He said it, I didn't. But it's nice to see we can agree on something.
I also notice, like Anita Bryant before her, Bachmann's the media's face to whoop it up over the losing "side" in the "gay" marriage debate. Congratulations, but a piece of advice, because - if you don't fight fair - I doubt you've grasped a simple fact of life:
Reality isn't ambivalent.
Crazy looks weak celebrating defeat over stupid,....
It's hard to believe - anything - but especially how badly the lowly Derek Lowe is allowed to talk about the major thinkers of our time:
Well, no sooner do I speculate about whether Luc Montagnier has lost it then he makes headlines with a "water memory" story about teleporting DNA. [Enter a bunch of "sciencey" stuff about how stupid homeopathy is - Crack.]
Well, Montagnier himself says that he thinks that this experiment will be replicated by others, so I'll hold my fire until that's tried out. Until then, I note that this experiment has apparently made Deepak Chopra's day. It's hard for me to imagine that anything that has inspired such a fuzzy-brained column from such a fuzzy-brained man could lead to any good.
This guy just doesn't get it:
Deepak Chopra is going to make a fool of you!
One day, just you wait. One day, you're all going to eat your Maharishi-hating words! Deepak's in The San Francisco Chronicle, bitch - with Mark Motherfucking Morford - dropping the real "sciencey" science! You. Just. Fucking. Wait:
One of these days, these two geniuses are going to rock our fucking world.
It's hard not to laugh but, like Andrew Sullivan, the crazy ass funnel that is The San Francisco Chronicle's Mark Morford, is still out there, trying to sound sane and reasonable, but - as always - completely blowing it:
Look! Here are some scientists. Are they not cute? Are they not totally adorable like angry pfffting kittens as they scoff and furrow their brows and make many dismissive sounds with their pursed mouths, all in the general direction of the very idea of ESP, or psychic ability, or pretty much anything related to the mystical and the weird, the unquantifiable and the supernatural? Man, they really hate that.
Here they are, in the New York Times just recently, all aflutter that an esteemed fellow scientist and scientific journal -- Daryl J. Bem and The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, respectively -- wuld dare to publish a paper on the more than likely possibility that the beloved New Age chestnut known as extrasensory perception (ESP) might, just might, actually exist, in some tiny way, maybe, if we all just quite whining about it and opened up to the idea a little. The horror! The humiliation! What will happen to our funding?
If Morford had funding (his salary was cut, remember?) it would go straight up his yoga-teaching Mangina, is where.
Seriously, not only can't it be good for any scientific paper to have this balloon head for a supporter (He actually goes on to "defend" dowsing,...) but it's not lost on us that we've never seen Morford come out for any other kind of science but the crazy, mystical, quack-filled, never-has-a-chance-in-a-million-years-because-they-falsified-their-data kind. For instance, what's Morford been doing and saying during the entire Andrew Wakefield/Jenny McCarthy/Jim Carrey/Oprah Winfrey-promoted anti-vaccine fraud? Nothing and nothing - except teaching yoga and claiming things were swell - that's what. Imagine:
Children were dying - literally dying - and Mr. Compassion kept as quiet as a mouse.
But, let ESP get some (negative) attention from scientists, and then it's into the breach he flies - with a two-pager! (Watch your back, guys, he'll also try to fly into your britches,...)
Look, we could could go in forever (and we mean forever) about all the reasons why this POS is a liar who we don't like, and also don't think should be allowed to write for any publication, anywhere - not even for the crazy San Francisco paper he "works" for now. But we think (gay put-downs and everything else aside) the absolute very best reason we have for disliking Mark Morford, his work, and his "beliefs", is the one he's, thankfully, put in several articles - including the one we're criticizing him for now - and that very best of all reasons to dislike this particular person is one stated by Morford very clearly - more clearly than probably all the other words he's ever written, combined, and he says it exactly like this - pay attention now:
You certainly do not have to believe me.
No, and we never have, because in all the years Mark Morford's been putting pen to paper - and after all the years of saying silly things like Jesus did yoga - he's never given us a single reason to do otherwise.
