Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
According to a recent study by a well-respected Harvard professor, the findings appear to show that ethnic diversity has a negative impact upon communities, not only between different races, but between same raced individuals. A quote:
"In the presence of [ethnic] diversity, we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it’s not just that we don’t trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities, we don’t trust people who do look like us. "
—Harvard professor Robert D. Putnam
.... While in Sweden to receive a $50,000 academic prize as political science professor of the year, Harvard’s Robert D. Putnam, a former Carter administration official who made his reputation writing about the decline of social trust in America in his bestseller Bowling Alone, confessed to Financial Times columnist John Lloyd that his latest research discovery—that ethnic diversity decreases trust and co-operation in communities—was so explosive that for the last half decade he hadn’t dared announce it “until he could develop proposals to compensate for the negative effects of diversity, saying it ‘would have been irresponsible to publish without that.’”
Professor Putnam found that trust was lowest in Los Angeles, "the most diverse human habitation in human history". While no more than 12 percent of L.A.’s whites said they trusted other races “only a little or not at all,” 37 percent of L.A.’s Latinos distrusted whites. And whites were the most reliable in Hispanic eyes. Forty percent of Latinos doubted Asians, 43 percent distrusted other Hispanics, and 54 percent were anxious about blacks. But his findings also held for rural South Dakota, where "diversity means inviting Swedes to a Norwegians' picnic".
When the data were adjusted for class, income and other factors, they showed that the more people of different races lived in the same community, the greater the loss of trust.
So, what do you feel about the implications of this study and would you agree with its findings?
This is really shoddy academic work that really embarrasses me. Like most other social scientists ignorant of how to apply statistical models, he assumes that there is a "natural law" that exists among the people that comprise this study. This natural law implies homogeneity among all people save for the characteristics used to divide the data (race, SES, etc.). These are given dummy variables and the analysis is run to find statistical significance on those dummy variables, i.e. one cannot reject that the dummies have no impact. It is a fun set of exercises to run, but ultimately without any intellectual basis, i.e. it is a flawed study due in large part to a ill-defined research question.
Why? If we invite large blocks of a different race and "culture" into our community, do so during extreme economic times (which has always been the case), and then integrate them in a half-assed manner, then it is likely that mean income for that entire community will fall? Of course it will! Although some will benefit greatly with the new imports of cheap labour Should that result be a surprise?
But is this a knock against diversity or just the desperate death throws of a community that needed those "foreign imports" to go to the next step? Of course it is the latter.
One needs to compare micro-level diversity with one sees at the macro level. On the micro side, if I lived on a street with an Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Chilean, South African, Persian, Israeli, Russian, Czech, and Lebanese, went to school with them, work with them at the same jobs, and had the opportunities to socialise with them, my practical education about life would expand many fold in just about every area. Under such a context, how can diversity not be good?
However, say I live in France. The local company has built worker barracks on the seedy side of town to house. They have imported Algerian workers who speak a poor version of French. They are former colonial subjects who hold a bitter love-hate relationship with the idea of France. They are suspicious of us and us of them. They worship the same God, but with focus on a different Prophet and a vastly different message. They have received the same schooling as us (in levels) but are differently educated. We keep them at arms length and they us. We use our social services as a safety net, while they use it to support their toehold into France and the developed world. We tolerate them up to a certain point, after which we effectively prevent any advancement in corporate and government life beyond middle manager positions. Under such context, how on earth can diversity be good?
While I think diversity itself is a cool and wonderful thing, the reality is that the types of diversity that has been practised in the past by the majority and minority is a nasty and dangerous subset over what is possible. In the US, diversity has been a codeword for racial and/or economic arrogance and vengeance. It was bad enough in the past. Current efforts to undue the evil transgressions of history are just as bad, placing the burden of the past onto the largely innocent shoulders of the present, thus stirring up resentment of contemporaries where none ought to be.
What we are seeing in Europe today is a powder keg that unfortunately nothing new. Note that Bismarck allowed for the massive import of Polish workers in the late 19th century, stirring up local bitterness and hatred, which probably hardened hearts by the time the Nazi killing machine went into full swing. Europe is on a one-way ride to a racial and cultural war that threatens the survival of Western culture and of what it means to be "European."
