Queens NY. In early 30's took over family real estate and construction business. lifelong democrat. wealthiest and oldest person ever elected president. Republican.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Descartes is on a plane.
Midway through the flight an air hostess asks him if he'd like a coffee.
"I think not," he says, and disappears.

i keep laughing at this-- keep thinking he was on a Cartesian plane

anyway more laughs here from a funny old man:

http://wpo.st/rHXI2

[The Soup Nazi]

From The Village Voice:

Robert Christgau on the End of the World

 

1. No one I know is sleeping. Writing Friday morning, I've been at around four hours a night since Tuesday, and was pretty anxious Monday night too — her late Michigan visit worried me. I know I took half a Klonopin — the second of my life — one night this week, and I think a five-mg Zolpidem after one wakeup. Not even sure anymore. This situation is not conducive to anyone's coherence including my own, hence my decision to bullet-point a reaction piece that was going nowhere slowly. Of course, the end of the world as we know it isn't conducive to coherence either.

2. Insomnia is a common affliction of the elderly, a demographic that includes me. At 74, I'm still working pretty hard, but not like when I had the NYU job I quit after two years. I have my health, too — my cholesterol, blood sugar, and blood pressure all came down as soon as I retired. Now I bet my insomnia becomes chronic and my numbers go up again.

3. Nor is that the only way Trump will rob me of my old age. I quit NYU in part because I had a dream of relaxing with the wife I adore while we can both still walk. I don't want to spend my late seventies attending demos. I want to spend them enjoying the flawed democracy I love, the democracy I've spent my entire career celebrating. In my work, "democratic" is one of my major praisewords, and as a rock critic I love this democracy above all for its Afro-European heritage, unjust and incomplete though its racial politics have stubbornly remained. And I should add that — not because I was raised liberal, which I wasn't, but because I took I Corinthians 13:13 literally — I was advocating for multiethnic immigration at age fifteen. The validated racism and xenophobia of Trump's coalition not only disgusts me, it breaks my fucking heart. And the wife I adore reminds that the misogyny this election has released is at least as disheartening. How do we pursue happiness now?

4. Two tweets I've liked this week — really three. The simple one is by David Frum: "The lovely American confidence that 'everything will be all right' has itself now become a serious danger to everything being all right." The two from a highly recommended longer thread are by 5'7 Black Male: "That knot in your stomach, that feeling of heartache? That uncertainty about your safety? That deep sense of fundamental injustice?" And then: "For many marginalized people, this spike in distress you feel this morning is what we feel EVERY morning."

5. One of Obama's most impressive achievements is a post–Great Recession growth rate far exceeding that of any European nation — a recovery that has definitely begun to touch the very class of white people whose disaffection is widely reported to have powered Trump's victory. "Economic anxiety," this is generally called. I say we start thinking instead about "economic anomie." Yes, real financial worries are involved. But basically the bad feeling they want to extirpate is cultural — and often, fuck yes, racial.

6. One reason Hillary lost was that she didn't dominate the women's vote the way she and we expected. Which I take as indicating that women are more tolerant of sexism than we believed. And even more it means that the slanders the right has been slathering her with since 1993 stuck. I mean, Jill Stein believes them, and she's got a doctorate from Harvard!

7. That said, I kept waiting in those final few weeks for Hillary to lay off Donald and bear down on her economic agenda. She never did. For sure the Comey intervention was a distraction, though I don't believe it cost her the election in itself. But as I've said previously, no one ever mistook her for a strong candidate-as-candidate.

8. There is reason to figure that Trump's inevitable failure to make good on his promises will accelerate the customary off-year opposition gains in 2018. But don't get your hopes up. What he's sure to put into effect right away is deregulation and an all-out attack on the environment — the kind of disastrous stuff that hurts voters only over the long haul. Social Security will be whittled at, not abolished, and if Paul Ryan somehow manages to privatize Medicare, I bet — and as a 74-year-old, ardently hope — us elders will be grandfathered in.

9. It's not inconceivable that Trump will commit (or has already committed) an impeachable offense, and there are plenty of Republicans who would happily kick him out if one surfaced. But be careful what you wish for. Mike Pence is not only a homophobic Christianist horror, he's slick. The next four years could bring us not just the worst president in history, but the two worst.

