Newspapers are predicated on the fact that human beings want to know "wha's happenin'" they want to know know what is going on outside of their own lives. As a high school senior I started reading Time Magazine cover to cover every week, I knew minute details about the internal politics of nations around the world and policy discussions in DC. We need a balance between our own affairs and the world or village affairs. It may be good to know that their is a world beyond our door or is it just wasted curiosity. I agree with Ken that enterprizing people who understand this insatiable appetite to know also learned the power of printing presses, mass circulation, and thus the gold at the end of the rainbow ala Annenbergs, Hearsts etcetera. I give it a star for each quality of amuse and entertain give it a minus for mislead and another minus for its shallowness. I guess I wind up with a thumbs down.

You don't read very well Jim K. If you have not heard the oft repeated phrase that "we are not a democracy" you have certainly been high on something. Either the folks who say it are trying to derail it or deny it.

Another flub you made above Logan, in one phrase you say the "US is hardly a democracy" and almost the next sentence or breath you say "has become a democracy". And you wonder why I have difficulty understanding you. Again these are deep subjects that is why they cannot be handled by sloganeering ala Rush Limbaughs oft stated "we are a Republic not a Democracy". Rush is a danger to all thinking men and processes.

You are to humourless Logan to comprehend that I said that remark "F*&^ democracy" to humour you. Above you say "our nation has come a long way from ....being a Republic... into becoming a Democracy". It appears that you believe therefore that we are a democracy today but that is not how it is supposed to be or how you want it to be. You have said a lot, another guy on this site has said that the ages old word means today only the Democratic Party or only the two party system. You are all so shallow. Sounds like yu have been listening to to much Rush. Encyclopedia's run to tens of pages describing the ascent or as I am sure you would call the descent of man into democratic societies. From feudalism and serfdom, aristocracy, nobility, and monarchy into societies based on equality and mobility of all persons. The third world yearns for the type of free society practiced in the United States, where anyone can get an education etcetera. Anyway that is why I do not come over to your side. Who do you really think you are that "because you and others" have said soemthing it should be believed, just another Limbaugh trait. I don't trust you Logan not at all.

Interesting title to his book "Derailing Democracy". Many on this site don't sneek around trying to derail democracy they do it straight out or straight forward. At least we know who they are. I give it only a two because I don't trust a lot of what those guys say, simply because they are unable to prove it. While the guys on this site who try to derail democracy cannot prove at least we know who they are.

I think this is BS. Although I know there are some who would prefer to hear the news about what four year old fell with their bicycle and skinned their knee or who in town got saved yesterday, the news in our country and its analysis by demented talk show hosts of all persuasions is legion. The cacophony of news and analysis is something to behold. I recall how surprised a Soviet leader was to learn in the '80s sometime "You mean to tell me that Time Magazine is not controlled by the US government'.

Knee jerkers take note especially, for here is a lefty socialist bewailing the control of the press. Mind control enthusiasts are everywhere they can be left or right.

Logan you ask "Why do I not come over to his side of arguments". He has a short memory to forget how he and I argued for 6 months to a year concerning his infantile prhase "The US is a republic not a democracy". At the end of that discussion he finally relented to say "America is a majority ruled society and government." The fact that it took this long to get him to be straight and honest is the reason I still do not trust his logic, honesty or motivation etcetera.That a grown person can argue that for so long and then basically admit that they were wrong is a problem for me. The entire time his problem was that he felt there is a difference betwee majority rule and democracy but has yet to explain that. Maybe things can change maybe not.

Hitler used the same tactics that Palin uses. She gives a speech states her opinion and then says "I know that is what you believe also" without ever asking people what it is they believe. In Pennsylvania yesterday she said "In Pennsylvania we believe this and that" hell she is not even from Pennsylvania. Who is she to use the word we in reference to Penna. Your denial of the concept majority rule for months and arguing about it did not endear me with a love of freedom. Hitler and the Nazi party was a small gutter group and yes infiltrated German society. The majority failed in its oversite role, I agree.

"This glorious country we have been given".What point is a glorious conuntry that "we" have been givern if it can be taken away or dismembered at will anytime someone wants to dismember it. That is a bit of a tracherous way to live is it not.

Ooh ooh ooh why do I not feel chastended by obvious traitors to the Union, liberty, and intellegence. Your apparent chastening is a badge of honor to me.

