Everywhere we look it’s hatred. There is religious strife in Ireland and between India and Pakistan, tribal hatred in Rwanda and now in the Sudan, which the news media are finally becoming aware of. There is ethnic hatred in the pieces of the former Yugoslavia and the over 100 minorities of the old USSR, as in Chechnya. I could name dozens of examples without even thinking too hard.

Why all the hate? There are lots of doctrinal and racist reasons (Jews killed Christ, Catholics are filthy Papists, Tutsis are taller than Hutus, Bosnia ain’t got room for no damn Muslims or Serbs), but there’s no point in getting into that. Hate is hate, and your reasons for hating don’t have to make any sense. I’m not even against hatred, per se, unless it is acted upon. Speaking your hatred is protected by the First Amendment, at least in the USA, and it ain’t any of my business what your private, unexpressed hatreds may be. I’ve got some of my own, though I try to spread them evenhandedly, and try not to hate a whole group merely for being itself. My most intense hates are reserved for individuals, and they have earned it.

Unfortunately, hatred is all too often acted upon. We’ve seen it recently on a wholesale basis in Serbia, in Rwanda, in Cambodia, at the World Trade Center. We’ve seen it retail in Iraq and Israel. There is always the potential that we’ll one day see it on a scale we haven’t seen in 60 years, if somebody starts throwing nukes around.

Again ... why? Many reasons, but a big one is simple: Proximity. People who live right next door to people they hate are just naturally more likely to hurt or kill that person than if they have to get on a plane and fly a thousand miles to do it. And all over the world, people are doing just that.

We live in political units we call "countries," and an amazing number of them were just thrown together, willy-nilly. Countries like Japan, ethnically monocultural and monoracial, are the exception rather than the rule. (Okay, the Japanese have the Ainu ... and they hate them!) So many countries are composed of strange bedfellows who didn’t choose to live together, or a majority who hates a minority ... and right back at you, you racist asshole!

Some of it goes way, way back, to ancient invasions. Some of it is more recent, the result of colonization. Some of it is fairly new, the result of the break-up of old empires. When this was being done, first when the maps of colonization were being fought over, and later when the former colonial nations were being given their independence, the guys who drew the lines didn’t pay a lot of attention to the people who were actually going to have to live in these "nations" and somehow get along. Africa is probably the worst example. Country after country was defined not by the tribal lines that existed before the white man came, but by the lines they drew afterwards. Africa has been suffering the consequences for years. The Middle East is the same way. Iraq, for instance, is an artificial construct throwing Sunni and Shiite Muslims (who hate each other) together with a Kurdish minority they both hate. Just look at the map of Iraq: there are all those straight lines that have no relevance to anything but a bunch of guys drawing on maps.

Those straight lines often don’t work out too well. They push people together into a "nation" they didn’t ask for, and they divide people who want to be together. All over the globe there are people like the Kurds: partly Turks, partly Iraqis, partly Iranian, and not even a little bit enthusiastic about being any of them. What they want to be is Kurds, and where they want to be Kurdish is in Kurdistan. Only there ain’t no Kurdistan. And neither Iraq, Turkey, nor Iran wants to give up a square inch of territory to create one.

Or take the Balkans. (Please!) All that unpleasantness in 1914-18 originated there. After it was over somebody tried to make an actual country in the mess and called it The Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes. Just the name tells you there’s gonna be trouble. In 1929 it became Yugoslavia, which fell apart in the ‘90s. The Balkans is the European equivalent of a trailer park. Or picture Appalachia, but more inbred and redneck. Thinking about the Balkans, you can practically hear the Deliverance banjos playing. There’s Slovenia, Croatia, Albania, Serbia, Bosnia, Herzegovina, Upper and Lower Slobbovia, Kosovo, Ruritania, Freedonia, and no less than two Macedonias, which hate each other and almost went to war over who got to use the goddam name! Albanians live in Kosovo, Serbs live in Bosnia, Croats live in Slovenia, Groucho Marx is running Freedonia, and the whole country of Albania was bankrupted by a pyramid scam a retarded gerbil wouldn’t have fallen for. To top it off, there are pockets of Muslims living here and there, like rabbit turds in a gigantic pile of cow flop. You think anybody there is ever going to live in peace with his neighbors?

What to do?

