TCS Daily

Are We All Doomed?

By Josie Appleton - May 7, 2009 12:00 AM

Once, the apocalypse was an aberrant state of affairs, brought about by otherworldly forces. In traditional religion, some divine power burns up the earth and blacks out the sun, and creates a 'new heaven and a new earth' which is quite different from our own.

In classic science fiction, the apocalypse comes from outer space or strange and mysterious creatures - the mutant from Mars, Triffids, giant leeches, or crab monsters. Cold War sci-fi presented threats to the world as coming from Them! or It!: the threats were extraordinary and Other. The world did not end every day.

Now, the end of the world has become a resolutely everyday matter, the outcome of ordinary things. The flu outbreak, many have said, is like 'an apocalypse'. "Prepared for the Apocalypse," reads the UK Independent, describing Mexico as a "quasi-apocalyptic vision of anonymous faces shrouded in government-issued surgical masks." The Express called it "Pandemic Pandemonium", and warns that "Around a third of all humans could easily die off." There have only been a handful of flu cases in the UK, and all recovered quickly - yet chemists are selling out of facemasks.

What has happened is that ordinary difficulties -- situations we know and have dealt with many times before -- have become charged with the feeling of disaster. The end of the world is imagined to come not from Them!, but from everyday events.

The flu is just the latest version of this. "We are on the threshold of Armageddon," said one farmer's union representative during the UK 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak[1], and the pyres of burning cattle provided suitably hellish images. Yet foot-and-mouth is a non-fatal animal disease, which causes no symptoms in humans. In 2005, leading UK scientist Hugh Pennington said that avian flu "is the biggest threat to the human race"; that same year, the Asian New Year tsunami was also described as the 'apocalypse'. The global financial strategist Barton M Biggs said that we should "assume the possibility of a breakdown of the civilised infrastructure," and recommended that people with the means should invest in a well-stocked bunker. "The four horsemen of the apocalypse ride out every two generations, and they come in different disguises," he said dramatically -- yet highlighted very ordinary risks, including bird flu, the breakdown of power systems, an earthquake, or an oil shortage.

In a feature titled "Sowing for Apocalypse", The New Yorker said that disaster could come from "any of the [plant] diseases currently active in the United States," including "the rust fungus attacking soybeans; the potato late blight" or "the Western bean cutworm."[2] Everyday life has become a sci-fi film: even potato blight and rust fungus are harbingers of doom.

Disaster films, meanwhile, have become about more ordinary drama. The end of the world is imagined as coming not just from strange monsters, but from some banal and familiar situation. In Descent (2005), oil drilling causing the earth's crust to sink; in Fatal Contact: Bird Flu in America (2006), a U.S. businessman carries bird flu back on a plane from China, leading to mass riots and millions of deaths. In 28 Days Later, a virus is unwittingly released from an animal research lab in Cambridge, leading to mass insanity and the total collapse of the UK. The BBC's End Day involves disaster scenarios including a giant wave, a volcano, a virus and an experiment-gone-wrong at a physics research facility. The research facility, reports a newsreader in the film, presents a "timebomb of global proportions" -- as do the earth's tectonic plates and viral strains.

We have lost the genuinely apocalyptic imagination -- the notion of an extraordinary enemy or situation that could mean the end of our world. Extra-terrestrials and fire and brimstone alike are fading from consciousness. Our apocalyptic imagination is projected not Out There, but on to everyday natural or industrial processes Down Here. The ordinary has become strangely sinister, liable to spin away into Armageddon at almost any point. The US cultural critic Susan Sontag wrote that the AIDS panic was not "Apocalypse Now," but "Apocalypse From Now On." And, we might add, Apocalypse Everywhere - even in something so ordinary as the flu.

Josie Appleton is director of the UK civil liberties group, Manifesto Club ( She spoke about doomsday at the London Science Fiction Film Festival.


Bad education and liars
When people don't understand technology and when 'experts' lie for political gain, its no wonder so many think the sky is falling.

Taking threats seriously
Just because, by definition, we have not been killed by anything yet, should we conclude that there is never a reason to become alarmed?

Adrenalin is the body's way of taking things seriously. And there are times when it's prudent and proper to get it flushing through your system. Last week it was appropriate to get excited and start thinking about the best course of action to take.