But the bungling of diversity at the macro-level should be interpreted as a knock against the net benefits of diversity at the micro level. What should do is wake us up to the dangers of social (re)engineering, quick economic fixes, tolerating restrictions on freedom for any short-term objective, massive shifts in immigration with populations that cannot be easily absorbed, the goldmine that social welfare represents to those on the outside looking in, nd those who undermine our communities--government and corporate--who force feed diversity onto us and in doing so, rob it of its quite wonderful potential.
This is really shoddy academic work that really embarrasses me. Like most other social scientists ignorant of how to apply statistical models, he assumes that there is a "natural law" that exists among the people that comprise this study. This natural law implies homogeneity among all people save for the characteristics used to divide the data (race, SES, etc.). These are given dummy variables and the analysis is run to find statistical significance on those dummy variables, i.e. one cannot reject that the dummies have no impact. It is a fun set of exercises to run, but ultimately without any intellectual basis, i.e. it is a flawed study due in large part to a ill-defined research question.
Why? If we invite large blocks of a different race and "culture" into our community, do so during extreme economic times (which has always been the case), and then integrate them in a half-assed manner, then it is likely that mean income for that entire community will fall? Of course it will! Although some will benefit greatly with the new imports of cheap labour Should that result be a surprise?
But is this a knock against diversity or just the desperate death throws of a community that needed those "foreign imports" to go to the next step? Of course it is the latter.
One needs to compare micro-level diversity with one sees at the macro level. On the micro side, if I lived on a street with an Indian, Chinese, Japanese, Chilean, South African, Persian, Israeli, Russian, Czech, and Lebanese, went to school with them, work with them at the same jobs, and had the opportunities to socialise with them, my practical education about life would expand many fold in just about every area. Under such a context, how can diversity not be good?
However, say I live in France. The local company has built worker barracks on the seedy side of town to house. They have imported Algerian workers who speak a poor version of French. They are former colonial subjects who hold a bitter love-hate relationship with the idea of France. They are suspicious of us and us of them. They worship the same God, but with focus on a different Prophet and a vastly different message. They have received the same schooling as us (in levels) but are differently educated. We keep them at arms length and they us. We use our social services as a safety net, while they use it to support their toehold into France and the developed world. We tolerate them up to a certain point, after which we effectively prevent any advancement in corporate and government life beyond middle manager positions. Under such context, how on earth can diversity be good?
While I think diversity itself is a cool and wonderful thing, the reality is that the types of diversity that has been practised in the past by the majority and minority is a nasty and dangerous subset over what is possible. In the US, diversity has been a codeword for racial and/or economic arrogance and vengeance. It was bad enough in the past. Current efforts to undue the evil transgressions of history are just as bad, placing the burden of the past onto the largely innocent shoulders of the present, thus stirring up resentment of contemporaries where none ought to be.
What we are seeing in Europe today is a powder keg that unfortunately nothing new. Note that Bismarck allowed for the massive import of Polish workers in the late 19th century, stirring up local bitterness and hatred, which probably hardened hearts by the time the Nazi killing machine went into full swing. Europe is on a one-way ride to a racial and cultural war that threatens the survival of Western culture and of what it means to be "European."
But the bungling of diversity at the macro-level should be interpreted as a knock against the net benefits of diversity at the micro level. What should do is wake us up to the dangers of social (re)engineering, quick economic fixes, tolerating restrictions on freedom for any short-term objective, massive shifts in immigration with populations that cannot be easily absorbed, the goldmine that social welfare represents to those on the outside looking in, nd those who undermine our communities--government and corporate--who force feed diversity onto us and in doing so, rob it of its quite wonderful potential.
S.
Everyone can easily see the problems with diversity. So please explain to me, what do you see the benefits of diversity as being?
The only possible benefit of diversity that anyone has ever proposed is that we will "be more tolerant of other cultures", or that we will "learn more about other cultures."
The question I have to ask myself is, are these two goals of diversity even true? And if they are true, do we really benefit from them? Are diverse societies somehow better than non-diverse societies? How has this countries diversity changed it. Is it really "more tolerant" of other cultures through its contact with them than some other country that traditionaly had limited contact with other cultures, like say Sweden, Norway, or Iceland?