So, it is on the basis of those words, Ladies and Gentlemen - words that form his own statement about his column's and his own personal validity - that we feel confident we are all free to finally leave this particular NewAge nincompoop's permissively pliant punk ass alone to himself, and his analyst's couch (because you know he has one) hopefully for the rest of all time.
We never would've thought otherwise (Hell, we don't even have to read you) but it's so nice to have a NewAger's permission, to do what comes naturally, after all these years,...
I've been avoiding South Carolina's whole "Alvin Greene thing" because I've heard his story before somewhere:
A black guy that nobody knows anything about, somehow, gets swept into high office.
Sound familiar?
But, boy, was I missing out on this one! You know how, now, even liberals are saying Obama's stupid? No, no, no, no, no! If Obama's stupid, then this chucklehead's really stupid! No, I mean, really, really, really stupid! This guy's so stupid I'm starting to wonder where the Democrats go shopping for stupid! Wherever it is, even they want to take him back!
But they can't, because (second time being the charm) just like with the p-resident, the Democrats didn't check Greene's credentials (he might be a felon) and the media also didn't vett him (great job, again, guys!) so he ran in the contest, and this retard won - that's two in a row! - and this time with 60% of the vote. Which is great for when we want to, eventually, sit down with the Dems (Dims?) and have one of those "teachable moments" they're always going on about. All that's missing, to make the lesson complete, is finding out who's in this guy's lefty NewAge cult following. Is it Mark Morford? Or maybe Deepak Chopra? I don't know but I do know they're out there somewhere:
After electing "The One", they're probably celebrating a "Number Two" with Oprah.
Wow - it only took two years - but somebody (else) finally noticed:
"During the feverish excitement of the 2008 campaign, a columnist for the online San Francisco Chronicle, Mark Morford, took it upon himself to educate anti-Obama naysayers with 'dysfunctional karmic antennae.' They had been asking him: 'What the hell's the big deal about Obama?'
The question looks prescient these days, but Morford's karmic antennae at the time picked up something different. Obama -- Morford had been told by 'spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual)' -- was a 'Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment.'
The karmic antennae of Jon Kabat-Zinn, one of Oprah's favorite meditation teachers, also picked this up. Kabat-Zinn pronounced Obama America's 'first mindful president.'
Obama, of course, had encouraged this talk with his stump speeches about 'we are the ones we have been waiting for' and his campaign slogan ending in a preposition -- 'Change you can believe in.'
This ludicrous rhetoric and the expectations it inspired have caught up with him, as he looks more and more hackish, dishonest, and feeble by the day -- more a lightweight than a 'Lightworker,' less 'mindful' than mindless. Most politicians spend the bulk of their mental time figuring out how to dodge and weave through a crisis, but one would think such a fabled figure could bring a little bit more imagination and sharpness to the exercise.
The most obnoxiously self-conscious environmentalist president ever stands dumb before America's worst environmental disaster. Hillary Clinton's campaign criticisms of Obama as a wimp and cocky dullard hold up fairly well. It turns out that he is not very good at taking tricky calls at 3 AM or 3 PM."
Disaster, NewAgers. Your beliefs always end in disaster,...
"It doesn't take much blasphemy to note how all religions are, across the board, brazen, synthetic freakshows, far stranger and more surreal in their oddball accumulation of fetishes and rituals than anything your average agnostic, atheist or Burning Man devotee could come up with in her happiest LSD-soaked dreamgasm. You ever been to a Catholic mass? A Mormon temple? A mosque? Disneyland on acid, people. And not in the good way.
Perhaps this is exactly what scares the rigid, the fearful, the conservative mindset most of all. If you really acknowledge our collective weirdness, if you look closely at what makes up the haphazard human spectacle, you are left with one overwhelming and totally awesome conclusion: If God really does exist, She is one deviously kinky, delightfully insane barrel of monkeys indeed."
-- Mark Morford, finally writing something I kinda-sorta agree with - though I wouldn't call insanity (or this self-proclaimed Zen Master's previous insane proclamations) "delightful" - in The San Francisco Chronicle.
""Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment."
-- Mark Morford, Yogi and resident idiot with a column, June 6th, 2008, in the The San Francisco Chronicle.
