Oh, and I went back a few months later and took the middle trail (can't recall the name of that trail, but it's the one on the east side of the big cliff). It was a muggy fall day, very hazy and far warmer than it should have been, which accounts for the poor contrast in these:

http://uppershelf.com/images/Autumn1.jpg

http://uppershelf.com/images/Autumn2.jpg

I thought I'd have the mountain all to my self since it was a weekday long past tourist season, but I met some nice folks on the summit who were in Maine on a hiking vacation. They were from California and had previously only hiked in the Sierra Nevadas and Rockies. They were, they told me, shocked at how awesome the mountains in Maine were.

Entertaining metaphor. But just as your friend probably enjoyed climbing that hill next to that parking lot (it just whetted his appetite for balance of climb), some people actually relish reading (and even writing) political tripe. Some even find other countries' political tripe worth diving into if their own country doesn't provide enough tripe for their tastes. Maybe when you start following elections in places like Kenya, it may be time to start wondering about yourself, but I don't feel all that embarrassed about being political junkie. Lead-ups to big elections seem like lead-ups to Stanley Cup, Super Bowl, or World Series to me. Each to his own taste.

Have I mentioned I hate sports, too?

But, don't let that stop anyone from following the political process...it won't stop me.  I just don't have any faith in it.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

A few years ago I went up to Weld to do the Chimney Trail on Tumbledown, only to find that the chimney was inaccessible due to a cave-in. I mean, I found out once I had reached the chimney.

That's hilarious. Check this out:

http://www.officialfred08store.com/eshop/10Expand.asp?ProductCode=FTIO-1

The funniest thing about that golf ball (and perhaps the baby garment, too, it's harder to tell) is that it's pretty obviously a Thompson logo photoshopped on a plain ball. It's like the people who are selling these things don't want to be stuck with a big inventory.

"George Bush defeated a much more intelligent candidate"

Kerry is actually slightly dumber than Bush. That's why Kerry's campaign was so bad.

"people aren't all that emotionally angry about Mexicans going to college"

Ordinary people are tired of picking up the tab for immigrants in so politicians can engage in displays of non-racism.

Kerry is actually slightly dumber than Bush. That's why Kerry's campaign was so bad.

I'd liken Kerry to the Jim Mora, Sr. of big-time politics.  Remember, Jim Mora had a great early career--serviceable college player, US marine, young coach talent, two time USFL champion!   Then Mr. Mora entered the NFL, and although he blessed us with many wonderful press conferences and glorious near-misses,  he never achieved his place in the champions' circle.  Looking back on his career, Mora responded to his shortcomings philosophically, in a way that also-rans such as Senator Kerry surely have thought to themselves at some point:  "You don't know. You just don't know. You may think you know, but you don't know. And you never will."

As for who "picks up the tab" for someone forking over a few grand to the state college, I'm not sure who you are referring to.  Out-of-state tuition fees are totally a sham.

My recollection is hazy, but wasn't Mora driven to "diddley poo" after losing to fairly high quality oponents?

I know we disagree on what should be done about immigration, but wrong or not I think it's a fact people are motivated on this issue and it's effecting the campaign. Look at how Democrats changed regarding drivers liceneses.

Didn't you previously say George Bush liked Mexicans so much because he can't speak English or read? Do you figure Kerry can't speak English or read either? Or do you put so much stock in IQ scores when these people went to college that you don't hesitate to call Kerry "slightly dumber than Bush"? That would explain why you take studies of black IQ scores so seriously, and also why you shouldn't.

So does Huckabee hate white people? Will you trust him enough to vote for him anyway?

Do you have any evidence Kerry isn't slightly dumber than Bush? He was unable to provide any in his inept campaign loss.

"That would explain why you take studies of black IQ scores so seriously"

I take them seriously because they fit with observed reality.

 

"I take them seriously because they fit with observed reality."

Like your "observed reality" that Bush can't speak English and doesn't read but still has higher IQ than Kerry, who obviously can speak English and does read?

Yes, Bush has a slightly higher IQ than Kerry, and does slightly less than Kerry with it. This is only a cunundrum in your head.

Right, so you could have higher IQ than some black or Latin person but he might do more with his than you do with yours?

Ordinary people are tired of picking up the tab for immigrants in so politicians can engage in displays of non-racism.