No Ken you are not to conclude any such thing. As you probably are not aware there are no fault and contested divorces.The Soviet system was a union of soverign states thus they were free to leave at will. They only thing that kept them all together was the dictatorship of the communist party. The United States of America is not a union of soverign states. The colonies joined the union and surrendered their sovereignity. They only way states can get back their soverignity (absolute authority) is if the Union gives it to them or they physically fight for it. That was tried once do you not recall. A state may asked for its soverignity back but the Feds and many citizens throughout the greater Union just might contest the request.

Great Dick, and as we know Jim K believes every University and their studies are leftist. Anytime two or more people get together it is a leftist meeting. What Jim K and his ilk really are, are Stalinists or some other type of totalitarian. The concept Logan misses is that the founders never intended to dictate a language or thought pattern for all time. Hell that certainaly is not freedom. Foremost they were for freedom.

The roaring twenties, an epoch held under the sway of Republicanism, like most such epochs, (need I mention the Republican epoch of the late 1800's with its graft and corruption) have nothing to say. I dare say that the first decade of the 21st century will eclipse by a long shot the nothingness of the Harding, Coolidge, Hoover years. Let us pray for the coming of a new Camelot.

You fail to understand the Constitution Mr. Herndon and the Soviet Union. The Constitution was written "in order to form a more perfect union" after the Articles of Confederation were found to be deficient. What is more perfect about a "union" if a member can leave it at will. Like marriage break up of a "union" is ugly. Do you feel that a county can leave a state at will or a city leave a county. In order to make a decision to leave a union one must have soverignity but when the Colonies joined the Union and became States they gave up their Soverignity. The only way States can have Soverignity back and leave the Union is if the Soverign (the Union) gets it to them, than can not take it except by force. They tried that and failed. Now the Soviet Union is a different matter. Even the words of their "union" says "Union of Soverign Socialist Republics" Each Republic was soverign and was only held into the Union by the Communist Party. When the Party failed the Soverign Republics were free to make a different arrangemnet. The Soveit Union was not held together by law but by politics and force. The US is held together by law.

Yep take Al Gore for example.

Why only seven there must be many more.

Heil Logan, Heil!

It is sad that some come to the end of their ropes by asking but not getting answers to their questions from this site. I would assume that from a normal indivdidual their complaint is simply rhetorical and not real. To assume that this site should supply to them their answers is so preposterous. They might be better off to try wikipedia. In such case why do they not research the question and its answer and tell the rest of us. I for one would be glad to see such research and academic effort. In lieu of one doing their own research I would be glad to do it for a fee. Let me know and we can arrange a research contract if you so desire.

Interesting observation on Enron Ken. I do not know that part. I only new about the Enron loophole and that that Senator's wife was on the board of Enron.

Palin asked the librarian three times if she would remove books that Palin found objectionable. Once in a counsel meeting. Emmons said no under no circumstances. She was later asked to resign or was fired. Emmons fought the issue in public and was later reinstated by Palin.

Taking things into our own hands is what electoral politics is all about. Those above who would prefer a different style or idea of what it is to be free should move to a bannana republic or some small African republic and have a go at taking over by force. Everthing is FDR's and Clintons fault. When Clinton left office things were booming except for the tech bubble, now well now things are indescribable. The Enron fiasco was engineered by McCains Texas economic guru. The rest of Bush's buddies were tied in with Abramoff and the Indian Gaming fiasco. McCain and Palin are reforming this crowd (except Palin has a real problem of her own in taking per diem for her work at home*) lets let them stay at it for a few years. Historically per diem is for travel expenses when away from home. So this is what you call reform.

Ah well informed that is the question! Highly educated well informed people that run for public office, who live well, often feel that they would like others to have the opportunity to be able to do the same, to be educated and well informed rather than living in poverty, with bad health, no health insurance, slipping further down the economic ladder etcetera. But often the very folks they wish to help are so ill informed they cannot see or visualize a better life. Because of their lack of being even basically informed they cling to their guns and their bibles as their only issue. Now guns and bibles and moose kills are cool and should not be denied but neither should being well informed, educated and being upwardly mobile.

Let us be respectful of each other and avoid the tendency to drown out the opinions we do not like or want to hear.

Two cheers for the title of Forester's book. Another authoritative public figure opts fo the D word, democracy that is! And correctly in my view he connects majority rule democracy with freedom.