Back to basics: colored countries are never democratic. The people won't make decisions that are rational.

We are watching that today, with the "debt crisis." It's not "a" crisis. It's part of the transition to a colored country.

I pointed out repeatedly that the only indicator of real per capita income is the color of the skin. Now if you think about this, but nobody outside of BUGS will, it does not mean that at a given moment, 3 am on March 12, 2012, the country crosses from white to colored and we go from obesity to the streets of Calcutta in 1950.

In fact, very few people realize what should be obvious to someone of my age: We used to talk about and compare economic growth around the world. Today the model is stagnation. Tomorrow it will be a debate between liberals and respectable conservatives, not about whether the decline is necessary, but on how much of the liberal proposals to slow it should be adopted.

That is the how the transition from white to colored obviously will proceed.

Our real problem today is not intransigence or which side wins. A colored society invariably has different insane sides. They may simply give up the whole pretense of government, as in Somalia, or they may have a dictatorship with democratic trappings, like Mexico, but there will be many versions of the same pretense vying for power.

But when you go nuts, both sides will be two versions of basket cases. If both sides are fairly represented and both sides compromise, the compromise will be a basket case.

In our case the trappings are still democratic, a lot of the reality shows the kind of restraint white countries have. But we have two absurd sides.

Our two sides were not developed to solve problems. They were developed to represent two points of view that can be SOLD. "Both" sides in America today consist of the Mommy Professors and those they allow to exist as their token opposition. To say that "Both sides are represented is one thing." To say that "both sides" can come to sane conclusion is entirely another.

A Multiculture, by definition, is not going to put the "common good" above "parochial interests." Almost by definition, a Multiculture has no common interest.

What I have presented above is really a set of single short statements that only relate if you get the logic of the reality they have in common. You see people getting paid to puzzle over each reality every night on television.

Everything has been playing out every year for over fifty years in exactly the way I said it would. It is a little like someone running in the door and saying, "Poppa is whipping the horse," and then running in five minutes later and saying "The horse is mad at Poppa."

Can you imagine PAYING a child to run in with reports like that? To be a highly paid anchorman you have to shout it, I suppose, in a particularly sophisticated-sounding way.