This week we have things in better perspective, and realize this probably won't turn out to be a worldwide plague that will go down in history with the Black Death.

It's like crossing the street in downtown traffic. You think you see a fast moving taxi from the corner of your eye. Do you jump? Or do you first turn around to take a better look?

A lot's riding on that kind of decision. That's why they distinguish between "the quick" and "the dead".

Please define your concept of 'definition' for the rest of us, please

Here's one that is true: 'Arlen Specter DOOMED'
Senate Dems strip Specter of his seniority status, flip the bird to Reid and Obama. is looking good.

Always count on the promise of a democrat!

Adrenalin junkie?
You are so afraid of so many things. You like the adrenalin rush?

probably not
Nothing like a good disaster story to scare people. And there's a lot of scare mongers around, always on the lookout for some flimsy excuse to spread panic.

One of the reasons is the lazines of journalists. It's easier to pick out some shread of a story, then just spread it, and amplify it without any research at all.

Another reason is that it's an easy target for anti globalists, anti-capitalists, anti-humanists, to grab on to.

I'll start to get concerned when we see that more people are dead from swine flu than are dying from normal flu; at the rate of about 35 or 40k EVERY YEAR.

I'd have thought this would be easy for you
Here's what I said: "Just because, by definition, we have not been killed by anything yet, should we conclude that there is never a reason to become alarmed?"

If you're on this forum, by definition, you are alive. Ergo, you have not been killed by anything yet.

Therefore, is it safe to say there is never any problem?

Catastrophism is an escape, like a drug
As recently as our grandparent's generation (if you're as old as me) life used to deal ordinary people with real tragedy as a matter of course. Children died, mothers died in childbirth, adults relatively frequently were healthy one day and dead in a week or two.

Even so, our grandparents went to church, where catastrophism was preached, partly from real belief, and partly as a cynical goad to enhance contributions and garner power and prestige in this life to the priestly class.

The vast majority of us in the West seldom or ever experience real tragedy in our lives. We yearn for the adrenalin rush and yet rationalism has reduced the power of religion to provide it. So new priestly classes have arisen to provide "scientifically" based catastrophes for us to dread. Full circle, some of the priestly class are honestly selling their own beliefs; but many or most are simply shilling like carnival barkers.

Accepting life's tragedies
It sounds like what you're saying is that in the Olden Days, people were ignorant and science was in its infancy. We didn't know how to stop diseases like diptheria, or influenza. So when catastrophe struck, and a few million people died, we accepted it as God's will.

Nowadays we try to head catastrophe off.. by getting excited at the first outbreak of a new strain. And we work like crazy to come up with a new antigen fast, in case the outbreak looks like it might be able to get out of hand.

Getting concerned enough to get off our ass and start working when something happens, like a tornado or a brush fire can save a lot of lives. But apparently what you're preaching is fatalism. We should just learn not to let any of life's tragedies upset us, instead accepting them as the work of God.

Am I right? Or were you saying something else?

I'm not fatalist; I'm skeptical
Somewhere out there a disease lurks that will eventually kill 10 or 20 or 30% of us. Similarly, somewhere out there an asteroid or comet lurks that will kill 50 or 60 or 90% of us. And (here's a surprise for you) I think that one of these days industrial civilization will eventually mess with some ecological process in a way that will kill a significant percentage of us, or else spawn a war or a surprise war technology (biologicals and nano have the potential to be a lot scarier than nuclear) that will kill a significant percentage of us.

We need to buy a certain amount of insurance against these threats. The argument, as I see it, is over the amount of insurance we need to buy.

And, most importantly, I think it's important that we not let the threats immobilize us with fear of the new as religion immobilized our ancestors.

Y2K was partly a grab for power and resources by the techies using panic
And it succeeded. For three or four years we used Y2K to get extra funds out of corporate managements.

I was recruiting for the tech side of an insurance company in 1996/1997. The CIO sold at least one particular sizable program to the board using Y2K. Later he laughed and said, "don't spread that around" when I jokingly mentioned that I was having a hard time understanding how the type of techies we were hiring for the newly created positions had anything to do with Y2K.

A whole new ball game
I agree. You need to apply cost/benefit analysis to guard against an unknown number of threats with a limited amount of resource.

Bjorn Lomborg has it right in that regard. I may disagree with him over the relative importance of the threats he lists, but I like his approach to organizing threat response.