I will concede that diversity in our own population has helped increase knowledge of other cultures to a small degree. But I will also say that our contact with other cultures and races has actually caused more dislike for them than tolerance. In fact, many people would rather give to charities that provide assistance to poor areas of Africa than provide any assistance to the poor minorities in our own country. Many whites see blacks in this country as lazy and unappreciative, but we see blacks in Africa as being victims of their circumstances. Sweden, a rich white Christian country, has long been a nation that has been very charitable in helping developing nations. When the war on terror began, Sweden took in thousands and thousands of refugees and let them live in Swedish society with equal rights as any other Swedish citizen. Now look what is happening, there is a huge backlash against immigration and against the government, and the social safety net of Sweden is collapsing from the huge burden of having to take care of these people. Crime rates are soaring and the third largest city, Malmo, where immigrants are the most concentrated has a collapsing economy, factories are shutting down. And the government of Sweden is swinging hard to the RIGHT.
So the question is, is a diverse country a better place to live than a non-diverse country? The answer is so obvious, NO. As long as we can travel the world, I see no point in trying to make every country a "little bit of everything". It causes FAR more problems than its worth.
The best anyone who believes in desegregation can ever hope for is "no change". As in, no increase in violence, crime, or hatred. Becuase it is impossible for desegregation to EVER decrease any of these, it is an absolute certainty.
The people who champion desegregation are living in "la la land", and only talk about segregation as some kind of unfair policy because they think it is unconstitutional. Yet, people tend to ignore the obvious benefits of segregation by limiting interracial violence, race-based gangs, discrimination, and don't seem to grasp the fact that people will still segregate voluntary anyway.
This is Milwaukee, the most racially segregated city in the country.
"The percentage of black children who now go to integrated public schools is at its lowest level since 1968. The words of "American apartheid" have been used in reference to the disparity between white and black schools in America. Those who compare this inequality to apartheid frequently point to unequal funding for predominantly black schools."
"In Chicago, by the academic year 2002-2003, 87 percent of public-school enrollment was black or Hispanic; less than 10 percent of children in the schools were white. In Washington, D.C., 94 percent of children were black or Hispanic; less than 5 percent were white. In St. Louis, 82 percent of the student population were black or Hispanic; in Philadelphia and Cleveland, 79 percent; in Los Angeles, 84 percent, in Detroit, 96 percent; in Baltimore, 89 percent. In New York City, nearly three quarters of the students were black or Hispanic."
This is what a black inmate said about the plan by California to desegregate the prison system.
"Nobody in their right mind wants to see racial tensions [stirred up by this] because if you've got that, people can get hurt, people can get killed," says Gerald Roberts, a black inmate. Racial fights don't break out often, he says, but "it can get major" when they do. The integration plan, he says, will "create a problem where there is none."
People need to start using their brains and stop looking at segregation as some "unfair" policy, but more a policy of protection for society.
It will be looked at as an unfair policy because that is the way it was. African-Americans didn't have any say in whether or not they wanted segregated schools, it was forced upon them. It wasn't for their protection. You say it was for the protection of society. If that was the case, then African-Americans would have been safe under this "segregation", but they weren't. If it was for the benefit of society, then "Black" schools would have been funded equally. African-Americans were basically put on the fringes of society, so these segregation policies never benefited them. So that argument you put up, I don't buy it because history teaches me better. While we are on that argument, let us put this into perspective. If segregation was suppose to be protecting American society, then here is something to think about. Immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe come into this nation and face discrimination. A generation later, they are considered part of American society and allowed to play a part in society. African-Americans, who are already citizens of the USA, don't get to play a part in society. If immigrants from Europe can come in and a generation later be fully accepted, why not give that same acceptance to people already citizens of this nation?