I went to a private school so this is not an issue (or is it, with federally subsidized loans and all of that?) but something that kind of gets me. I got the latest version of my alumni newsletter and it included a picture of the class of 2011. What was the first thing the caption said about the future leaders of America?

The class is the largest and most diverse in our history with about 700 new students, nearly 14 percent of whom are students of color...

Is it just me, or is that ridiculous? If they want me to donate cash/IRAs/401ks/'remember them in my will' to my alma mater they have to make the case they will do something useful with the money. I want to see something that makes me proud of this group, such as 'Highest grade 9-12 overall average GPA of any incoming class! Best SAT scores!' Hell, even '17% easier on the eyes than the previous 5 classes' would have been better than subtly implying they let people in based on outward appearance.

I wish people in this country could put race behind them and abolish these stupid quota systems. Let the best people for each job or position get it and stop worrying about color.

Spread it on!

make the case they will do something useful with the money.

I guess helping to improve the lot of classes of people who have historically been disadvantaged is not useful?  

There are plenty of reasons for affirmative action policies, and this discussion has been had a hundred and one times at every discussion site on the internet, so I won't bother to reiterate, other than to point you to the relevant wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirmative_action#Justifications

One additional justification for affirmative action that they do not mention on wikipedia, is that it helps to provide role-models for the next generation, so that at some point we can do away with affirmative action.

Yes of course in the short and near term it would be better to just give the job/position to the most qualified applicant.  In the long term it is better to get everyone involved in the economy as much as possible, and to reduce the drag on our society that poor undereducated people represent.

And yes, poor and undereducated != 'person of color', but at this point in time it's the simplest way to run the system, maybe in the near future affirmative action should be based upon class instead of or in addition to race, but for now it's better than nothing.

I guess helping to improve the lot of classes of people who have historically been disadvantaged is not useful?  

Hiring or admitting somebody who is less competent because of their color or just because their ancestors/relatives were disadvantaged is a horrible way to do business. It cheats the company (in cases of public employees, the taxpayers) out of the full value the better employee would have brought. In addition, it is fundamentally unfair to the person who likely put significant effort into qualifying themselves for that position to be denied over something they had no control over. Jobs, promotions, or seats in public universities should always go to the most qualified, not those with the most sympathetic stories.

One additional justification for affirmative action that they do not mention on wikipedia, is that it helps to provide role-models for the next generation, so that at some point we can do away with affirmative action.

I disagree with this assertion. What use is a role model for the next generation if it can be implied that the only way they came about their success was due to their race/color/background? Isn't Affirmative Action rather an insult, suggesting that the only way some people can rise out of poverty is to be held to  a lower standard or be given charity?

Spread it on!

Let's say I believe that Catholics, Mormons, and neo-cons cannot be distinguished from international businessmen and only care about global profits. Iraq hasn't been good for global profits. Economic mismanagement and sky-high deficits at home haven't been good for global profits. Killing value of US currency hasn't been good for global profits. Alienating all of US' most dependable allies so that US could take up with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan hasn't been good for global profits. Why do you think Democrats have collected 70% more money than Republicans so far this campaign season? Why do you think hedge funds have been giving to Democrats at 5 to 1 pace over Republicans? Why do you think Rupert Murdoch now raises money for Hillary Clinton? Why do you think Richard Mellon Scaife now antes to Clinton Foundation? Why do you think Drudge can barely restrain his support for Hillary Clinton?

But Catholics, Mormons, and neo-cons really can be distinguished from global bourgeois, which explains why in 2005, 43% of Americans claimed allegiance to Republicans and 43% claimed allegiance to Democrats while now 35% claim allegiance to Republicans and 50% claim allegiance to Democrats. Republicans have already begun process of alienating substantial portion of their own previous base, but they haven't see anything yet. What 7% have swung from one side to another? Suburban northern former-Republicans.

Democrats controlled Congress from 1980 to 1994 in same way that Democrats control Congress today: in numbers but not in fact. Reagan and Bush did as they pleased, and were barely restrained by Congress  just like now. If Carter hadn't screwed up so overwhelmingly, liberal Democrats would probably have held Presidency through most of 1980s, but instead conservatives (whether they called themselves Republicans or Dixiecrats) controlled all branches of government, packing Supreme Court with crypto-fascists, thereby assuring themselves of faux-victory in 2000 presidential election even after Clinton appointed Ginsburg and Breyer.