"Hope met reality in Obama's first year
Skepticism has crept into [the] vast majority of Americans in the middle,...The upshot is clear: President Obama is not a miracle worker."
"Unbeknownst to most, I myself was felled by the ruthless SF Chronicle layoff ax not a handful of months back, yet another casualty of the newspaper industry collapse, laid off from this very company rather suddenly, only to be immediately re-hired as a freelancer (read: less pay, no benefits, set adrift after 12 years)."
"Let us ponder. Because once again and for the billionth time, a deeply sad and hypocritical conservative is now claiming that he will be turning to God not merely for forgiveness for his lusty irresponsibilities, but he is also claiming that, in order to set things right, God will now be actively stepping into his life to help put him back on track, fix his mangled moral compass, tell him the what-what and the don't-stick-that-there.
Isn't that terrific? Isn't it wondrous to hear that God cares so much, so specifically, for Gov. Mark Sanford? Is it not heartening to hear that God will now happily jump into the rather wretched role of Sanford's own personal therapist, helping the wayward governor bury his heart and nix his one true love so he may return to his unhappy marriage and unhappy job and unhappy life? Yay God! So good of Him to take the time.
I, for one, am utterly delighted at how Sanford has effortlessly reduced the grand concept of timeless, universal divine metaconsciousness down to a bit of a tool, essentially making God his own personal knave. What a fantastic conceit! What glorious gall! We should all try that someday."
"Remember the good old days? When the air was thick like curdled paste and the days were long like sad, lonely sighs and evil -- sweet, dependable evil -- was like some sort of predatory perfume salesgirl and we were all trapped in the same apocalyptic department store?"
-- Mark Morford - San Francisco's insane NewAge yoga instructor - still so lost in Bush Derangement Syndrome he's relieved that we're going broke, anti-semitism is now a public spectacle, political corruption is rampant, high-profile terrorism is back, and America is the world's 1970's whipping boy, in The San Francisco Chronicle.
Mark “Twinkie” Morford, a who-knows-what at the San Francisco Chronicle, reportedly is suffering greatly from his unrequited sexual obsession with Barack Obama.
Sources say his usual things, crumpled, damp photos, stained computer screen and even his vivid imagination do not help relieve him anymore.
Twinkie has acknowledged joining a special yoga class that teaches auto-fellatio.
“They teach you how to be limber enough to fellatio, and even tea-bag, yourself”.
Despite two trips to the emergency room, Twinkie remains optimistic: “I need to learn not to bite down”.
Well, the San Francisco Chronicle's Mark Morford out does himself with sycophantic, hyperbole over his Obammessiah, today, February 27. He so revels in hero worship for The One, it's amazing that the White House doesn't feel compelled to get an order of protection against this creepy columnist.
No one in the Old Media is more sold on The One and less credible for his girlish crush than Morford. He is a fount of mush as he wonders if he should be scared of today's problems or suffused with lust in his heart for Obama (if you'll remember the Carterism). “It goes something like this: Do you allow yourself, even now, to feel any sort of ongoing, relieved, merciful joy that Barack Obama actually is sitting in the Big Chair in the White House? That this elegant, articulate, Zen-like man whose integrity is rock-solid and whose ideas, while certainly not in perfect alignment with every ultra-lefty vision on the planet (clean coal? Please), are astonishingly ambitious and brave, is leading this nation during one of the worst economic times in its short and paroxysmal history?”
One would expect such gushing from a teenage girl writing to a teen idol, not a grown man talking about a mere politician.
Seriously, Morford wasn't finished...
“It's a bizarre choice indeed. The good news is, the Obamafied bliss is still out there, still swirling, still waiting to be supped like a fine digestif. At any given moment you can, if you so choose, pause in whatever it is you're suffering from and hear that voice and see his visage or perhaps merely hear some pundit say the words "President Obama" out loud, and you can still enjoy that delicious chill, that little jolt that says, "Oh my God, did we really do it? Is that lucid, impeccably centered man really the leader of the free world?"
OK – This is the point where it doesn’t matter what your politics are or who you voted for.
This is not journalism, it’s not reporting, it’s not commentary, it’s not observation.
