Why we're a divided nation

[Galadon]

www.townhall.com/columnists/walterwilliams/ww20041110.shtml

[Hussar]

Hmm 4 straight links to the same source of information. Gee, what a surprise that they ALL support a right wing neocon agenda. Imagine my complete shock and awe when each one says pretty much EXACTLY the same thing in the same voice. Way to try to see more than your own narrow viewpoint there. Keep up the great work.

[Galadon]

You were expecting something else.  

Here it come,

You don't have any sources.

I don't agree with your sources.

Your sources come from the same palce.

What's next

Your sources are not using the right font.

  ;D

Am I the only one to see a pattern here.

[Hussar]

Well Gal, if I were to post 4 stories from say, Al Jezeera, would you say that I am being up front and honest about the situation or would I be accused of incredible bias?

This is the same thing. If I did nothing but quote from Michael Moore, you'd be all over me like a dirty shirt. But because you can find four stories from a right wing neo con site that all support what you think, we're supposed to say, hey, that makes sense.

Not.

[Galadon]

Instead of looking in all the different news places, I look in one place where conservative columnists put there columns. Sorry for being effiecent.

[Galadon]

What no comments about this topic?  

[Hussar]

Why bother? would be me question. Pick one of the four and it's basically the exact same thing.

[khyron1144]

I almost agree with this one.


I vacilate between anarchism and socialism.

On the one hand, I don't like anyone telling me what to do. That's my anarchist side saying that less government interference is always better.

On the other, if we've gotta have government, why not something with a bit more justice that will take the undeserved wealth of the Hilton family and redistribute it to Burger King employees? That's my socialist side saying that the government can be benevolent or at least benign.

I think as long as there is difference there is conflict.


Here's a little thought experiment for you:

Imagine the world is reduced down to one reasonably ethnically diverse mid-size city, like Grand Rapids, Michigan.

Now we've got no Arab countries supporting terrorists to bomb us. We've got no countries that pay half what we do (or worse) and thus steal our jobs. We don't even have other cities to contend with. External conflict is gone.

Inevitably people will start fighting based on racial and ethnic divisions. Why is it inevitable? The human spirit is inherently contentious. If someone is obviously from outside our tribe (has a different skin color for example), then it is natural to transfer all contentious feelings to him.

Now imagine that these racial differences dissappear. People will start fighting along religious lines. The most alien and, therefore scary, group within your own race are those who worship "strange Gods".

Now imagine that these religious differences disappear. People will fight along class lines. The poor versus the rich. Why? Cause they've got what we want and we'll get it, even if we have to take it by force.

Now imagine the city is all on the same socio-economic footing. Now, the East Siders and West Siders start fighting just because that other neighborhood looks so much nicer than our own.

Now imagine that the entire world is two next door neighbors of the same ethnicity, religion, and economic station. The two will come to hate each other. Each will have some habit that annoys the other (not mowing the lawn often enough, mowing the lawn too often, checking the mail in nothing but a bath robe, blasting music late at nighte, etc.). After enough repetition this habit becomes intolerable.

So the world is down to one guy and peace is achieved.




You seem to have a taste for polemical sort of writing. What are your thoughts on mine?