Yeah? So what if he were?
QUOTE
con·fla·tion /kənˈfleɪʃən/
1. the process or result of fusing items into one entity; fusion; amalgamation.
2. Bibliography.
a. the combination of two variant texts into a new one.
b. the text resulting from such a combination.
1. the process or result of fusing items into one entity; fusion; amalgamation.
2. Bibliography.
a. the combination of two variant texts into a new one.
b. the text resulting from such a combination.
If there's a single reason why the political landscape does look so ridiculous, all the erroneous conflation saturating the air surely must be it. Enacting a few socialist policies does not mean the end of representative democracy by any stretch of the imagination.
Granted: America has generally followed in Europe's footsteps, but as our own intrepid Rodian so valiantly pointed out years ago, socialism itself is by no means a bad thing. What people seem to fear about it is that the next logical "step" would be Communism and - we all know about that, right? -- dictatorial regimes.
Guess what? That's erroneous conflation. Another granted: Human beings are not evolved enough for anything remotely like a Communist economic system much less a world in which everyone truly has equal opportunity and money is no longer even necessary. We're still stuck on tribal socio-economic class warfare, for heaven's sake.
Here's what I want to know: Just who was it that decreed we must always, always, always choose absolutely one or the other? We're way more creative than that. Aren't we?
"Yeah, yeah. You're talking about Utopia." Not really. We'd die without some challenges to take on but not only does nature seem to provide quite enough of those (human and otherwise), an awful lot of other challenges would seem better worth our time and energy.
K. Enough with the venting. I'm actually listener. (Believe it or not.)