If you live in Australia or Canada, Bush years were same as Clinton years. Otherwise, you either kid us or kid yourself. US economy was never as good as during Clinton years, even during 1950s and 1960s. Remember longest economic expansion in US history? Remember huge rise in stock market? Remember tech boom? Remember housing boom? Remember substantial rise in incomes for poor people? Remember balanced budgets, after years of record deficits? Remember Greenspan's opinion that Clinton was best economic president he served under? I guess not. Reagan and Bush years were continuation of 1970s, with high inflation, huge bank bailouts, off-and-on recessions, and so on, while years under latest Bush drove down living standards for most poor people, added to people below poverty line every year, killed currency, killed housing market, killed tech boom,  created credit crisis, and only raised stock markets after Fed started printing increasingly worthless money. "Steady" economy damns with faint praise.

"Who will they have to make excuses to?" Their former base. People who can't listen to patent nonsense and cry "Hallelujah!" This time, only class of people who will be voting for Huckabee will be stupid rural and southern fundamentalists. I doubt Catholics will be amused by his visits to openly Catholic-hating churches where he preached sermons during his primary campaign, and I doubt Mormons will be amused by his open contempt for their religion. Maybe neo-cons will embrace him because they have no choice, but if Hillary Clinton wins Democratic nomination she may look better to some of them than "bunker mentality" Huckabee.

If you like Huckabee's odds against Hillary Clinton, you can still put your money down in London and get great odds. But perhaps prospect of Bloomberg/Hagel puts you off, since that would nail Republican coffin shut, just like in 1992.    

Consider these links when you tell yourself about "global profits":

"Huckabee's rise drives wedge between Wall Street, Evangelicals": "The Wall Street Journal editorial page has repeatedly attacked Huckabee in recent weeks, and the National Review magazine warned Republicans against committing "Huckacide.''

"Shake, rattle and roil the grand ol' coalition": "He has criticized executive pay, sympathized with labor unions, denounced 'plutocracy,' and mocked the antitax group the Club for Growth as 'the Club for Greed.' ... 'It's gone,' said Ed Rollins, who once worked as President Reagan's political director and recently became Mr. Huckabee's national campaign chairman. 'The breakup of what was the Reagan coalition -- social conservatives, defense conservatives, antitax conservatives -- it doesn't mean a whole lot to people anymore. It is a time for a whole new coalition -- that is the key..."

"Huckabee's choice: populist or fiscal conservative?": "In one memorable riff at the Reagan Library early this year, Huckabee called it 'criminal' for corporate CEOs to take fat bonuses while shipping the jobs of ordinary workers overseas, adding 'If Republicans don't stop it, we don't deserve to win in 2008.'"

...but do you think that out of this group, there is a more sincere candidate?

Perhaps there is no candidate who is more sincere than Kucinich, but I don't think sincerity is a virtue when it is coupled with bad policies. President Bush is a sincere man, I think, and look where his convictions have gotten us.

Please mock Ron Paul. I oppose Iraq War but find much of Paul's platform and stated beliefs anathema. But calling him "too clever", as if he calculates his statements for political advantage, ignores his unpopularity among Republicans and how he earned it.

Paul/Kucinich or Kucinich/Paul, anti-Iraq and pro-drug ticket, would make most people wonder about both of them; not wonder as in "receptive" but as in "they must be nuts". They might even be able to scare off each other's base of voters.

Anti-capitalism? You jest again. No genuinely anti-capitalist parties exist in US, including Greens. Social democracy, involving business regulation, doesn't remotely count as anti-capitalist, as you would know if you had ever lived under genuine command economy for week or two.

I agree to some extent that Huckabee would "play ball" on many issues. Republicans don't like immigration? Build walls! Republicans don't like taxes? Abolish income taxation! Republicans want "masculine" foreign policy? Which advisers do I have to hire? But Huckabee won't play ball on core issues of dismantling wall between church and state for sole benefit of fundamentalist Christianity, abortion, gay marriage, and guns. But then he won't have to either.

Not believing politicians makes for easily defended position. Even most believable politicians seem unbelievable when you scratch surface.

"Why didn't he help Kerry pick up any states over Gore/Lieberman?"