How about we consider the case of the ex-nation of Czechoslovakia. It didn’t exist as such until 1918. After the Russians left there was discontent from Slovaks concerning past domination by Czechs. In 1993 it split into Slovakia and The Czech Republic, without a shot being fired, so far as I’m aware.

So as usual, I have a screwy solution that will probably please no one but me. How about we look at discontented nations like dysfunctional families? Bad marriages. And what do you do when you have a bad marriage?

You listen to Tammy Wynette and get a D-I-V-O-R-C-E.

I’m proposing an International Divorce Court (IDC). Well, come on, it’s better than a revolution, isn’t it? If it had existed in 1776 a lot of nastiness might have been avoided. I don’t know about 1861, resolving the slavery issue would have needed something more forceful than a divorce court ... but I didn’t say this would solve all the world’s problems, only some of them.

We could base it in Geneva or The Hague, I guess, but I prefer to put the actual institution in ... Reno, Nevada! Aggrieved minorities could petition the court for a separation from the mother country. Chechnya would be a good starting place. Ireland would be another. Or Rwanda, which could ask to be partitioned into Hutuland and Tutsiland.

However, for an example on how this deal could work, I’m going to consider something closer to home: the case of United States vs. United States.

You don’t think this country is ripe for dissolution? Then you haven’t been paying attention. Half of this country hates the other half. Look at the results of the 2000 election. Click here. Notice how the blue states cluster? Now go here. Under ELECTION * 2004 click on "Interactive Electoral Map." (This will change depending on when you read it, according to the most recent polling data. Right now, 7/7/04, it looks pretty much the same as it might have on 7/7/00.) Republican strongholds in red, Democrats in blue. Based on the way things are going now my perception is that, no matter what damfool thing Bush does or says, he’s got a hardcore of about 45% that aren’t going to change their minds, no matter what. There’s another 45% that would vote for a three-legged syphilitic yellow dog if he was running against GWB. That other 10% will make up its mind based on 30-second TV commercials, so we’re likely to have another fiasco at the polls this year. Whatever happens, 45% will feel alienated from their country, as I have felt for the last four years. Whatever happens, 45% will hate the other half with a passionate intensity seldom found anywhere but in a bad domestic situation.

I’m not saying it’s going to be pretty, or easy. Few divorces are. But we do have one bright spot. What are the main sources of dispute in a divorce? There are three:

1) Who gets the kids? (And who pays child support?)

2) Who gets the stuff?

3) Who gets the alimony?

Well, countries don’t have kids, and that is far and away the nastiest issue in divorces. So we’re already ahead of the game. No custody battles. (Though they may have to pay something very like child support. We’ll get to that.)

Now, the stuff. The biggest practical item is real estate. If I were the judge sitting solemnly at the IDC in Reno, here’s how I’d see the division:

The blue states are clumped on either side of the red middle, so there’s two ways to go. 1) Create two countries, with one divided into East Democrats and West Democrats. 2) Create three countries.

We give them New Mexico (sorry, NM Democrats), and they give us New Hampshire (screw you, NH Republicans!). We keep Cahleefornia, Oregon, and Washington. (Hereafter, when I say "we," I’m referring to the Democrats. As if you hadn’t guessed.)

The only problem with neatly defining Democratic America then are Illinois, Indiana and Ohio. So let’s draw a line from the southern border of Iowa to the southwest corner of Pennsylvania. That would give the bottom part of those states to the reds. The blues would get Chicago, Gary, and South Bend. The reds would keep the Indy 500. Blues would get Cleveland and Akron, which the reds probably don’t want anyway. We could call that more-or-less straight line from Nebraska to New Jersey the Redneck Line. Now we’ve got two contiguous areas of blue, and one big area of red in the middle, buckled by the Bible Belt. (We give Hawaii back to the Hawaiians, Puerto Rico back to the Puerto Ricans, and Alaska back to the Russians. As for Florida, I propose sawing off that particular dangling chad from Apalachicola to Jacksonville and letting it float down to Cuba. Good riddance.)

There are our new nations. Though it wouldn’t be my purview as a judge to name the infant sovereign states, I’ve thought about it. Who could resist? We could go with just Red America and Blue America. Or maybe the Republicans would prefer Red (But Not Communist) America. Or they could just call it Greater Texas. For the other country, how about America Blue, like American Express Gold? Or just The Blues.