One thing that's very important, and costs us very little, is to encourage a certain number among us to just think about all the possible things that could go wrong.. and to devise approaches to solving those problems that sound as though they might be useful.

The kinds of people who sit around thinking of stuff like that generally charge us nothing for their services.

But I'm wondering what you might mean by this: "..I think it's important that we not let the threats immobilize us with fear of the new as religion immobilized our ancestors."

The kinds of people who are immobilized by fear play no part in any possible solution. What you want is people who are mobilized by fear, and who do something about it. We're in a whole new ball game any way you look at it. And we need to figure out the new rules.

By immobilize I meant put a stop to progress
By immobilize I meant put a stop to progress. I can put the issue in callous cost benefit terms. The introduction of agriculture allowed humans to become hundreds of times more numerous; but it also allowed more scope for diseases that would periodically carry off a significant portion of the populations.

So: Suppose widespread experimentation and introduction of bioengineered food crops will allow a doubling of the healthy population from 5 billion to 10 billion; but they will also increase the risk of a biological accident that will kill a billion people due to famine one day.

Suppose continued rapid technological progress will get some of us off the planet one day before the asteroid strikes.

I think religion has a lot to recommend it as a force for controlling bad influences that affect all or most of us; but it has also been a very conservative force against progress. Similarly, I think the religion of environmentalism has some things to recommend it; but carries the risk of stalling progress as its devotees worship at the altar of solar and wind against all evidence that the technologies are not ready for prime time.

You have NO IDEA what you’ve wrought by daring to mention the negative effects of Religion, Sully
Marjon will now POUNCE on you for that.

Thought I’d warn you, b’coz, to be forewarned is to be forearmed.

" been a very conservative force against progress. "
"In the 14th and 15th century there emerged in Italy and France a group of thinkers known as the "humanists." The term did not then have the anti-religious associations it has in contemporary political debate. Almost all of them were practicing Catholics. They argued that the proper worship of God involved admiration of his creation, and in particular of that crown of creation: humanity. By celebrating the human race and its capacities they argued they were worshipping God more appropriately than gloomy priests and monks who harped on original sin and continuously called upon people to confess and humble themselves before the Almighty. Indeed, some of them claimed that humans were like God, created not only in his image, but with a share of his creative power. The painter, the architect, the musician, and the scholar, by exercising their intellectual powers, were fulfilling divine purposes."

Why didn't the Greeks or the Roman or the Chinese have such an 'Enlightenment'?

Ah, a Rush Republican
Thats what I'm calling your "brand" Zyndryl. Don't have a name for the other brand of Republicans yet. The division is good, but I'm surprised your brand still has so much sway in the party. Eight years of disaster with W and an historical vote for change in 2008, Dems are a hair's width from a filibuster proof majority... Its amazing other Republicans still care what you think.

You say life is looking good. Does that mean you don't recognize the troubles Republicans are having? Excellent. Nothing is wrong, everything is great.

No better way to fail than to ignore what is wrong. Rush is proud.

60% of Americans considered themselves conservative
"In August 2008, Americans answered that question this way: (1) 20% of Americans considered themselves to be very conservative; (2) 40% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat conservative; (3) 2% of Americans considered themselves to be moderate; (4) 27% of Americans considered themselves to be somewhat liberal; (5) 9% of Americans considered themselves to be very liberal; and (6) 3% of Americans did not know or refused to answer."

Is it any wonder Rush and his colleagues are so successful and why the socialists want to shut them up.

60% disapprove of Congress now.
How will a democrat super majority improve that rating?

Why do you care?
You support BHO and want Republicans to fail. The Republicans failed because they tried to be too much like Democrats.

I'm celebrating, your own quote nearly precisely makes my case
"By celebrating the human race and its capacities they argued they were worshipping God more appropriately than gloomy priests and monks who harped on original sin and continuously called upon people to confess and humble themselves before the Almighty. Indeed, some of them claimed that humans were like God, created not only in his image, but with a share of his creative power."

I said religion has had positive effects and negative effects. You provided a quote that is at best (for your side of the argument) read to the effect that some (arguably) religious people reversed a bad effect put in place by religious leaders.

Having counted coup and enjoyed it a lot, let me hasten to point out that I am by no means unconflicted on this issue. I'm an agnostic but I think it all too possible that great ill effects may emerge from the growing secularization of the West. It's just that I think one of the good effects that will potentially flow from it is faster scientific and technological progress, unless the society self destructs because people prove unable to be good without God.