Pick one:

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (D-Mass)
Diebold voting machines
Fundamentalist enthusiasm for war and torture
Fundamentalist distrust of Catholic Yankees
Lack of resemblance to Jesus Christ
All of above

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry (D-Mass)

...picked Edwards to help him win certain "battleground" states that ended going Republican, such as Iowa and Florida and Ohio. They didn't.  They didn't even win North Carolina, which Mr. Edwards represented in the Senate at the time of the election.

Diebold voting machines

I am less interested in the 2004 voter fraud allegations, since I scorn the entire Kerry/Edwards operation.

Fundamentalist enthusiasm for war and torture

Kerry and Edwards voted for the war, supported it during the campaign, and didn't disavow until after the election.  As for "torture", I remind you that Senators Kerry and Edwards both served in Senate committees that afforded them the opportunity to view classified material,  and as we have found out, this did include briefings on interrogations.  Most of the "leadership" of the Democratic party are as culpable for the current torture regime's antics as the administration itself is.   Just because Edwards is embarrassed about it now doesn't erase the fact that he was a Senator (and a lawyer) prior to 2004, and if he thought that certain US practices were illegal, he could have spoken up.  

Fundamentalist distrust of Catholic Yankees

I don't recall alot of Fundamentalist opposition to Antonin Scalia or Samuel Alito (New Jersey-born Catholics) being appointed to the Supreme Court.  Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum is a devout Catholic who was quite popular and powerful within the Republican party, despite his election by damned Keystone Yankees.  Sean Hannity (born New York City) has a television and radio show whose ratings don't suffer in the Bible Belt even though he is a papist.

Lack of resemblance to Jesus Christ

Both Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards have nicer hair than Ronald Reagan did, but neither of them are as likable.  

Although I intended response as toss-off, thinking it obvious that Vice President can only help President when President doesn't kill sale himself immediately, and that Edwards was actually intended to help Kerry with rural midwestern voters rather than southerners (Edwards' real failure was not pushing Kerry over top in Ohio, not losing North Carolina), I address your remarks anyway.

Ohio was stolen in 2004, much as Florida was stolen in 2000. Republicans under Bush have believed in playing hardball in manner Democrats played hardball in 1960. Making it next to impossible for hundreds of thousands of urban blacks to vote in Ohio "won" that state for Bush. Now that Democrats control Ohio state government, one can safely assume that state will be stolen for Democrats in 2008, if necessary. It won't be necessary, if polls can be believed; if party takes all those extra booths from central Ohio and Cincinnati area and moves them to Cleveland and Toledo, Republicans don't have any chance, no matter who they nominate. Kerry campaign was extremely disappointing, to be sure (how could Vietnam War hero manage to convince millions of people he wasn't actually hero?), but something more than his incompetence was going on in 2004.

Democratic ambivalence about War and about torture has been damning. At time when over 60% of US people want out, it amazes me that Democrats will neither come out against it or explain why they have doubts about wisdom of rapidly departing. If US wants to stay because it covets Iraqi oil, why won't anyone have nerve to say so? If it stays because Israel and Saudi Arabia want us to stay, why won't anyone say that? If Republicans refuse to tell US people what would constitute "victory", why won't Democrats grab that ball and run with it, telling us what they hope US troops can actually accomplish that would be worth accomplishing? What do they mean when they say Surge "works"? Reducing violence to 2005 levels doesn't really explain where their new strategy takes them in long run. Have Democrats bought into nonsense that al-Qaeda in Iraq threatens US if troops depart? If so, why not just say so?

If Hillary Clinton tries to play this issue as Kerry played it in 2004, she stands real chance of losing this election to Bloomberg-Hagel, who won't have any qualms about playing War issue, and anger about it among liberals and leftists, for all it can get them.

Scalia and Alito were both anti-abortion ultra-conservatives, and every fundamentalist knew it. Santorum was also ultra-conservative. When Catholics sound like fundamentalists, fundamentalists will tolerate them. But Kerry was openly pro-abortion and liberal in every other important way besides War. Huge difference.

My last line actually meant that Edwards would have had to be Jesus to overcome Kerry's unpopularity in southern states. He wasn't. Reagan was likable in way grandfather with Alzheimer's was likable: when he was accused of breaking law during Iran-Contra scandal, you could really believe he didn't know or remember anything. With Reagan, likable meant pitiable. But US presidents shouldn't be pitiable.