It will be looked at as an unfair policy because that is the way it was. African-Americans didn't have any say in whether or not they wanted segregated schools, it was forced upon them. It wasn't for their protection. You say it was for the protection of society. If that was the case, then African-Americans would have been safe under this "segregation", but they weren't. If it was for the benefit of society, then "Black" schools would have been funded equally. African-Americans were basically put on the fringes of society, so these segregation policies never benefited them. So that argument you put up, I don't buy it because history teaches me better. While we are on that argument, let us put this into perspective. If segregation was suppose to be protecting American society, then here is something to think about. Immigrants from Southern and Eastern Europe come into this nation and face discrimination. A generation later, they are considered part of American society and allowed to play a part in society. African-Americans, who are already citizens of the USA, don't get to play a part in society. If immigrants from Europe can come in and a generation later be fully accepted, why not give that same acceptance to people already citizens of this nation?
Money is not the issue in education. Washington DC spends more per student than any other school district in the country. Blacks are not excluded from American society. The majority of blacks in this country are doing ok and are as integrated into American society as anyone is.
There is a segment of the black community on the lower end of the scale that find themselves unable to keep up with the rest of us. This is not the fault of the Amercan society. If it was then the majority of blacks would not be integrated into American society the way they are.
Money is not the issue in education. Washington DC spends more per student than any other school district in the country. Blacks are not excluded from American society. The majority of blacks in this country are doing ok and are as integrated into American society as anyone is.
There is a segment of the black community on the lower end of the scale that find themselves unable to keep up with the rest of us. This is not the fault of the Amercan society. If it was then the majority of blacks would not be integrated into American society the way they are.
- Reel
I was arguing a point with Redshadowz. He was saying that segregation shouldn't be thought of as an unfair policy, but as a measure of protecting society. I was saying that it was an unfair policy because segregation kepts Blacks from participating in society in those days and education for African-Americans in during the time of Jim Crow segregation was in fact funded unequally. I was discussing on historical terms, not today's terms.
Everyone can easily see the problems with diversity. So please explain to me, what do you see the benefits of diversity as being?
The only possible benefit of diversity that anyone has ever proposed is that we will "be more tolerant of other cultures", or that we will "learn more about other cultures."
The question I have to ask myself is, are these two goals of diversity even true? And if they are true, do we really benefit from them? Are diverse societies somehow better than non-diverse societies? How has this countries diversity changed it. Is it really "more tolerant" of other cultures through its contact with them than some other country that traditionaly had limited contact with other cultures, like say Sweden, Norway, or Iceland?
I will concede that diversity in our own population has helped increase knowledge of other cultures to a small degree. But I will also say that our contact with other cultures and races has actually caused more dislike for them than tolerance. In fact, many people would rather give to charities that provide assistance to poor areas of Africa than provide any assistance to the poor minorities in our own country. Many whites see blacks in this country as lazy and unappreciative, but we see blacks in Africa as being victims of their circumstances. Sweden, a rich white Christian country, has long been a nation that has been very charitable in helping developing nations. When the war on terror began, Sweden took in thousands and thousands of refugees and let them live in Swedish society with equal rights as any other Swedish citizen. Now look what is happening, there is a huge backlash against immigration and against the government, and the social safety net of Sweden is collapsing from the huge burden of having to take care of these people. Crime rates are soaring and the third largest city, Malmo, where immigrants are the most concentrated has a collapsing economy, factories are shutting down. And the government of Sweden is swinging hard to the RIGHT.
So the question is, is a diverse country a better place to live than a non-diverse country? The answer is so obvious, NO. As long as we can travel the world, I see no point in trying to make every country a "little bit of everything". It causes FAR more problems than its worth.
I was arguing a point with Redshadowz. He was saying that segregation shouldn't be thought of as an unfair policy, but as a measure of protecting society. I was saying that it was an unfair policy because segregation kepts Blacks from participating in society in those days and education for African-Americans in during the time of Jim Crow segregation was in fact funded unequally. I was discussing on historical terms, not today's terms.
I don't think you understand what kind of segregation I was really promoting. You are looking at it from a historical Jim Crow approach where we all live together in one country, in one space, except blacks are treated as second-class citizens and are forced "to the back of the bus". Where they are mostly excluded and their labors exploited for the benefit of white society.
The kind of segregation I am really proposing is just an entire separation of people. Where each group would have their own country/land to do with as they see fit.