Good without God
What evidence do you have to suggest any human group has been 'good' without the concept that ALL humans have unalienable rights, regardless of who or what grants those rights?
When people use religion to acquire power over others, the result is the same as when any state or tyrant does the same.
When people use religion to encourage people to be better, the results are similar to 'governments' that promote liberty and free markets.

I fear that you misunderstood me
"What evidence do you have to suggest any human group has been 'good' without the concept that ALL humans have unalienable rights"

Contrary to what you seem to have misapprehended from my comments, I'm concerned that the very concept of "good" is up for grabs without an underlying belief in a supreme being who sets the rules and has set mankind apart from the rest of creation. On this narrow issue I think we are actually on the same page, even though I'm not personally a believer.

I think the squishy feelgood left is going to get a rude surprise when it realizes what sort of internal morality is going to come out of secularization of the masses.

" it has also been a very conservative force against progress"
What did I misapprehend?

being good without god
You don't need god to be good. Let's say a guy has a daughter who is hot, but he still doesn't abuse and rape her. Most atheists are like that, and they don't stop themselves because of god, but rather because they just think it's 'good' not to harm other people.
This is already subsumed under the 'non-aggresion principle'; no need for religious motivation.

Many people have no problem knowing what is good. NearNOd could be an exception though since apparently he still can't figure out what he would do if some house invaders where about to rape and kill his women.

How did people rationalize it was not good to harm others?
History shows that too many people had no sense of empathy. Doing unto others as one pleased seems to be the norm, even among some today.
Certainly people have the capacity to use reason to determine the Golden Rule is a good idea, but too many choose to ignore reason and then the only way to get their attention is to scare them. Isn't that better than government coercion?

A losing strategy
Here's what Gallup found out about Rush's popularity with the American public, this past Jan. 30-Feb. 1:

They polled 1,027 Americans, of whom 289 self-identified as Republicans, 346 as independents and 376 as Democrats. And of those 1,027 people, the following opinions were reported:

325 approved of Rush;
532 didn't like his message;
and 154 either had no opinion, were unwilling to state any opinion, or hadn't heard of him.

This shows that a surprising number among us actually approve of the man and his ideas. But it also shows that the current Republican strategy of moving toward the rear of the party (that is, toward Rush) is very strongly self defeating. Because the closer they come to their goal, the more likely it is that three out of five voters will be going against them, as opposed to two of five voting with them.

Check my numbers. You'll want your calculator. I think you'll be forced to come to agreement with me that the Rush Republicans are exactly as unpopular as Congress is now.

I remember it very differently
The Y2K problem was not a plot to get everyone to buy more tech services. Nor was it a malign virus sent out to spew destruction. Instead Y2K was a widely publicised computer glitch that discredited the info services industry immensely, and did great harm to their credibility.

You don't remember any of that? When it was over, people no longer thought of computers as being the great new wave of the future. They thought of them as being invented by the same dumb people as the ones that bring us government, banking and other almost-great ideas.

Y2K was a monstrously expensive fix necessitated by poor planning. And we were able to get opurselves out of it.. but only by spending a lot of time, trouble and money on the fix.

As much as any other factor, I think Y2K brought about the collapse of the tech sector as being worthy of investment.

For once we agree
And it doesn't happen all that often.. so I'm going to make a very big deal out of it.

"You don't need god to be good."

Human history has always been a contest between the forces of aggression and the forces of cooperation. When cooperative forces are ahead, people work together to create more stuff and destroy less. The net result is that we are all richer. By forging win-win situations instead of games where one side takes the other side's stuff.. and then has to protect themselves against the vengeance of the losing side.

Had there never been wars, we'd have everything that has ever been built over the past ten thousand years of civilization. We'd all live like kings and be immensely wealthy.

As it is, very nearly all the stuff we've ever built has been destroyed by powerful forces designed to inflict pain on those we think of as our enemies.

How would I sum all this up? Being "good" (that is, working toward the mutual benefit of all) and teaching others how they can be good too, is a rational decision that any thinking person should be able to arrive at. It makes life better for me, for others I know and value, for our nation and for people we've never even met, living on the other side of the world.