So far, so good. Whether America Blue (AB) becomes one or two nations, I don’t think most citizens will miss the Midwest and South too much. Mostly they fly over it, anyway. What’s to do in Kansas, fer crissake? The R(BNC)A might howl about giving up New York City, but only because of the financial markets there. Lots of that is already relocated to Atlanta and Dallas, so what’s the big deal? NYC is way too full of liberal Democratic Jews for the R(BNC)A, anyway. And LA is lousy with phony Hollywood libs. Chicago has always been democratic. No, I think they’d be happy with the deal. As for myself, there’s not much in the R(BNC)A I’d miss, though it would feel strange to need a passport to return to my home state of Texas.

Once that’s settled, there would be minor property claims to sort out. They would get the purple mountain majesties and the amber waves of grain, we’d get the spacious skies and the fruited plain. They could keep "The Star Spangled Banner," and we could use "America the Blutiful," or get Bob Dylan to write us a new anthem. AB keeps the Constitution and Bill of Rights, except the Second Amendment (the R(BNC)A won’t miss them; they haven’t used them in 4 years) and they can just use the Patriot Act instead.

They keep the flag. I’ll miss it. After all, I’ve spent 56 years loving it, respecting it, pledging allegiance to it, but since I don’t think it’s a holy object and that it should be illegal to burn it, apparently I’m not worthy of it. (Hell, I burned one on a 37-cent postage stamp just the other day.) Oh, well, we can get somebody to sew up another one. Maybe an interior decorator from San Francisco could choose some colors that don’t clash so much. They can have the current, twice-amended Pledge of Allegiance. (Original text: "I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.") We can get a new one. Something like "I pledge allegiance to The Blues, two nations, coast-to-coast, which may or may not be under a Godhead, with liberty and justice and equality and social rights and free medical care and a living minimum wage for all races, colors, creeds, genders, national origins, and sexual orientations, including bisexuals and the trans-gendered, senior citizens, the differently-abled, hearing-impaired, mentally challenged, and persons living with AIDS, and to its flag, if and when we decide to have one, and if it is tastefully done." Whew! Well, nobody ever said liberals can’t be windy.

The R(BNC)A won’t want the Statue of Liberty. (It’s from France.) They won’t want the Liberty Bell. (It’s got a crack in it, and if we let them have it they’d rename it for a corporate sponsor: The Halliburton Bell.) They keep Mount Rushmore and can do surgery on it so it shows Nixon, Reagan, George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Both countries will need new money. America Blue can use pictures of people like Martin Luther King, Chief Joseph, Muddy Waters, Meryl Streep, Norman Mailer, Abbie Hoffman, Ted Turner, and Bill and Hillary Clinton. The R(BNC)A’s cash could feature Spiro Agnew, Dan Quayle, Ken Lay, Pat Robertson, or anybody else who pays enough for the advertising space.

Now comes the hard part. We’ve divided up the land, and a lot of folks are going to have to move. It won’t be easy. I realize that’s easy for me to say, safe and snug here in Cahleefornia. But if I was living in Red America when the divorce was finalized, you’d better believe I’d pull up stakes and skedaddle.

As a judge, it’s not my job to handle all the resettlement details. I’d appoint a commission, funded by the feuding parties (oh, yes, this break-up will give work to a lot of lawyers and others), to set that all up. I’d suggest a big site on the Internet for home-swapping, and arbitration panels to see that exchanges were more or less equal.

Of course, nobody would have to move. If you’re a Democrat and just too set in your ways to move out of Alabama, you could choose to stay and keep your mouth shut ... if you think you won’t be rounded up when the new government gets really rolling. You’d have to decide that for yourself.

But I know that some parts of the population would see they had little choice. Right-wing militias would never again feel at home in southern Oregon. Same with southern Cahleefornia rednecks. And I doubt that a lot of black people would want to stay in Red America. I wouldn’t think any gays at all would stay. On the plus side, I would hope that any minority member would feel he or she had a better shot at equality in The Blues, even if it meant initial hardships. America Blue would be the new Land of Opportunity.