10. Have a nice day.

[!@#$%!]

man, whenever you put long texts in quoteboxes it makes it really difficult to read. not being a dick just reporting what my senses gather.

suggestion: copypaste a choice blurb, in italics if you must but no quoteboxes, and then put the link to the full article where the interested can go read

i'm sure the village voice offers a better layout than this ancient messageboard

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

man, whenever you put long texts in quoteboxes it makes it really difficult to read. not being a dick just reporting what my senses gather.

The reasons I "put long texts in quoteboxes" —some short texts too, actually— are a) Making explicit that they aren't my words while preserving the quotation marks as they appear on the original text, and b) Giving the lazy ones here the chance to get interested in a text which they wouldn't go to if I just posted the link ("Uhhh... Pffft, Christgau... I killed him with my dick...

 

 

 

").

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

suggestion: copypaste a choice blurb, in italics if you must but no quoteboxes, and then put the link to the full article where the interested can go read

Well whaddayaknow — long texts fully in italics are annoying to me (heh). More importantly, JESUS FUCK I DID PUT THE LINK GODDAMMIT, IT'S RIGHT ON THE PIECE'S TITLE. ARE YOU NOW GOING TO TELL ME I GOTTA COPY AND PASTE THE LINK JUST AS IT IS AND NOT LINK UP SENTENCES? Also, are you gonna tell me you don't like words in capital letters either? fine...

[!@#$%!]

ha ha blinking icons.

so i read the piece on the village voice.

eh! he needs to get out of new york some time.

i remain agnostic, btw.

[!@#$%!]

Persuasion Versus Populism
Posted November 21st, 2016 @ 12:24pm in #Trump

I’m hearing lots of after-the-fact explanations for why Trump won the election.

[...]

Trump didn’t identify and match the preferences of the people so much as cause them to think the way they are thinking.


http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1534809...ersus-populism

[evollove]

Someone, trying to be nice I guess, gave me Bernie's book OUR REVOLUTION. I read about a page and my heart shattered. Just imagine, we could've had this guy instead of...never mind. Don't imagine. Not worth it.

[Drjohnrock]

Originally Posted by evollove

Someone, trying to be nice I guess, gave me Bernie's book OUR REVOLUTION. I read about a page and my heart shattered. Just imagine, we could've had this guy instead of...never mind. Don't imagine. Not worth it.

It's not worth it because there is no way in hell it would have happened. If Sanders had received the Democratic nomination, Drump and his flunkies would have easily demolished him with shouts of "socialist!", "communist!", etc. and Drumpf would have won in a real landslide, not the fake one he brags about to his mindless followers. I know, anything older than last week is boring retro indulgence. But maybe, just maybe, some of the Sanders fans on this board could look up what happened in the 1972 election, when Nixon, who was certainly vulnerable, got the gift of George McGovern and went on to win 49 of the 50 states. And Sanders makes McGovern look slightly conservative by comparison.

Every credit to you, though, evollove, for doing what a lot more of us should have done: work to get out the vote for Clinton even though she wasn't your first choice. But most progressives aren't doing what needs to be done to stop the most incompetent and dangerous jerk ever to be elected president. Instead, they continue to act like whipped puppies, whining about Sanders, and doing other nonproductive stuff rather than work hard on the 2018 midterm elections to get Repukes out of the majority. In the meantime, Drump supporters continue to work hard on supporting their idol. If progressives don't get out of their stupor, not only are the Republikkkans going to increase their congressional majorities, Drumpf is going to win in 2020 if we all haven't died in World War III by then.

This thread has far outlived it's usefulness. It would be great to see it closed and another one started on ways to stop the Drumpf agenda.

[!@#$%!]

