Speak for yourself. I personally have no desire to self-segregate and find it sad--even if sometimes necessary--when particular cultural groups feel the need to do so. I've honestly never understood why someone would want to associate only with people who most closely resemble their own person.

Look at the statistics on "bi-racial" relationships and children. The ideal of a melting pot is far from being imminently realized, but it is still gaining in currency, not vice-versa. The ethnic, gender and cultural factionalism of the 60's and 70's may hve been necessary as a catalyst for change at the time, but why would we want to keep the spirit of angry rebellion and clannishness alive unnecesarily?

Go to the Balkans if you're so in love with ethnic tribalism. I hear they've got a new country over there.

Just say no to inbreeding.

Some groups neither assimilate nor melt. After the Goths defeated the Roamns at Adrianapole in 378, large numbers of them settle the region south of the Danube. But they did not, as the Romans hoped, do what other barbarians had done, which was to be "Romanized." Ironically, it was because they were already "romanized" to the degree they wanted to be romanized. Instead they kept their cultural integrity and becaame a divisive political force inside the Empire, with a large number of them ending up --Visigoths--in control of Spain. Societies do become destabilized, and incabale of absorbing new groups. Then they fall apart, as the western Empire did in the 5th Century.

What you mean to say is, the ruling elite lost control. The Goths themselves probably didn't consider such a turn of events to be "de-stabilizing," nor did they consider anything to be "falling apart."

The collapse you speak of occurred only from the vantage point of a ruling class--Roman citizens--who had allowed themselves and their society to became lazy, excessive and indolent. Remember that at their genesis, the Romans were agrarians whose most esteemed founders returned to rural homes and farming after they won battles.

Rome still stands as a city to this very day, in the same spot as it did then. It is still populated and vibrant. So the only permanent "collapse" was that of the ruling elite's stranglehold on a larger society.

But of course, since the ruling elite of any time or place are the ones who get to write the history books, some would have us believe that the utopian society of Rome was invaded by mad barbarians and that was the end of Western civilization for a few hundred years. Ridiculous.

For all we know, Western society might have been far worse off if the likes of emperors such as the glorious Julios Nepos had continued to rule in perpetuity.

As for Obama, the real worry should not be whether he's half-black or half-white but that he's related somewhere down the line to Dick Cheney. That's the more intriguing story and it could be quite scary.

As scary as Bush and Kerry being distant cousins, as well as frat buddies? That was the cause of one of the more chilling epiphanies I experienced when first learning about American polity.

The media would have us believe that "the nation" is just so polarized. But that's not really true. It is separate factions of the same silver-spoon set that are "polarized" against each other. The other 299,999,000 or so Americans can go to hell as far as the new American Royal Class is concerned.

But I don't care as much about every place...only my place. I love this country, and by God, as I approach 30, and as long as I retain the benefit of some measures of youthful bravado, inattentiveness, and lack of historical perspective, I will complain about this place until I see some improvements. The boomers who are in control for now can quarrel amongst each other about their pet issues to their hearts' content, but at this point some real work needs to get done in this country, and I am anxious to see it done.

We owe it to ourselves, dammit.

...Please don't ever stop drawing, Berk.

Seriously.

Was the failure of his first marriage? I'll bet that must have made his current wife feel great.

I just keep chuckling at the mere thought of what my wife's reaction would be if I told the world that my greatest moral failing had been the termination of a previous romantic relationship. Of course, I would never dream of humiliating anybody like that, let alone my wife.

Seriously, am I the only one who feels that way? C'mon, it's Sunday...we can gossip a little.

That's what I was thinking--is his first wife dead or something? Or, as is so often the case, has pride and ambition kept him from ever seriously looking back at such trivialities as that whole "first marriage" thing?

Better to move on with a new, younger wife, and then ruminate about it all later, in front of a huge national audience (that included the new wife.)

What a dick.

So...are neckties officially dead now ? The photo on Salon's article shows McCain, Warren and Obama all going for the business casual look. I didn't watch the actual program, but from what I hear this seems like it was intended to be a rather decorous affair.

I've heard whispers about the necktie imminently going the way of the brim-hat...and I have to say, I don't like it one bit.

As a balding man, I still consider JFK's greatest moral failing to be nailing the coffin shut on classy men's hats. I guess with his thick, rich head of Irish-American hair, he never thought of the impact on us porcupines.

Humans crave "leaders," and hold them in the highest esteem.

Yet, there is almost universal disdain among people for the main qualities required to be a "succesful" leader: egotism, connivance, selfishness, personal ambition that overrides family relationships and friendships, etc.

I'll never understand it.