Democratic ambivalence about War and about torture has been damning. At time when over 60% of US people want out, it amazes me that Democrats will neither come out against it or explain why they have doubts about wisdom of rapidly departing. If US wants to stay because it covets Iraqi oil, why won't anyone have nerve to say so? If it stays because Israel and Saudi Arabia want us to stay, why won't anyone say that? If Republicans refuse to tell US people what would constitute "victory", why won't Democrats grab that ball and run with it, telling us what they hope US troops can actually accomplish that would be worth accomplishing? What do they mean when they say Surge "works"? Reducing violence to 2005 levels doesn't really explain where their new strategy takes them in long run. Have Democrats bought into nonsense that al-Qaeda in Iraq threatens US if troops depart? If so, why not just say so?

Brilliant comment. The Democratic party looks like it is being run by people with no vision or common sense. At this point I would wager many recent BAs in political science or history could do a far better job managing the party than what is going on right now.

The two party system has effectively forced people to choose the lesser evil. And that makes me sad.

Spread it on!

When Bloomberg-Hagel get on ballot in 48 or 49 states, possibly with assist from Independence and Reform Parties, and start calling for immediate pullout, justifying it by saying that our very presence causes chaos, Hillary Clinton won't have luxury of playing both sides of street any more. All that "responsible withdrawal" nonsense will either have to get explained or have to be jettisoned, and quickly. Lesser of two evils won't work in 2008, thank goodness.

At time when over 60% of US people want out, it amazes me that Democrats will neither come out against it or explain why they have doubts about wisdom of rapidly departing.

That is the problem with the "Democrats".  They are for the war, and all the stupidity that comes with it--Democrats are generally in favor of enriching themselves and retaining political power.  Edwards doesn't fool me a bit---for all his newfound populist rhetoric, he is still a nice white boy who found his fortune, and can therefore afford to liberalize his politics for electoral gain.  He's a fucking lawyer and a supposed liberal and he voted for the war and all its sideshows knowing that he would run for the US presidency tow years later--if you still support him after his VP run and subsequent Presidential run, you are the one who is hoodwinked. Mr. Edwards commits crimes of opportunity to get elected,  whereas you are committing crimes of intellectual stupidity if you think that his populist message is anything more than an electoral gambit.    

Internationalist wing of Democratic Party favoured this War at first. They thought it was mission of mercy to rid Iraqis of evil dictator. They thought they could make it possible for Iraq to produce large quantities of oil again. They wanted to do something to avenge 9/11, and they were afraid Americans would think that Afghanistan just hadn't been enough. Maybe they even thought that Iraq really had WMDs or would have them soon.

It turned out that ridding Iraq of evil dictator was first step in disintegration of country. It turned out that without unified government and in face of serious resistance, oil wasn't ever going to flow at 1979 levels. It turned out that they hadn't really won in Afghanistan yet, just waded into swamp, and that Iraq was even bigger swamp than Afghanistan. Because "libertarian" wing of Democratic Party, composed of committed isolationists, felt violated by War and angry at those who had authorised it, those internationalists like Edwards who came to realise that War was big mistake for strategic and tactical reasons couldn't just acknowledge why they had voted for War to begin with and had to pretend they had been suckered into it by wicked president and his minions.

Better US should be led by internationalist with some sense of reality, prepared to change course when his original course doesn't achieve results he hoped for, than internationalist who can never acknowledge mistakes and will continue to butt his head into meat grinder in preference to humiliation of changing course. Since I empathise with "libertarian" Democrats, it would be better to support someone you know would reject dubious wars at front end, like Howard Dean or Barack Obama or Dennis Kucinich, than someone like Edwards whose instincts would lead him into battle, even if he would correct his course if that seemed appropriate. But your wrath at internationalist Democrats, which seems more intense than your wrath at Bush Republicans who get painted as evil incarnate and thus beyond reason or logic, seems more extreme than warranted. His "crimes of opportunity" must certainly be preferred to Bush's foreign and domestic incompetence.

As for his populist message, he must realise that his message was as likely to cost him support among bourgeois community as land him Democratic nomination by positioning him as favourite of Democratic left. If that message still looked sensible to him, give him credit for believing in it. Lots of rich people believe in helping poor people.