The reason many Italians and other southern/eastern Europeans were easily absorbed into American society is simple, they are white. If an Italian talks like an American, walks like an American, and looks like an American. It can be pretty hard to tell if he was Italian or French or German.
I am actually part native-american(but mostly European of some sort, on my mothers side we were Durbins), but I don't really look native-american. My friend who lived in New york city says I look kind of Greek. What do you think?
When I talk about racism it is caused by the idea that you perceive others around you to be fundamentally different than you. Like was mentioned, some light-skinned blacks treat dark-skinned blacks differently. I guess I would just like to narrow down the United States into regional groups. Where you didn't really have to worry about that kind of discrimination.
As long as people can perceive a difference between each other, there will always be problems. But the more perceived differences the more problems. So what are these differences? And which ones can be fixed and which ones can't?
Race - Can be fixed through forced segregation of a country by race.
Language - Can be fixed by blocking immigration and/or forcing a single language.
Culture - Can be fixed by blocking immigration and/or forcing a single culture.
Religion - Can be fixed by segregating by religion by at least the major subgroups(Christian/muslim/etc).
Socioeconomic-class - Cannot be fixed because communism does not work. But can be limited somewhat even through a free-market, as long as companies can stay somewhat local rather than globalist.
Intelligence/education - Can be fixed mostly with compulsory and free education.
Gender - I heard girls can fertilize another girls egg now(an all girl society?). But in reality, cannot be fixed(nor do I want it fixed :P)
Sexual-preference - Cannot be fixed entirely but can be limited and studied.
Or maybe I should just try to return to Europe. Obviously I just don't like it here. Where do you think would be best?
The kind of segregation I am really proposing is just an entire separation of people. Where each group would have their own country/land to do with as they see fit.
However, if you study the history of Europe, it is a history of ethnic mixing. Purity arguments (race, ethnicity, religion, etc.) cannot hold the test of time. These need not be any debate on this whatsoever, since the data is found in our DNA.
Latin America is very much the same. Mixing with Native and African blood.
The reality is that had your idea been proposed 25000 years ago, it would have probably been well accepted. At the same time, intermixing was promoted in order to solidify alliances and tributes.
Modern racism has only been with us vis-a-vis our friendly neighborhood religions and uneven playing fields exposed by globalization of the past few hundred years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The reason many Italians and other southern/eastern Europeans were easily absorbed into American society is simple, they are white. If an Italian talks like an American, walks like an American, and looks like an American. It can be pretty hard to tell if he was Italian or French or German.
This is a curious rewriting of history and a POV that has been reformatted after 130 years of history. The reality however is very different. Italians were stereotypes as dirty and dark for a good 2-3 generations. No amount of historical revisionism can eradicate the hatred directed toward Italian immigrants of the late 19th century.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I am actually part native-american(but mostly European of some sort, on my mothers side we were Durbins), but I don't really look native-american. My friend who lived in New york city says I look kind of Greek. What do you think?
A good looking dude. Any claim of Mediterranean ancestry makes sense. BTW, the Mediterranean is by far the most mixed blood regions in Europe (Asia Minor, with North African)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
When I talk about racism it is caused by the idea that you perceive others around you to be fundamentally different than you.
I don;t think that your definition is terribly practical. Technically speaking, I perceive ALL of humanity to be different than be. It is a matter of degree, no? Guys I grew up with I consider to "much like me." Why? our fathers had roughly similar trades and income; we attended the same church; we played together; we thought highly of the same girls; we had similar dreams of glory, etc. That we were of different races did not really come into the picture for 20+ years. After a period of self-discovery, you know what? Any differences are faded away.
But I did grew up in a very mixed 'hood, not in a borough that self-segregated like a Northern Ireland battle ground.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Like was mentioned, some light-skinned blacks treat dark-skinned blacks differently.
From what I hear, this is true, but relevance??
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
I guess I would just like to narrow down the United States into regional groups. Where you didn't really have to worry about that kind of discrimination.
My goodness!! Why on earth? What discrimination??? Granted there are a few pockets of b=hatred and bigotry left in the US. These tend to be areas devoid of enlightenment. Let them stew in their own hatred. They live in areas which are irrelevant to 99.99% of the functioning of the US--particularly in the modern age.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
As long as people can perceive a difference between each other, there will always be problems. But the more perceived differences the more problems. So what are these differences? And which ones can be fixed and which ones can't?