^^ i agree that bernie would have been a victim of red scaremongering.

i mean, look how little left obama went and he was branded a socialist, and health care reform triggered the birth of the tea party and got moe tucker out on the streets

i don't think this thread has outlived its usefulness though--because it never had any. this is some obscure message board on the internet where some nobodies come to rant. good thing i say. but the unregulated ranting is the usefulness in itself--not the thread proper. once this thread dies, it will die on its own, just like the rest.

what i think has actually outlived its usefulness (and moe tucker points to it in that link above) is this neocon-style branding of the opponent as "evil" and "stupid" and "kkk" and "clowns" etc. the great moral struggles. puritanism vs. the heathens. cotton mather burns some witches. etc

really, it's not a manichaean struggle of good vs evil with each party aligning on each side. the repukes have some good things to offer along with some terrible shit, the democrats have some terrible and corrupt baggage right next to their good intentions. nobody has the monopoly on ariman or ahura mazda.

this is why politics is broken-- it's all extremes and nobody wants to work with each other. and yeah, one can point fingers at the repukes and mitch mcconnell and say "you started it" but that's a 3rd grade answer that does nobody any good. (that's also the kind of 3rd grade response that made trump looks ridiculous to so many-- "he started it" "she started it"). so how about let's just not go that way.

how about we start focusing our criticism on actions, not identities; and make the struggle about policies, not personalities. okay, the electorate at large follows "personalities", and it's a good shorthand for a lot of things-- but still, i'll welcome a good policy regardless of where it comes from. nixon gave us the EPA after all, and wanted universal health care--good for him on those counts.

speaking from just my personal point of view, i promised to back hillary for the election and provide the criticism afterwards. well, i'm ready to be open-minded. i've done enough partisanship for the year. do i want democrats to take the house? yes. but i also want them to do it on the basis of a good platform and good sales, not by crying "look at how terrible the goobers are." which has gotten us precisely nowhere.

[Drjohnrock]

This thread has outlived its usefulness especially as a ranting mechanism. And if you want to label yourself as a nobody, feel free to do so. But you're only speaking for yourself.

As for your strawman bullshit about rough equivalency, both sides calling names, blah blah blah, I'm interested in practical steps to stop the Rupukes. I don't know where you've been the last eight years but the Repukes and their supporters see this as a zero sum game: vilify the opposition and engage in scorhed earth tactics, with no compromise on anything. Nixon, as bad as he was was willing to work with Democrats at times, but the GOP has radically chanted since then. Remember the bogus impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton that they knew wouldn't result in his removal from office? Or their stated intention to never work with Obama, bringing the government to the brink of default on more than one occasion, relenting only when it looked like the voters were blaming them? You have to have a willing partner to compromise with, and the GOP isn't willing at all.

I'm not interested in trying to engage Drumpf-supporting zombies. That's a waste of time. I'm interested in motivating those who stayed home this past election day. If they had come out, Drumpf would be nothing but an unpleasant memory. The idea is to motivate them, not engage in some useless attempt to change the minds of Drumpf supporters. That's the only way forward. The election of 2016 is a done deal. Let's move on from both that and this thread.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Drjohnrock

This thread has outlived its usefulness especially as a ranting mechanism. And if you want to label yourself as a nobody, feel free to do so. But you're only speaking for yourself.

As for your strawman bullshit about rough equivalency, both sides calling names, blah blah blah, I'm interested in practical steps to stop the Rupukes. I don't know where you've been the last eight years but the Repukes and their supporters see this as a zero sum game: vilify the opposition and engage in scorhed earth tactics, with no compromise on anything. Nixon, as bad as he was was willing to work with Democrats at times, but the GOP has radically chanted since then. Remember the bogus impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton that they knew wouldn't result in his removal from office? Or their stated intention to never work with Obama, bringing the government to the brink of default on more than one occasion, relenting only when it looked like the voters were blaming them? You have to have a willing partner to compromise with, and the GOP isn't willing at all.

I'm not interested in trying to engage Drumpf-supporting zombies. That's a waste of time. I'm interested in motivating those who stayed home this past election day. If they had come out, Drumpf would be nothing but an unpleasant memory. The idea is to motivate them, not engage in some useless attempt to change the minds of Drumpf supporters. That's the only way forward. The election of 2016 is a done deal. Let's move on from both that and this thread.

and yet here we are, ranting. and i do value everybody's life, the "nobody" is in the context of politics and policy and the world at large. it's not like this thread has a following outside of here, and the world is interested in our deep thoughts and shrewd analysis. this is just us, talking to ourselves. and also to the extent that the self is a fiction, yes, we're just vectors that recycle other people's ideologies into the void.