So what's the need to put God into the discussion? Persons with brains are sufficient to figure all this out.

Additionally, doesn't God tell millions of Muslims worldwide to hate Christians and Jews, tell millions of Christians to hate Muslims and cause all sorts of other harm based on ignorance and fear? I think he does when ignorant people take what they think of him seriously.

McCain did better when Palin was added to the ticket.
Why vote for a 'moderate' Republican? How is he any different than BHO claimed to be?

BTW, there are many conservative democrats, I don't know why they claim to be democrats, but they don't approve of BHO's socialization and I suspect they would support economically conservatives if any party.

And Rush is an economic conservative.

Suggestion and a question
"Certainly people have the capacity to use reason to determine the Golden Rule is a good idea, but too many choose to ignore reason and then the only way to get their attention is to scare them. Isn't that better than government coercion?"

Maybe. But let's put that another way.

Since we do know that most people aren't very rational, and that they can be convinced to do and to believe in crazy things through fear and ignorance.. which is better? To just let them do whatever they want to, even if it's to conduct pogroms against people they think are evil? Or to have some form of governmental control against understandable but deplorable human behavior.

Put more simply, should everything be legal? Is it a good approach just to trust in the good intentions of everyone out there?

Tools of power: religion and the state
Only recently have the two been legally separated.

However, it seems the baby was thrown out with the bathwater. The moral principles underlying Christianity have been rationalized away which has led to the return of state sanctioned murder of 'undesirables' like babies.

BTW, maybe you should study a bit of religion before you make claims about what God has told his followers to do. Something you admit you haven't studied much.

What happens when government lies?
Governments have lied to control people and they have a gun to back them up. Religion has no such force.

You are being lied to now and the state is using your fear and ignorance to advance their cause for more control.

"Americans want more government in their lives, not less"
"Is conservatism over?

Well, of course it is. Everyone from James Carville to Colin Powell says so. "The Republican Party is in deep trouble," Gen. Powell told some group willing to pay him serious money to deliver this kind of incisive insight. "Americans do want to pay taxes for services. Americans want more government in their lives, not less.""
"Whether or not they want it, they're certainly going to get it. And, if you like big government now, just think how big it'll be once both parties are fully signed up to the concept."

"But, when the going gets tough, you don't, as Gen. Powell advises, "move toward the center." You move the center toward you, as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher did. It's harder to do it that way, but if it's a choice between more government and more taxes, or more liberty and more opportunity, I'll stick with the latter, and so should the Republican Party – however difficult it is. Unlike Colin Powell, conservatism does do mountains."

That's why you want 'moderate' Republicans who will expand government?

A world all his own
Here's a real pair of documents for you. The first is McClatchy's recent poll, in which it is shown that Obama is twice as popular as Rush with the American public:

"The deepening recession is taking a slight toll on President Barack Obama's standing, but he's still twice as popular as archnemesis Rush Limbaugh, according to a new McClatchy-Ipsos poll.

"The survey found that 65 percent of Americans approve of the way Obama is doing his job roughly 50 days into his presidency. That was down slightly from 69 percent a month ago.

"At the same time, 29 percent disapprove of Obama's performance, a small increase from 26 percent a month ago. The poll of 1,070 adults taken last Thursday through Monday has an error margin of plus or minus 3 percentage points.

"Still, the president's numbers remain high, roughly twice as high as his predecessor's in his final year in office and more than twice as high as those for Limbaugh, the right-wing radio talk-show host.

"The poll found 30 percent of Americans with favorable opinions of Limbaugh, and 46 percent with unfavorable opinions. A solid 33 percent of all Americans have "very unfavorable" opinions of the talk show host."

And the second is Rush's interpretation of that poll.. aptly entitled "McClatchy Poll: El Rushbo is One of the Most Popular People in the Country". Even with a 63%! share saying either that they don't like him or they can't stand him, the man is irrepressible.

It's a classic. Read it in its entirety.

BTW, "You support BHO and want Republicans to fail."

That wasn't my point. My point was the actual numbers show that the MORE Rush style Republicanism becomes popular with his base, the MORE the Rs will be consistently losing national elections. The polling evidence clearly shows that.

The reason is that you folks are a splinter group on the body politic. You can never persuade the majority to take you seriously until you move toward the center.

