Division

Due to an internet outage caused by the snow, this post was backdated a day to reflect when it was actually written.

I'm not biased against "conservatives;" I've just given up on tolerance toward them. Consider yourself warned.

Oddly enough, government structure over time remains basically the same. We'd like to believe that the U.S. today is so different than the governments five hundred or a thousand or two thousand years ago, but it isn't.

There's a certain change that happens in governments over time. Decay. People don't become more and more happy with their governments; they become less and less satisfied until finally it becomes an intolerable burden and there is a revolt.

Democracy is not immune to that sort of entropy. It's proven more resistant than a Theocracy or a Monarchy, but slowly and surely the U.S. is falling apart. The ideals that we were based on are not the ideals of the founding fathers. This isn't a partisan rant either. We "liberals" endorse things that the founders would hold abhorrent. Gay rights, for one, and feminism for another, both of which I believe are valid changes. I'm sure that there are more, but I can't think of any off the top of my head. Still, any moral slide is a part of this breakdown, whether I agree with it or not.

This "red state vs. blue state" mentality isn't purely fiction. There are real differences between the rural and metropolitan counties that are driving us apart. If I had to speculate, I would have to say that in the next hundred years there will be multiple countries where the U.S. is today. Probably three of them and the lines will look remarkably like the map of "Jesusland" and the "United States of Canada."

Let me take a moment to think about that breakup for a moment.

On the West side you'll have California, Oregon and Washington, which will primarily partner with Japan and control trade in the Pacific as well as dominate the technology sector. In the East you'll have another country focused around New York City that may try to become another neutral state like Switzerland or even consider allying with the European Union. This state will still house the huge financial markets, and will probably continue to be wealthy and prosperous as long as they can resist the inevitable terrorism from religious states.

Unfortunately, this eastern state will share a border with the newest religious state, the Confederated States of Christ. The capitol city will be Colorado Springs, and it will include everything from Florida up north into Minnesota and west over to Idaho. It will have about one hundred million people, and it will have a constitutional government that acknowledges both the Ten Commandments and their Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (finally!).

Of course, the Confederated States of Christ will have some serious internal problems. The federal NYC and Microsoftland will have problems too, but CSC will face three serious challenges.

The first one is Utah and Nevada. Utah has the Mormons, who aren't real Christians and therefore shouldn't be full citizens. Nevada will be a suburb of Las Vegas and will survive mostly off sinful gambling. The CSC will have considered letting Microsoft land annex the territory of those states, but that would mean giving up the buffer zone between their precious capitol city and the dangerous hippy liberals. So Las Vegas will have to go, and the Mormons either need to be converted or put on a reservation. A nuke and a police action will probably take care of that, but the Mormons will probably end up with a small autonomous state somewhere in there. Perhaps one that has legalized gambling. I'm not sure.

The second one is that it will be perpetually at war. Unlike the hippy Microsoftlanders or the sissy NYCers, the CSC will have the brave foresight to have declared a war on Islam. Not one limited by the satanic Geneva Convention but a full fledged war to the death, mutual annihilation be damned. That means closed borders, and even though the CSC will provide a majority of North America's food, it will have problems with trade and commerce. People will starve to death in the NYC suburbs, or at least have to pay through their nose for corn and beef, and relations between the two countries will deteriorate.

The CSC's third problem is going to be internal. Do you have a Christmas Tree? You'd better. And it had better be as big and as brilliantly lit as you can afford. After all, without pride in your national religion the Mohammedans will win, and you don't want them to win, do you?

So you had better attend Church ever Sunday. And Wednesday too, just to be on the safe side. And maybe on Friday or Saturday. If people don't think you're a True Christian they might become suspicious and call the Department of Homeland Religion and report you.

While I'm taking stereotypes too far, let's look at Microsoftland and federal NYC. NYC is suffering from an acute growth problem due to the numerous gay marriages that have resulted in a birth rate drop. Most NYCers are well educated, older, and in poor health due to being unable stop watching television if their lives depended on it. Still, they'll have a stable government and they'll have a lot of money to play around with, considering all the Jews controlling the stock market and all of the gays controlling the fashion and art industries.

Microsoftland will be having a marital crisis. Or several. Perhaps multiple ones on the same time. Having finally lost their media edge to Bollywood, the main industry of California has become short term marriages. Skynet and caffeine related deaths will be common, but of all the countries from the former United States, Mircosoftland will be the most stable, because no one really wants to anger Gates of Borg.