and what strawman bullshit? i'm based on recent history--all that hillary did throughout her campaign was to brand trump all sorts of things. didn't offer any compelling proposal (bernie did, impractical as his proposals were), all she did was basically point a finger and say "bad man, bad man," ad nauseam. which you know, worked to an extent, but not well enough.

if anything, the partisans voted, everyone else was turned off. so that strategy must die.

i remember her husband's speech with a bible quote, "without a vision, the people will perish." i forget where and in what context he said that, but see, it was so good that i remember it decades later. and yet hillary forgot and offered no vision of her own.

plus it's not a false equivalency when you come in the thread, declare it dead (yet here we still are ranting), and then proceed to do exactly the same thing-- bad man, bad republicans, bad, bad, bad.

without a vision, the democrats are perishing.

but hey, there's the bad man, point fingers at him and foam at the mouth, keep losing house seats and complaing that the opponent does not support your presidency, and as opposed to that old blues song, it's always everyone's fault but mine.

the original
https://youtu.be/Y_o4omd8T5c

and here are the lyrics for the 2016 version

Oh, mother she taught me how to read,
Mother she taught me how to read
If I don't read it my soul be lost, everyone's fault but mine

[Drjohnrock]

The strawman bullshit was your response to my post which countered an argument I never made. And the false equivalency was your stating that the left is just as bad as the right with name calling and the like. That's crap, just like people saying "Clinton is as bad as Trump." As for specific proposals, HRC made them. One of her ads talked about infrastructure investment and how to pay for it. Disagree if you want, but she made it. Also, during the debates, she referred people to her website for detailed policy positons. But a lot of Americans seem to have problems with actually considering policy positions. She has long talked about retraining workers for modern jobs. But that's too boring for most people, including you, apparently. Your "vision" amounts to wanting better sloganeering than Drumpf's--not an intelligent way forward. A lot of progressives stayed home, allowing Drumpf to win by the skin of his teeth in a state like Michigan. Clinton took a lot of blue state support for granted, and she paid the price. It's not about lack of "vision", it's about lack of sound strategy to reach voters.

In any event, your posts amount to nothing more than your usual trolling. I have a life outside this forum, so I'm not going to respond to any more of your baiting bullshit. I will, however, see about getting a moderator to close the thread.

[Severian]

Hey... guys... I agree with both of you in several points, but I'm kind of wondering why we're not taking a bit more about the nail-biter of a legal battle taking place in Michigan, as I type this, to determine when recount proceedings for the state should begin.

Lookie: http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...ring/94930506/

Wisconsin is already underway. Trump won Wisconsin by about 20,000 votes. He reportedly won Michigan by about half that (10,200 I believe), and yet his legal team just filed an objection to the recount Friday, and a real-life "emergency" federal court session was held in Detroit today, Sunday, with Trump attorneys doing everything possible to delay the now inevitable recount for just a few days.

Why? If all is above board, why are so many people digging in their heels and opposing this recount in the state of Michigan, where Trump won by the smallest margin?

I mentioned this when I was obsessing a while back but voter statistics. In fact, the very states I was concerned about, withthe exception of Florida, have all been part of this recount effort. I'm sure I was just spazzing, but still... this is news, right? Huge news? Whether it amounts to anything or not, shouldn't we be talking about this?

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Drjohnrock

The strawman bullshit was your response to my post which countered an argument I never made. And the false equivalency was your stating that the left is just as bad as the right with name calling and the like. That's crap, just like people saying "Clinton is as bad as Trump." As for specific proposals, HRC made them. One of her ads talked about infrastructure investment and how to pay for it. Disagree if you want, but she made it. Also, during the debates, she referred people to her website for detailed policy positons. But a lot of Americans seem to have problems with actually considering policy positions. She has long talked about retraining workers for modern jobs. But that's too boring for most people, including you, apparently. Your "vision" amounts to wanting better sloganeering than Drumpf's--not an intelligent way forward. A lot of progressives stayed home, allowing Drumpf to win by the skin of his teeth in a state like Michigan. Clinton took a lot of blue state support for granted, and she paid the price. It's not about lack of "vision", it's about lack of sound strategy to reach voters.

In any event, your posts amount to nothing more than your usual trolling. I have a life outside this forum, so I'm not going to respond to any more of your baiting bullshit. I will, however, see about getting a moderator to close the thread.