Likewise if the Democrats were to stay at the progressive extreme, they'd do themselves out of office. America likes the tepid center. And Obama is it. He's twice as popular as your guy with the people who count: voters.

Killing the not-yet born vs killing infidels
"The moral principles underlying Christianity have been rationalized away which has led to the return of state sanctioned murder of 'undesirables' like babies."

Here's one thing I've never been able to figure out. You claim to be a libertarian. Yet you would take away from a pregnant woman her decision to terminate her pregnancy, and give that decision to the State.

On what grounds? The State knows better and should hold the power?

2. "BTW, maybe you should study a bit of religion before you make claims about what God has told his followers to do. Something you admit you haven't studied much."

All you have to do is read the headlines. You know as well as I do that the Taliban kill people because they disapprove of their religion.. and those people are mostly just other, less extreme Muslims.

You also know, or should know, that many US soldiers are convinced that they are on jihad, to kill the unbelievers. Their helmets and armored vehicles go to battle with religious slogans on them, denigrating Islam and showing the Cross.

That's God telling them what to do. Or at least they think it is.

Count your blessings
Actually my question (which you're avoiding) was this:

"Put more simply, should everything be legal? Is it a good approach just to trust in the good intentions of everyone out there?"

But no matter. I don't expect an answer, since you don't have one. So I will answer YOUR questions instead.

1. "Governments have lied to control people and they have a gun to back them up. Religion has no such force."

Religions don't use guns. Now tell me: do they lie to control people?

My observation has been that of course they do. From the moment Christianity became the Roman state religion it was used to control the thinking of the masses. If you disagree, support your thesis.

2. "You are being lied to now and the state is using your fear and ignorance to advance their cause for more control."

Sure enough.. I don't dispute it. But here's the difference:

The Bush Administration lied to us to get us to invade Iraq, and to destroy that nation on the basis that it was Evil while we were Good. When in reality we were told to go there because it made certain people a lot of money.

The Obama Administration, on the other hand, just lies to us so we'll bail out a certain lobbying group, composed of the super-rich (investment bankers) at the expense of the public. Really bad.. but not nearly so bad as the other guys.

The miracle and the blessing of Democracy is that we actually get to choose between those evils. I'm very thankful that we still have that system in our country.

BHOs true colors, Soviet red.
As BHO continues to show his true colors, socialist red, his poll numbers will drop, unless, of course, he continues with is voter fraud scheme with ACORN and can register illegal aliens to vote with him.

When the majority lives of the tit of government, they will continue to vote the government in until they are bankrupt because the productive people will move away.

So maybe you should be more concerned about BHOs socialist power grab and what his real plans are instead of worrying about Republicans.

What does 'should everything be legal' mean?
What is everything?

And the lie you continue to support is AGW.

Iraq was not a lie. Read the declaration Congress voted for.
Where was the lie?

And if it was such a big lie, why hasn't BHO and the democrats withdrawn all US forced immediately from Iraq and Afghanistan?

Liberty requires responsbility and opposition to violence, except for defense.
Mothers are responsible their babies and killing their babies is a premeditated violent act.

"Rush's Big Apple listenership is now estimated at 693,000."
" In the second-largest market, Los Angeles, KFI-AM has surged into the number one position (all listeners 12 and older) from 9am to noon, with 618,000 listeners, a 4.6 to 6.0 audience share increase over three months and an even bigger males 35-64 (4.6 to 6.3) move, to take first place there as well.

? Chicago, saw another huge move, with Rush affiliate WLS also taking first place during his timeslot (12 and older), from 5.2 share to 6.9 and a total local listenership of 396,700 in the third-largest market.

? In Dallas - Fort Worth, 4.8 to 6.4 men 35-64 and fourth overall (12+), 3.5 to 4.5. Cumulative audience: 250,000.

? Houston's results were truly blockbuster: 6.0 to 9.8 overall, ranking number one with a bullet and audience of 382,300. Men 35-64: number one again, from 8.6 to 12.2 over three months. Adults 25-54: first place, 4.6 to 8.7. Women 25-54: 3.7 to 8.3 again good for a top ranking.

? DC's WMAL also saw Rush-related growth: 4.1 to 6.7, good for third overall and an audience of 155,300. Men 35-64: number one with a staggering 6.4 to 13.4 move.

Maloney wondered: “Given this blockbuster data, will the White House think twice before targeting Rush again?”"