I think a better direction is to assume we are all different and we educate one another through shared experiences, communication, and the banner of our flag about the strength of our differences.
There are things I am horrible at and some things I am good at. By teaching others and learning from others we are both better off--consider it as an analogue to international trade.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
Race - Can be fixed through forced segregation of a country by race.
Language - Can be fixed by blocking immigration and/or forcing a single language.
Culture - Can be fixed by blocking immigration and/or forcing a single culture.
Religion - Can be fixed by segregating by religion by at least the major subgroups(Christian/muslim/etc).
Socioeconomic-class - Cannot be fixed because communism does not work. But can be limited somewhat even through a free-market, as long as companies can stay somewhat local rather than globalist.
Intelligence/education - Can be fixed mostly with compulsory and free education.
Gender - I heard girls can fertilize another girls egg now(an all girl society?). But in reality, cannot be fixed(nor do I want it fixed :P)
Sexual-preference - Cannot be fixed entirely but can be limited and studied.
Or maybe I should just try to return to Europe. Obviously I just don't like it here. Where do you think would be best?
My goodness. You may want to move back to Yugoslavia circa 1988-1995 and enjoy life under ethnic cleansing!
Let me replace your list with this
Freedom: Those who are communists and fascists can leave their passports at the border and leave.
Education: those who have the means but choose to be educated as morons and hatemongers--I can do without.
Sexual Preference: Quoting the great Terry Kath (RIP), "colour my world with hope of loving..." and that is good enough for me. Far too many who attack gays and lesbians are truly ugly and despicable people. "Those without sin should cast the first stone."
Gender: Let;s face it. Women are not this earth to inspire, entrance, and torture the male...LOL!! For another thread...
Education: Depends on how we define. In Sandpoint, there are so are so many geniuses to humble.
Race: Except for certain sad pockets of the US all with dark legacies of slavery and Jim Crow, America has no problems with race. But in those communities? Horror stories on par with the worst of Europe.
I don't think you understand what kind of segregation I was really promoting. You are looking at it from a historical Jim Crow approach where we all live together in one country, in one space, except blacks are treated as second-class citizens and are forced "to the back of the bus". Where they are mostly excluded and their labors exploited for the benefit of white society.
The kind of segregation I am really proposing is just an entire separation of people. Where each group would have their own country/land to do with as they see fit.
The reason many Italians and other southern/eastern Europeans were easily absorbed into American society is simple, they are white. If an Italian talks like an American, walks like an American, and looks like an American. It can be pretty hard to tell if he was Italian or French or German.
I am actually part native-american(but mostly European of some sort, on my mothers side we were Durbins), but I don't really look native-american. My friend who lived in New york city says I look kind of Greek. What do you think?
When I talk about racism it is caused by the idea that you perceive others around you to be fundamentally different than you. Like was mentioned, some light-skinned blacks treat dark-skinned blacks differently. I guess I would just like to narrow down the United States into regional groups. Where you didn't really have to worry about that kind of discrimination.
As long as people can perceive a difference between each other, there will always be problems. But the more perceived differences the more problems. So what are these differences? And which ones can be fixed and which ones can't?
Race - Can be fixed through forced segregation of a country by race.
Language - Can be fixed by blocking immigration and/or forcing a single language.
Culture - Can be fixed by blocking immigration and/or forcing a single culture.
Religion - Can be fixed by segregating by religion by at least the major subgroups(Christian/muslim/etc).
Socioeconomic-class - Cannot be fixed because communism does not work. But can be limited somewhat even through a free-market, as long as companies can stay somewhat local rather than globalist.
Intelligence/education - Can be fixed mostly with compulsory and free education.
Gender - I heard girls can fertilize another girls egg now(an all girl society?). But in reality, cannot be fixed(nor do I want it fixed :P)
Sexual-preference - Cannot be fixed entirely but can be limited and studied.
Or maybe I should just try to return to Europe. Obviously I just don't like it here. Where do you think would be best?
None of what you said works for ME.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