This is the perverse ramblings of a masturbatory freak recounting his orgasmic fantasies. It’s not hard to picture this poofer lying in bed in his Obama Under Roos (the custom type with the built in seaman cup so he doesn’t have to get up in the middle of the night) crying out for his savior at the just right moment.
The recent news is the SF Chronicle will be sold or closed. Geez, we wonder why.
There is a third option, if the egos running this porn-shop/newspaper will pull their heads out of each others butts:
FIX IT.
For openers, get rid of Mark Morford. Show us some hope. It’s good for the paper, and Morford can get on with his true calling in the drama-queen gay-porn film business.
This is a video of Barack Obama, lying to various groups of Americans. It's the strangest thing, but almost everyone TMR encounters - online and off - seems to be pretending this isn't so. It appears to be the biggest case of mass delusion (and/or cultism) TMR has ever seen. If anyone videotaped those of us at TMR lying as often as Barack Obama is in this video, TMR would be known as a liar. But everyone's ignoring that in Barack Obama's case, and saying this proven liar is a good choice for America's leader. TMR doesn't understand how this is happening.
This is Andrew Sullivan. He's a writer/pundit for The Atlantic.
Andrew Sullivan is known as a conservative, though he has shown a propensity for Sarah Palin conspiracy theories, likes Barack Obama, and seems to have a strong belief in astrology. It appears Andrew Sullivan is a delusional person (and/or a cultist). If TMR believed such things, and said so openly, TMR would be known as crazy. But everyone seems to be pretending that's not the case for Andrew Sullivan, and this proven nutjob is worthy of being a well-paid pundit and/or news source. TMR doesn't understand how this is happening.
Mark Morford is a popular columnist, though he has shown a propensity for delusional thinking and regularly feeds an urge to make outrageous claims. It appears Mark Morford is a crazy person (and/or a cultist). If TMR believed such things, and said so openly, TMR would be a homeless person. But everyone seems to be ignoring Mark's insanity, and thinks this proven fruitloop is a good choice for a well-paid pundit and/or news source. TMR doesn't understand this at all.
Can anyone please explain to TMR the success of these three people, even though they epitomize a total rejection of honesty, decency, common sense, and other American values so many hope average Americans attain?
"(Barack) Obama worked in the organizing tradition of Saul Alinsky, who made Chicago the birthplace of modern community organizing...."
-- David Moberg, on "Obama's Community Roots", in The Nation Magazine.
"THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT --- An analysis of the Alinsky Model."
-- Hillary Clinton, in her BA Honors Thesis, Wellesley College, 1969, from Front Page Magazine.
“Is this manipulation?” asked Alinsky. “Certainly.”
“The organizer,” Alinsky wrote, “is in a true sense reaching for the highest level for which man can reach -- to create, to be a ‘great creator,’ to play God.”
Alinsky laid out a set of basic principles to guide the actions and decisions of radical organizers and the People’s Organizations they established. The organizer, he said, “must first rub raw the resentments of the people; fan the latent hostilities to the point of overt expression. He must search out controversy and issues, rather than avoid them, for unless there is controversy people are not concerned enough to act.” The organizer’s function, he added, was “to agitate to the point of conflict” and “to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’” “The word ‘enemy,’” said Alinsky, “is sufficient to put the organizer on the side of the people”; i.e., to convince members of the community that he is so eager to advocate on their behalf, that he has willingly opened himself up to condemnation and derision.
But it is not enough for the organizer to be in solidarity with the people. He must also, said Alinsky, cultivate unity against a clearly identifiable enemy; he must specifically name this foe, and “singl[e] out” precisely who is to blame for the “particular evil” that is the source of the people’s angst. In other words, there must be a face associated with the people’s discontent. That face, Alinsky taught, “must be a personification, not something general and abstract like a corporation or City Hall.” Rather, it should be an individual such as a CEO, a mayor, or a president.
Alinsky summarized it this way: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it…. [T]here is no point to tactics unless one has a target upon which to center the attacks.” He held that the organizer’s task was to cultivate in people’s hearts a negative, visceral emotional response to the face of the enemy. “The organizer who forgets the significance of personal identification,” said Alinsky, “will attempt to answer all objections on the basis of logic and merit. With few exceptions this is a futile procedure.”
