Why no leftist theories? Because there aren't any. Peak oil and global warming aren't about the end of the world--just about massive changes.

On the other hand, religious bozos (almost always right-wing) desperately want the end of the world because they understand on some level what giant losers they are. Everything coming to an end is the only win they have.

And--have you considered that the world has already ended, and you just aren't aware of it?

How many times have I heard Global Warming associated with the end of civilization, mass extinction, etc even from the scientist actually studying the phenomena.

I dunno, you can always find some nut to say anything. You might want to look at who you're hanging out with.

"The end of civilization?" Tough, rocky times ahead have been predicted, and unless technology comes through in a big way (in particular, some way of storing energy and transmitting it in a virtually lossless fashion), we'll see more wars (we've already seen two) over energy. But the end of civilization? Haven't heard much about that from the left. But, as I say, you can always find a nutter or two.

"Mass extinction?" Of humanity? Again, we'll some die-off, especially in third world countries (bye bye Bangladesh). If the wars get bad, we'll see some big die-offs in the West as well--probably the USA (who would you target if your family had died due to global warming?). Mass extinction of species? Already happening: follow the news. Rocky times, again, but mass extinctions don't mean the end of the world.

And "etc."? An easy thing to write, but, in this context, I dunno what "etc." means. Enlighten us, eh?

Not because he's "right," but because he's coming at the subject from the same angle of attack as, say, Christian or Islamic fundamentalists. Beck is actually attacking modernism itself--the culture of anonymity, the culture of consumption, the culture of ultra-violence (both real and pretend), the culture that focuses on the individual ego because all other tie have been cut.

Capitalism, of course, is part of that culture. Glen would indeed find that many of his fellow travelers would argue against capitalism--it's capitalism, after all, that celebrates mindless hedonism in its marketing.

Modernism brings a whole host of problems. It doesn't alleviate the fact that, as a species, we have a tendency to make pyramids out of the heads of our enemies--but on the other hand, it doesn't cause it, either.

...in order to "save" it.

And--leftist military coups? Care to name some? As versus, say, Argentina, Peru, Honduras, El Salvador, Spain....?

Yep, lots of leftists in the military, say the Right. Except when there's not.

When there was still brush to clear in Crawford?

Oh, sorry, wrong president. But you know, with two wars and a declining economy, you'd think he would have paid somebody to clear all that brush.

Actually, I think we were far better off with Bush clearing bush in Crawford. That meant he couldn't degrade the country and destroy the Constitution so easily. With more time on his hand, we could have easily gone over into Fascism. Sorry: gone over more into Fascism.

Why do conservatives hate America? Well, if you were a fascist, wouldn't you hate someplace that epitomized the triumph of truth, law, democracy, and justice? I mean, it's an easy answer. Conservatives are happy Rio got the nod: it's just their kind of place. Murder squads hunt the poor. The rich live in militarily-protected high security. It's the kind of place that Cheney loves....and the rest of the traitors of the GOP.

Proud but not arrogant in defeat.

Oh, the conservatives are just going to hate him even more for this.

Because a lack of class is one of the signal characteristics of the American whacko conservative; which, I know, is wholly redundant.

Do you doubt that there are legitimate reasons to criticize some of his policies?

Of course there are. There's a reasoned debate to be held about a number of issues in this country--health care, for example, or big-company bailouts (begun, however, we should note, by a Republican conservative president).

If the Right were engaged in reasoned debate, they would, for the most part, be met reasonably. There are always a few angry people on the fringes of reasonable debate who will try to disrupt the proceedings, of course.

But, for the most part--for the vast part--the Right isn't engaging in reasonable debate. (And I would argue that it's for a number of reasons--such as it's hard to find reasonable positions on the Right against some things, like single-payer health care). Instead, they're engaging in the equivalent of tossing feces--contentless opposition--calling Obama a fascist and a socialist (both of them essentially semantically free terms at this point), comparing the first black president to a monkey, trying to argue his legitimacy as president--these are not reasonable approaches to argument. They not only look desperate (indeed, they are desperate), they look racist.

So bring on reasonable debate. I wish I could say everyone on the Left would respond reasonably; but so far I have seen virtually no one on the Right argue with reason rather than hate, racism, and utter fury.

Yep, I know I'm going to turn to talk-show hosts and celebrities for my medical advice. They don't make any money off of it, like those terrible MDs and drug companies. And they're just so damn smart, too!