Is it anti PC to say 'tar baby'?

EVADE all you want Colonel; but, you can’t ESCAPE the Third Party IF your goal is a “society of Men”
that’s for the most part PEACEFUL most of the time.

And you can’t escape the NEED for an Institution with the responsibility of DETERMINING the “Rightness” (or “Wrongness”) of different acts of violence that MAY occur in “society”, with MONOPOLY on RETALIATORY use of (PRE-MEDIATED) force – deadly if necessary – on the perps of “Wrong” acts of violence.

And “anarchy” is NOT such an Institution.

Thats one interpretation, here's another
Those numbers reinforce my understanding that about 20% of the population is in the "whacko right wing" category. Like you marjon, and Zyndryl, and Superheater, and etc. of several folks who wander in this space.

If I took the poll I would answer in the 2%, moderate category. Surely the aforementioned people would not place me in that category from your/their perspective. Eh?

Think of it this way too. What would Colin Powell answer? John McCain? Susan Collins? Arlen Specter? Chuck Hagel? Linsey Grams? Lincoln Chafee? Jim Leach?

I dare say, they would all probably consider themselves somewhat conservative, yet they are/were all Republicans of which that 20% whacko group constantly excoriates and ridicules and belittles as traitors. Right?

Certainly Rush doesn't consider them upstanding conservatives. Que lastima, you can't have it both ways. You can't constantly whine about and attack that 40% as traitors, but then try to bring them into your fold to make a point.

But indeed, your attempt illustrates one small reason you're in the whacko 20%, because you do think you can have it both ways, and your oblivious to your own ridiculousness. Its no wonder you see yourself as a victim, you're outnumbered 2 to 1 in the battle for control of the conservative/Republican ship. It seems those moderate conservative representatives do represent and reflect the Republican populace more than the extreme conservatives. I didn't even mention the conservative Democrats! Do you better understand now why your views are becoming more and more irrelevant? Yes, don't change at all, do what Rush says.

Wow. Do you expect to be taken seriously?
You shouldn't give up marjon, but this post is a huge step backward, even for you. Is desperation a color? God forbid you look in a mirror.

An interesting charge - I assume you can provide pictures
"many US soldiers are convinced that they are on jihad, to kill the unbelievers. Their helmets and armored vehicles go to battle with religious slogans on them, denigrating Islam and showing the Cross."

As it turns out, I wish it were so; but we have fought this war as anything but a crusade.

One item stands out. Despite the fact that we are in a war with Islam we and the rest of the West foolishly still permit entry to fifth columnist Muslims. It might please you to know that I blame George W. Bush for this. Beginning with his permitting the return of the Bin Laden family to Saudi Arabia before adequate interrogation he played this all wrong in my opinion.

The evidence is in plain view.

Why do you care?
You support BHO. Why do you want opposition?

Plenty of moderate democrats to do the job.
"In a 60-40 Democratic Senate, the influence of the DLC’s heirs is going to be profound. Specter, the newest Democratic moderate, opposes the union-backed Employee Free Choice Act, while Ben Nelson has expressed disapproval of Obama’s cap-and-trade energy plan. They are reluctant to buck the wishes of business and raise taxes on the middle class."

Why should conservatives join with them?

Gangster government
"The Obama plan to save Chrysler would have sold Chrysler's most valuable assets into a new company co-owned by the U. S. and Canadian governments, Fiat and the United Auto Workers (UAW) -- with the UAW getting the biggest piece, 55%.

The trouble was: those assets belonged to somebody else. They belonged to the company's bondholders, who had a legal first claim. Under the administration's plan, those senior-secured creditors would have received just 29¢ on the dollar."
"But what happened to the non-TARP bondholders was even worse. When they squawked, the administration tried to muscle them. Lawyers for the bondholders contend that senior representatives of the Obama administration threatened them. Michael Barone, the ultra-knowledgeable (and normally unflappable) editor of the Almanac of American Politics called it "gangster government." BHO is from Chicago

"In barely four months, Barack Obama has nudged the United States toward a future in which government will be bigger and more assertive -- where taxes will be higher and government unions more powerful -- where legal rights are less secure and contracts more uncertain.

In California, he is pushing a state toward the fiscal edge in order to favour a union ally. At Chrysler, he has put at risk the security of every contract in the country to please another union."

TCS Daily Archives