The scary thing about saying all this, is that I can see everything except the last two paragraphs happening. Most of the country is trending toward an inclusion of religion in government, less personal responsibility in favor of more government control, and acute xenophobia.

Let's face it, and country that includes California is going to work fine in any sense that matters, and NYC might as well be it's own country already. It already legislates itself like it is. Washington might as well be on the moon for all they care.

That's enough on Microsoftland, federal NYC and CSC for now.

Where was I? Ah, right, the blue state vs. red state mentality. Blue states are metropolitan, and red states are rural. Even today, a white Christian in a rural area is probably going to be in a majority position, and he's going to know it. He's going to see himself represented on the school board, the city council and in the U.S. House. On the flip side of that, if you live in NYC, you'll probably live next to a neighborhood of people that are distinctly not you, be they Jews, Asians, Italians or just queers.

If you don't have a voting bloc capable of enforcing your will, that breeds tolerance. You don't know if the cop responding will be one of them or one of you, so you even if two men are making out in the street so you'd better let them be. After a few days, when they don't break down the door, you may even learn to live with all of them, even if they speak different languages, eat things you wouldn't touch, or go to that church with minarets down the street from yours.

Abortions? In the country, you need those kids to survive and provide you with a loyal customer base in the future. In the city, those crowded schools and overflowing foster care systems belie the idea that there will be homes for all of those extra kids. Better for them not to exist in the first place than to be put into a hopeless situation. That wealthy couple from the ranch may want kids enough to adopt, but there aren't enough of those for the city.

In all of this, there is a distinct difference in the way that people think and view the world. True, it's prejudiced on both sides, but it's still intrinsic to the way that people live their lives.

I've led too far astray on the main point: this difference in viewpoint is pulling us apart. If you call it "The War of Northern Aggression" you also will agree with me when I say that it wasn't just about slavery. One of those other reasons (as I understand it) is that Lincoln was elected without a single southern state. Almost like how Bush was elected without a single Northeastern state in 2000 and 2004. There is a split in the way that we view ourselves that simply cannot be reconciled.

To me, this is a novel way for a country to decay. Usually when a state decays to the point that it's falling apart, it's because one side has all of the power and has begun abusing that power, oppressing a lower class.

For the United States, that hasn't happened at all. The liberals aren't oppressed; we just have a different set of verbs. In fact, many of the people on top are liberals. Clooney and Soros and Stewart spring to mind. The Bushes have had a dynasty, but the liberals are going to try for a Clinton dynasty. Dynasties are horrible, liberal or conservative, but they're certainly an obvious symbol that neither side is oppressed.

Still, everyone is unhappy with the way our government works. There isn't a Reagan on the horizon that can get more than 51% of the majority vote. No matter who the Republicans nominate, I'm voting for the other guy, and no matter who the Democrats nominate, the proverbial Bush supporting redneck is voting for the conservative guy. Obama isn't going to solve that problem, nor is McCain.

Without that political messiah, we're headed for a nasty divorce.

Incidentally, technology has drastically changed revolution. I don't own a gun and don't ever plan to own one, but I support the Second Amendment (both fanatically and half heartedly). I understand the right of the individual to own a gun for self protection, but I don't think that anyone should own their own F-15 fighter or even a personal nuke.

The problem is, the government does own that sort of thing, and if the government sees its own citizens as a threat, it won't hesitate to use those weapons against that threat.

That sounds dire, and it is. The weapons of mass murder that technology has given rise too have a hair trigger, and so do the people that we've bred to wield them. Obviously, it's not just nukes and fighter jets. High powered machine guns are a threat to a stable society. Which is why most people have agreed to ban them and the NRA has fought to allow them. This is the proverbial two-edged sword.

Violence seems to be one of the requisites for change, but we've suppressed violence so well with our technology that we've suppressed social change as well.

I want to live in a stable society, but when it comes down to it, I don't think that Texas and the Bushes are part of my country. I suspect that the people on the other side of that line see me as part of the country. Above, when I mentioned that the government won't hesitate to use lethal means against a threat, this duality is what I'm talking about.

I'm prepared to just walk away, if that could accomplish change peacefully. To declare the U.S. as it currently stands a failure at unity and start something new, but most people on both sides disagree with me and will continue to disagree until something radicalizes them.

Violence radicalizes like little else.

I'm sorry to say that. I love the U.S. because it will always have been my home as a child. But as an adult, I know that what this country is isn't best for me or best for the people who say "liberal" like it's a dirty word.