Then there is the biggest imponderable: native peoples. I recognize that, if you apply my logic to Indians, they would certainly want to petition the IDC to send all those white folks and black and brown folks back to where they came from. All I can suggest, all that really comes to mind, is that we try to reach an out-of-court settlement with them. They retain all current reservations, plus some more in reparations. Such as ... we give them Las Vegas and Atlantic City. The whole damn cities become Indian Nations, every damn casino. All gambling of any sort is banned in Red and Blue America. You know what they say about the white man: "If you build him a handle, he will come. And pull it." In a few years the Indians would be the richest people in North America.

I haven’t even gotten to alimony yet. Ah, yes. Alimony. When I was young, it always went one way. The husband paid the wife. These days it still mostly goes that way, but if the woman earns more she may end up paying the man. It seems to me that in the case of US vs. US, the roles are traditional and clear-cut.

Here’s a partial transcript of how I see the arguments going:

Plaintiff: Your Honor, my husband, Red, talks fiscal responsibility but he spends money like a drunken sailor. He never saw a shiny new weapons system he didn’t immediately have to buy. For years it was Star Wars, B-2 bombers, new fighter jets, big boats. Twice he’s raised my taxes when he promised not to, and the one time he did cut them, he just kept spending and spending and spending. All our credit cards are maxed out, and the interest payments are killing us. As if that wasn’t enough, he will do anything to impress his rich buddies. While I’ve had to stay home looking after the kids—you know, the tired, the poor, the tempest-tossed—he built up all this incredible wealth. And how would he have done it, I ask you, if he hadn’t had me to keep the food clean and the products safe and insure some at least minimal regulation so he and his businessman friends don’t screw the public. He promised me no child would be left behind, and then he cut their education funds. I have millions of citizens, millions, your honor, who are out of work. The kids don’t have decent clothes to wear—"

Defendant: Oh, please! Listen to Ms. Blue. All those ungrateful brats! They pour in here from overseas, who knows what diseases and weapons they’re carrying? Then they go on welfare and drain the lifeblood from our great country! Lazy, drug-addicted, drunken, insane layabouts, and she’s a sucker for every worthless one of them. Welfare cheats! If I didn’t keep a tight rein on her she’d spend me into the poorhouse with her Head Start, her subsidized school breakfasts, her homogenized milk. And how does she expect me to defend our homeland without weapons? Hasn’t she read the Second Amendment?

Plaintiff: That’s the only part of our Constitution he has read, your honor. Meantime, he cuts veterans’ benefits and soldiers’ pay. And the land! Look what he’s doing to our land! This land is your land, your honor, this land is my land, from Cahleefornia, with a big red gap, to the New York Island—"

Heavy sigh. I warned you, it ain’t gonna be pretty.

Anyway, I think it’s clear that the Reds are richer than the Blues; the judge will have to award some amount of alimony and support for a while, until the Blues can get back on their feet.

So how will it all come out, say ten or twenty years down the road? I can see two scenarios:

1) The Reds will continue to spend and not tax; in other words, not pay for anything. Social programs will be eliminated or privatized. We’ll see things like The Wells Fargo National Police Department, The Diebold Presidential Election, The 3M "3Rs" Education System. The Federal Judiciary, brought to you by Fox News. Debt will mount. Infrastructure will crumble because there’s no money to pay for it. Or private industry will build roads and bridges and charge outrageous tolls. Soon international banking will drop Red America’s credit rating; bankruptcy will soon follow. The Russian Mafia and/or Colombian drug cartels will take over RA’s financial affairs. The starving middle class will gather at the borders with Blue America looking for Blue Cards and low-paid work. We’d better start building a wall ... or ...

2) The Blues will continue to tax and spend. Make no mistake, all the needy will end up here, not only the deserving poor but the real layabouts, the nuts, the addicts, the dirtbags. We’ll probably continue to think up new ways to spend money on them, or keep on spending in the old ways that don’t work. Probably both. I have a feeling the Reds will be deadbeats dads. We may have to go to war to get our dough. Then they might actually be bankrupt, not a penny. We may need to appeal to Africa for foreign aid ...

Jeez, could this be avoided? Do you think someone may come along, a Great Conciliator, who could get us all to sit down together and remember that, first and foremost, we are Americans, neither Red nor Blue? We have a great country here, if we can only get along. Do you think John Kerry and John Edwards can bring us together, tone down the hatred, get Democrats and Republicans at least talking to each other again ...?

Nah. I don’t either. Let’s get on with it. See you in court.