We Dropped By to Rapture You, But You Were Out

Editor’s Note: We found this note on our door Sunday morning. If you can read this, you weren’t raptured. Glad to have you here with us. Judging by the general absence of empty clothes on the streets of Grass Valley and Nevada City, I’m guessing that being left behind in our community is widespread and non-partisan.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


12 Responses to “We Dropped By to Rapture You, But You Were Out”
  1. RL Crabb says:

    I guess I didn’t float because, technically, a Crabb is an animal. At least my wife thinks so.

  2. depelton says:

    Thanks RL. If you don’t mind a comment from an extremist (I saw your note about my extreme views on Rebane’s Ruminant blog, where I know that kind of comment plays really well) there seems to be a good business opportunity for Left-Behinders to take care of the pets of those who will be snatched up when the true Rapture finally occurs.

    Not that I’m implying that, as a Crabb, you’re anyone’s pet. You’re far too independent for that. I’m just saying that, like all pets and like all the rest of us who have been left behind, you are in what I would consider good — if extreme — company.

  3. Anna Haynes says:

    Sorry if I blasted your eardrums just now…but I was being a slow reader, & just now got to “Scientist”.

  4. Anna Haynes says:

    A link, Pelton, please. I need evidence.
    (since when I met RL at the Meckler-McClintock shindig, he looked level-headed)

  5. depelton says:


    Here’s the permalink to RL’s comment in Rebane’s Ruminant blog:


    But I wouldn’t suggest taking it too seriously.

    I’m not.

  6. depelton says:


    Another good reason to not take RL’s comment too seriously is that it has now — from what I can tell — mysteriously and entirely disappeared from Rebane’s Ruminant blog, so it must have been a bit more ephemeral than I realized.

    But don’t imagine that I made up that extended comment link in all its numerical complexity.

    The general import of his comment was that most people are just trying to survive by going to work everyday and doing their best, and not getting too involved with the extremes, and I agree with him about that.

    And I also agree with you that RL is a level-headed man (and in my view a gentle and fair-minded man … Hear that, RL?).

  7. Anna Haynes says:

    A note on independence: one who always takes care to position others to both (all?) sides of oneself is not being independent.
    (not sure it’s apropos here, but IMO it is true)

  8. depelton says:

    On the subject of independents and the “middle,” I like this essay by Dave Johnson, who argues persuasively that while independents are a significant group (and sought after) they are not necessarily “in the middle” (in terms of political positions) at all! In that sense, the middle doesn’t even exist!

    “Appealing To The “Center” Drives Away Voters”

  9. RL Crabb says:

    Hey Don…don’t know what’s up with the comments section on this thread. It took a few clicks to get connected. Anyway, yeah, I did use you as an example of progressives who consider Obama a moderate republican. I believe when a president from either party actually makes it to the oval office, they find that the only way to get anything done is to move to the middle. (Obamacare is a prime example.) Both progressives and conservatives seem hell-bent on ideological purity, but in a nation as divided as this one is, I don’t think you could govern any other way, without open revolt. Politics, like football, is mostly a game of inches.

  10. Don Pelton says:

    Hi Bob. Thanks for your comment.

    The point of the following article is that it’s usually incorrect to assume that independents represent the middle politically (or policy-wise) Most often, and non-intuitively, independents represent extreme views:

    “Appealing To The “Center” Drives Away Voters”

    So, according to that author, appealing to the policy middle drives independents away.

    Moral: conservatives and progressives both do best in appealing to independents when they stick to their principles, and not compromise them in a futile effort to attract independents.

    Yes, I’m a progressive, but that doesn’t mean — as you suggest — that I’m automatically committed to “ideological purity” (whatever that means).

    Moreover, the entire spectrum has shifted so far to the right over the last three decades that the old labels are nearly meaningless. What used to be the extreme right (say, Goldwater) is now the center, and the new extreme right calls itself “conservative” while actively pursuing radical change..

    What used to be the extreme left (the communist party of the 30s and, say, the New Left of the 60s) no longer exists in any meaningful way.

    What remains of New Deal liberalism is now called progressive but labeled (inaccurately) “far left” by the extreme right.

    Obama’s GOP opponents will call Obama “left” no matter what he does or says, simply as a tactic to force him further to the right, and he usually obliges them by signaling his capitulation before beginning to “negotiate.”

    Obama is a DLC-type Democrat, which has long been compared to Rockefeller-type Republicans.

    Eisenhower, if he were alive and politically active today, would definitely be considered to the left of Obama.

    So, when I called Obama a Republican, I was speaking metaphorically but — I maintain — accurately. In terms of the spectrum active during the New Deal, Obama would be a Republican. Now, I suppose, you could call him a DINO (Democrat in Name Only).

    Merely saying that Democratic Obama is to the right of Republican Eisenhower doesn’t make me progressive or extreme.

    Fewer and fewer Americans self-identify as liberals, and more and more self-identify as conservatives with respect to label.

    At the same time, polling shows that most Americans overwhelmingly support standard liberal policies so long as you don’t label them as “liberal policies” and they can continue to enjoy thinking of themselves as conservative (increased taxes on the rich, increased regulation of the financial sector, increased taxes on corporations, gay marriage, comprehensive immigration reform (actually, there’s a strong liberal case against comprehensive immigration reform … and I support it, so already I’m not “ideologically pure.”), Medicare, Social Security, activist government, regulated markets, environmental regulations, etc, etc, etc.

    That’s how we end up with Tea Party Patriots carrying signs saying things like “Keep Your Government Hands off My Medicare.”

    Progressives have generally abandoned ideological purity decades ago, and that’s why they generally vote for the “least worst” candidate. DLC-type Democrats enjoy throwing progressives under the bus as a way of distancing themselves from the “left,” understanding all the while that progressives will still vote for them because — after all — where else will they go?

    The only time in my life that I ever flirted with ideological purity was when I registered Green in 2000 and voted for Nader. And I only did that because — being a California voter — I knew it would make no difference. I was sick (and still am) of the way both Democrats and Republicans sell out to the moneyed interests.

    I’d be happy to have a Democrat — or a Republican for that matter — with enough spine to stand up to the moneyed interests the way FDR did (“I welcome their hatred … ” FDR said).

  11. RL Crabb says:

    I find little to disagree with in your reply, Don, only to say that Jack Kennedy would probably be labeled a moderate conservative by today’s standards. My biggest gripe with both parties is that I’m really tired of watching the country go down the tubes while they bicker over the deck chairs. As someone who reads the blogs (and my cartoons) you’ve no doubt noticed that I cultivate friendships on both sides of the aisle, and am not shy about calling them on their BS. Of course, sometimes what I consider BS is someone else’s firm conviction. Time is not on our side, especially for us senior citizens. Have you noticed that the older you get, the faster the clock seems to tick?

  12. depelton says:

    I agree, Bob. I’m gonna be 70 on my next birthday. The faster the clock ticks, the more irrelevant all politics seems.

Speak Your Mind (You Must Use Your Real Name)

Tell us what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!