Finally, I don't get to vote for any of these folks, so please don't make my "support" of anyone more than intellectual exercise. If you hate people who will vote for Edwards, that doesn't include me. Feel better now?

I don't recall alot of Fundamentalist opposition to Antonin Scalia or Samuel Alito

Four words:  Anti-abortion and conservative.  Those two things will trump any Yankee Carpet Bagger vibe.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

remember that nice Mormon family down the street probably has a year's worth of food on hand.

But don't forget that they're probably armed to the frigging teeth too.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

So am I. Who isn't?

I don't own a gun. My ancestors were Quakers.

Spread it on!

Someone should ask Romney about it (I'm serious). Speaking of Mormons and science fiction, not only is the Mormon religion kind of science-fictiony, so are many Mormon names. A sample from that link:

Tchae, Xko, Corx, G'ni, Vvhs, Garn, Ka, Deauxti, Xymoya, Sha'Kira, Zy, Nivek, Zon'tl, Zagg, Xan, Xylan, Tolex, Zylan, Daycal, Falycid, Zerin, Davon, Sydal, Dynevore, Xtlyn.

Are those beliefs part of official Mormon doctrine? I've read part of the book of Moromon, but I really don't know what Mormons believe, or how much of their beliefs they keep secret (I once dated an ex-mormon, and she told me there was a ritual where the priest would annoint the perky breasts of young madiens like herself with oil. I still don't know if this is true or just wishful thinking on her part.)

"I find it is really hard to pin down but almost sickening how some people actually seem to hope for mass calamity to befall civilization."

If you add in apocalyptic Greenies it's obviously a widespread urge. In the past I think people hoped the world would get destroyed because there was so much misery everywhere. Now everything is pretty good, so people hope for it because they are bored.

Mormons really don't pray for world to end. Many empathise with fundamentalists, who really do pray for world to end, and buy into all varieties of fundamentalist wickedness, including loving Jesus metamorphosing into mass-murdering Rambo Jesus, but their religion doesn't push those things. "Be prepared" if things get weird, maybe, but not "rapture". On Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City, they have inscription that something about being world's most important temple until Jews rebuild temple in Jerusalem on Temple Mount, so they certainly don't expect world to end any minute now, like so many US government officials (James Watt famously wondered what point of conservation was when Jesus was coming soon) and those who appoint them or vote for them.

Worst thing about Romney has nothing to do with his religion. He stood for one set of principles as governor of Massachusetts and now stands for exactly opposite set of principles because he wants to be President. What does he really represent? Does he really stand for anything, or will it depend on how he feels when/if he takes office?

Many empathize with fundamentalists, who really do pray for world to end,

I once had a boss who was a hard-core Jehovah's Witness.  During Gulf War I: The Beginning, she was absolutely beside herself with excitement.  "This is it!  This is it!  This will be the beginning of the Rapture".  Think of children on Christmas Eve.

Fast forward - Of course, the war ended but the world didn't.  She went into a month fugue because Jeebus didn't swing down in his chariot to reward the faithful and punish the wicked.  She took days off and considered getting  medication (Scotch?)  I wanted to get her a "Sorry that Jesus didn't visit" sympathy card, but my co-workers said that would be mean.  

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Put knock out drops in whatever she's drinking for lunch.  When she nods off everyone clears the office.  When she comes to, someone on the office PA system say "all ye who art left behind are dooooooomed" in a deep, Godlike voice.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

You're a mean mean man.

I wish I had thought of that.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Witnesses started waiting for world to end before World War One. Their leaders told them that there was only one generation left. 93 years later, it has been somewhat longer than one generation, and yet end still stays out of reach. Fundamentalist Christians have been waiting for end since beginning of 20th century, then thought they were really close when Israel was formed, then thought they were really really close when wars in Iraq began, and yet end still stays out of reach. Some people imagine these people can cause end by supporting insane war policies, but they can't because they have always been deluded, and deluded people don't achieve their goals. Maybe all fundamentalists imagine themselves to be Soran in Star Trek Generations, ready to kill off human race for their chance to go to heaven, but they don't have any of Soran's nifty gadgets (or Hitler's psychotic rage) so they'll never pull it off. They'll get old and die and they'll never rapture, and someday their children will stop believing that world will actually end and get on with business of living.