Alinsky also advised organizers to focus their attention on a small number of selected, strategic targets. Spreading an organization’s passions too thinly was a recipe for certain failure, he warned.
Alinsky advised the radical activist to avoid the temptation to concede that his opponent was not “100 per cent devil,” or that he possessed certain admirable qualities such as being “a good churchgoing man, generous to charity, and a good husband.” Such qualifying remarks, Alinsky said, “dilut[e] the impact of the attack” and amount to sheer “political idiocy.”
Alinsky stressed the need for organizers to convince their followers that the chasm between the enemy and the members of the People’s Organization was vast and unbridgeable. “Before men can act,” he said, “an issue must be polarized. Men will act when they are convinced their cause is 100 percent on the side of the angels, and that the opposition are 100 percent on the side of the devil.” Alinsky advised this course of action even though he well understood that the organizer “knows that when the time comes for negotiations it is really only a 10 percent difference.” But in Alinsky’s brand of social warfare, the ends (in this case, the transfer of power) justify virtually whatever means are required (in this case, lying).
Winning was all that mattered in Alinsky’s strategic calculus: “The morality of a means depends on whether the means is being employed at a time of imminent defeat or imminent victory.” “The man of action … thinks only of his actual resources and the possibilities of various choices of action,” Alinsky added. “He asks only whether they are achievable and worth the cost; of means, only whether they will work.” For Alinsky, all morality was relative: “The judgment of the ethics of means is dependent on the political position of those sitting in judgment.”
Given that the enemy was to be portrayed as the very personification of evil, against whom any and all methods were fair game, Alinsky taught that an effective organizer should never give the appearance of being fully satisfied as a result of having resolved any particular conflict via compromise. Any compromise with the “devil” is, after all, by definition morally tainted and thus inadequate. Consequently, while the organizer may acknowledge that he is pleased by the compromise as a small step in the right direction, he must make it absolutely clear that there is still a long way to go, and that many grievances still remain unaddressed. The ultimate goal, said Alinsky, is not to arrive at compromise or peaceful coexistence, but rather to “crush the opposition,” bit by bit. “A People’s Organization is dedicated to eternal war,” said Alinsky. “… A war is not an intellectual debate, and in the war against social evils there are no rules of fair play.… When you have war, it means that neither side can agree on anything…. In our war against the social menaces of mankind there can be no compromise. It is life or death.”
Alinsky warned the organizer to be ever on guard against the possibility that the enemy might unexpectedly offer him “a constructive alternative” aimed at resolving the conflict. Said Alinsky, “You cannot risk being trapped by the enemy in his sudden agreement with your demand and saying, ‘You’re right -- we don’t know what to do about this issue. Now you tell us.’” Such capitulation by the enemy would have the effect of diffusing the righteous indignation of the People’s Organization, whose very identity is inextricably woven into the fight for long-denied justice; i.e., whose struggle and identity are synonymous. If the perceived oppressor surrenders or extends a hand of friendship in an effort to end the conflict, the crusade of the People’s Organization is jeopardized. This cannot be permitted. Eternal war, by definition, must never end.
"Barack Obama isn't really one of us. Not in the normal way, anyway.
Dismiss it all you like, but I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy, a slick gambit carefully orchestrated by hotshot campaign organizers who, once Obama gets into office, will suddenly turn from perky optimists to vile soul-sucking lobbyist whores, with Obama as their suddenly evil, cackling overlord."
Many spiritually advanced people I know (not coweringly religious, mind you, but deeply spiritual) identify Obama as a Lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who has the ability to lead us not merely to new foreign policies or health care plans or whatnot, but who can actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet, of relating and connecting and engaging with this bizarre earthly experiment. These kinds of people actually help us evolve. They are philosophers and peacemakers of a very high order, and they speak not just to reason or emotion, but to the soul."
"Don't buy any of it? Think that's all a bunch of tofu-sucking New Agey bullshit and Obama is really a dangerously elitist political salesman whose inexperience will lead us further into darkness because, when you're talking national politics, nothing, really, ever changes? I understand. I get it. I often believe it myself."