Persuasive. I'm sold! Tell me where to sign. After the moderator closes this thread of course.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by Severian

Hey... guys... I agree with both of you in several points, but I'm kind of wondering why we're not taking a bit more about the nail-biter of a legal battle taking place in Michigan, as I type this, to determine when recount proceedings for the state should begin.

Lookie: http://www.freep.com/story/news/loca...ring/94930506/

Wisconsin is already underway. Trump won Wisconsin by about 20,000 votes. He reportedly won Michigan by about half that (10,200 I believe), and yet his legal team just filed an objection to the recount Friday, and a real-life "emergency" federal court session was held in Detroit today, Sunday, with Trump attorneys doing everything possible to delay the now inevitable recount for just a few days.

Why? If all is above board, why are so many people digging in their heels and opposing this recount in the state of Michigan, where Trump won by the smallest margin?

I mentioned this when I was obsessing a while back but voter statistics. In fact, the very states I was concerned about, withthe exception of Florida, have all been part of this recount effort. I'm sure I was just spazzing, but still... this is news, right? Huge news? Whether it amounts to anything or not, shouldn't we be talking about this?

funny thing i saw a video about this in the fox news website of all places (yes, i like to torment myself by learning how "the other" thinks)

there was tucker carlson (lol) trying to make the green party spokesperson look like an antidemocratic malcontent for wanting a recount, and while the good green giant explained that this was about legal rights and the rule of law and confidence in the elections, carlson frowned with the frowniest frown. ah, propaganda!

in any case i wasn't aware of the michigan legal battle, and thanks for bringing it up, i'll go nose around the internets for it. wasn't on the front page of the WaPo when i checked this morning.

ETA: still it's not.

(meanwhile, ahve a morning chuckle with this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.5aa3ee87dbab )

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

[...] and got moe tucker out on the streets

Since we are living in the post-truth world, I choose to believe this never happened.

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

in any case i wasn't aware of the michigan legal battle, and thanks for bringing it up, i'll go nose around the internets for it. wasn't on the front page of the WaPo when i checked this morning.

ETA: still it's not.

From Demand Progress: "Tell the Michigan Attorney General: Go Fuck Yourself!" OK, no, it's actually Tell the Michigan Attorney General: Don't Block the Recount!

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

Since we are living in the post-truth world, I choose to believe this never happened.

i understand. notice the last 2 paragraphs of the article though:

Tucker also said she is "amazed" that her interview was so widely criticised: "I'm stunned that so many people who call themselves liberal yet are completely intolerant. I thought liberals loved everyone: the poor, the immigrant, the gays, the handicapped, the minorities, dogs, cats, all eye colours, all hair colours! Peace, love, bull!"

She continues: "You disagree and you're immediately called a fool, a Nazi, a racist. That's pretty f'd up! I would never judge someone based on their political views. Their honesty, integrity, kindness to others, generosity? Yes. Politics? No!"

anyway, as a newly-minted nazi fool racist troll i'll continue my usual baiting here while we await for the moderator with the magical internet key for closing useless threads closes the useless thread

Originally Posted by The Soup Nazi

From Demand Progress: "Tell the Michigan Attorney General: Go Fuck Yourself!" OK, no, it's actually Tell the Michigan Attorney General: Don't Block the Recount!

i don't know that these internet petitions are worth a fuck, but in addition to the money we gave, don't the democrats have lawyers there? "interference" and what not.

ah, see, this is why we need to worry about "the small elections" instead of president-president-president-president-president obsession. the fucking michigan AG!--and governor rick flint of course lol. can i call him that?

eta: also katherine harris florida 2000

eta: also, gerrymandering: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...d_content_1_na

[The Soup Nazi]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

eta: also katherine harris florida 2000

By the way, Laura Dern was pitch-freakin'-perfect as Harris in Recount.

In other news, and this goes here because we know where Mike Pence stands and we know batshit crazy laws like this will spread like a motherfucker during the next four years...

https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl=dsnLHV95xbtzFCMdFIPZUV1hR273M&authuser=0&t opic=m&siidp=afb12aca6d1eda0d7aec041733c31b42eac8

I feel satanic today!