There are several different flavors of The Rapture. One is pre-Tribulation. One is mid-Tribulation. One is post-Tribulation. For most Rapture believers, the idea is to escape the wars, plagues and other torments of the Tribulation via the Rapture.

In order for the Rapture to occur, there must be a state of Israel. There is currently a state of Israel. For a specific group of Rapture believers, the Rapture is expected to occur one-half of the way through the Tribulation, a seven year period. That equals forty-two months. For these believers the Rapture is imminent, contingent on the destruction of Israel. In other words, the Tribulation will begin with the destruction of Israel, and the death of two-thirds of its Jewish inhabitants. Forty-two months later, the Rapture will occur.

"And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith Jehovah, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein. And I will bring the third part into the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried" (Zechariah 13:8, 9). According to Zechariah’s prophecy, two thirds of the children of Israel in the land will perish, but the one third that are left will be refined and be awaiting the deliverance of God at the second coming of Christ which is described in the next chapter of Zechariah. [John F. Walvoord, Israel in Prophecy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, [1962] 1988), p. 108.

So, for those who believe in the imminent Rapture, it will first be necessary to have a state of Israel (that part is done) and then to see it destroyed (that part is still being worked on). Otherwise, the Rapture is no longer imminent and could take thousands more years to occur.

If my memory serves me, I believe that, at one point, Pat Robertson had set the start date at 2012. I'm also thinking that he floated the idea that it will begin with a tactical nuclear exchange that will quickly escalate into a global holocaust.

I always felt that the greatest mistake we in "Blue" America have committed was in perceiving the Bush Regime and its various extreme backers and Al Qaeda as separate entities.

I have always viewed them, not as separate entities or as the same entity, but as a very good example of symbiosis. They need each other. Without their symbiotic relationship, neither of them could ever have survived this long.

For the most part, the focus on what single mis-step or mis-statement a candidate does or does not commit in a campaign is almost beside the point. Media organizations do pick sides. And so do journos and pundits. Bill O'Reilly takes one side. Keith Olbermann takes another. I happen to think Olbermann is much closer to the truth than O'Reilly, but that's only because Olbermann tells the truth and O'Reilly lies to suit his conscience.

Chris Matthews also has a side. So does Joe Klein. So do most of the other media pundits you cover.

The problem occurs when a person deliberately claims that they represent the central point in the bell curve of a belief or opinion when they do not. That is the real lie. To establish oneself as representative of the normative, majority position when one is anything but. That is what creates confidence and cohesion on the side that benefits and frustration on the side that does not.

This claim to normative behavior is what the media uses to attack those candidates that threaten them and to support those candidates that reward them.

Howard Dean's "yelp" was a weakness manufactured by the media. So was Edwards' "haircut" and Hilary's "cleavage" and now Obama's "lack" of foreign policy experience. If they chose, the media could use Fred Thompson's cigar against him, or his young wife or his own lack of foreign policy experience. They could use Giuliani's "baldness" or Tancredo's taste in suit ties. In fact, they could manufacture anything they wanted out of thin air. And they do.

These are not real mistakes or failings. They are nothing more than perceived ways and means to attack one candidate and reward another. They are propaganda.

The word "propaganda" needs to be returned to its place in political discourse. People need to be able to differentiate between propaganda and facts. That way, they can discard the propaganda and focus on the facts.

With all of the tragedy of Iraq, all of the hubris and criminal behavior of this administration and all of the blatant stupidity and propaganda of the MSM, there is a silver lining for the populist and Enlightenment liberals in our society.

All of my adult life I have heard the term "liberal elite" spewed from the lips of conservatives as if no greater insult was possible. I have seen science, philosophy, literature, art and even the fundamental political concept of diplomacy denigrated and treated as something decadent, irreligious and effete. Somewhere along the line, fundamental Enlightenment principles such as empiricism, humanitarianism, secularism and an axiomatic belief that all individuals share a universal human character and enjoy the same universal rights became indicative, not of the what was best in our society, but of what was most dangerous.

Now we have come to a place where the majority of the power and the wealth in this country has come under the control of those same conservative elements. Rather than treat that power and wealth as a responsibility and a privilege, they have used it to virtually destroy everything that is civilized in this society.

Never again should any "liberal elite" feel the need to justify his or her ideas, values and behavior to any conservative. If any group of people is going to provide the leadership and creativity necessary to lead this country out of the immeasurable disaster the conservatives have created in such a short period of time, it will be the liberal elites.