Lucifer is a name frequently given to Satan in Christian belief. This usage stems from a particular interpretation, as a reference to a fallen angel, of a passage in the Bible (Isaiah 14:3-20) that speaks of someone who is given the name of "Day Star" or "Morning Star" (in Latin, Lucifer) as fallen from heaven. The same Latin word is used of the morning star in 2 Peter 1:19 and elsewhere with no relation to Satan. But Satan is called Lucifer in many writings later than the Bible, notably in Milton's Paradise Lost.
In Latin, the word "Lucifer", meaning "Light-Bringer" (from lux, lucis, "light", and ferre, "to bear, bring"), is a name for the "Morning Star" (the planet Venus in its dawn appearances; cf. Romanian Luceafăr). The Latin Vulgate version of the Bible used this word twice to refer to the Morning Star: once in 2 Peter 1:19 to translate the Greek word "Φωσφόρος" (Phosphoros), which has exactly the same literal meaning of "Light-Bringer" that "Lucifer" has in Latin; and once in Isaiah 14:12 to translate "הילל" (Hêlēl), which also means "Morning Star". In the latter passage the title of "Morning Star" is given to the tyrannous Babylonian king, who the prophet says is destined to fall. This passage was later applied to the prince of the demons, and so the name "Lucifer" came to be used for Satan, and was popularized in works such as Dante's Inferno and Milton's Paradise Lost, but for English speakers the greatest influence has been its use in the King James Version for what more modern English versions translate as "Morning Star" or "Day Star".
The best-selling American new age guru Deepak Chopra is fond of the word "quantum": reading his work, one begins to suspect that he has it set up as a shortcut in Microsoft Word, so that he doesn't have to type it out in full every time he wants to refer to "quantum health", "quantum healing" or "the quantum mind".
This kind of thing makes physicists want to sob uncontrollably, so they've learned to ignore him. But not long ago, Chopra used the word in a new context that bears closer inspection: if Barack Obama enters the White House as president next January, he declared, "it will represent a quantum leap in American consciousness".
Chopra, it turns out, is far from alone. A curious side-story in this year's election campaign is that the new age movement in the US has embraced Obama even more fervently than most of his supporters. New agers are traditionally liberal, so it's no surprise that they're backing the Democratic candidate. But the question that's been gathering steam among them in recent weeks goes much further than that, and brings - shall we say - a whole other dimension to the race: could Obama be a "lightworker"?
Many spiritually advanced people I know ... identify Obama as a lightworker, that rare kind of attuned being who [can] actually help usher in a new way of being on the planet," wrote the San Francisco Chronicle columnist Mark Morford in a piece headlined "Is Obama an Enlightened Being?" On the higher astral planes of the blogosphere, the notion met with enthusiasm. "He may play a major role," one blogger wrote, "in bringing us to [what] the Hopi Indians call the Great Shift." The endorsement of Oprah Winfrey, increasingly involved in new age spirituality, underscored the point.
The cultish side of Obama-worship has been noted before: the online magazine Slate has been running an Obama Messiah Watch, as has a blog, obamamessiah.blogspot.com. Star Wars creator George Lucas said - perhaps facetiously - that he thought it "reasonably obvious" that Obama was a Jedi knight. But the Obama-as-lightworker notion is more than a matter of tone. We're talking about the dawning of the age of aquarius.
New agers are often unfairly maligned: look at life through a slightly different lens, and you instantly get associated with a tiny handful of crystals-cure-cancer maniacs. But if they want their preferred candidate to win, they might consider keeping quiet for now. Already, the right, in the form of unhinged pundit Michelle Malkin, has started exploiting the story to mock the Democrats. And Obama has quite enough to do to fight the threat of pigeonholing - as "the black candidate", "the elite candidate" - without becoming the kooky candidate too.
-- Oliver Burkeman, displaying how today's normal person - rather than showing the concern "kooky" people deserve - will breezily dismiss deadly serious NewAgers (even as a group) after they voice a determination to, somehow, attain power over non-believers lives, while writing in The Guardian.
"Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom – Lucifer."
“A light will shine through that window, a beam of light will come down upon you, you will experience an epiphany, and you will suddenly realize that you must go to the polls and vote for Barack.”
