. . . anyone can, for any reason, re-write history. And our populace is lazy enough in believing the SPIN of those in power. We don't need another hurdle to overcome in convincing them the truth of history.

Ms Alexander, though I sympathize with the plight of this monopoly on the public notice issue, I have a great deal of trouble over your apparent glee at the possibility of the demise of print media. There will always be a need for print media over complete electronic versions. It is far too easy to go back and wipe out, re-write and simply make disappear content on the internet. Not so with print. They say that winners always get to write history. However, without the printed version, when winners write history, they may lie as they wish. And re-write what they wish, Can you imagine if the Obama Administration was able to re-write history to back up their claims of a mandate by the people? With only electronic versions . . .

Do you know where this country would be were it not for religious institutions? Illiterate, sick and probably in moral decay. Religious institutions were the foundation of the educational system in this country. They built and staffed the schools and universities. They founded the hospitals. They founded the emergency services that saved lives and kept the literal lifeblood of America flowing. They kept the nation glued during strife, war and depression; without the moral guidance of religious institutions it would have been everyone for themselves during times like the Great Depression. So stuff your self righteous separation of church and state BS. If you disagree with funding them, maybe next time you need them they will ignore you, too.

John, normally I would agree with you about the "making bad loans to people who can't afford their homes" but I have to argue. The problem with the banks is that they were allowed to make decisions to NOT work with people - even if they could afford their houses but had a few months - so they could "wipe" the problem homes from their books. I know of many people who, due to the economy lost a job & got a new one for less money, who ran into a rough patch because of losing health insurance. And the banks told them they did not WANT to work with them. These are people who COULD pay but needed a little readjusting of terms (income went down or they had a few bad months) in order to keep their homes. They win, banks win. But banks didn't do it.

Mr. Mitchell, this is actually a better place for our money than most of the lame things our government spends it on now. If you want to create jobs, enhance American dominance in the marketplace and actually MAKE money from a program, than space makes sense. Check out this article I wrote a while back. (http://yhoo.it/ze4YCP) Or just get the book from NASA on what commercial applications have profited from the program over the past half century & counting. Digital imaging technology, baby formula, laser surgery, GPS, smoke detectors, scratch free lenses, recycling technology, LEDs, wind-shear detectors. Plus all the jobs in these industries. Not to mention the payback in innovation and imagination of now & future generations.

I am afraid you are rather delusional. If your argument is that they are "corporate" & only write "what will sell" newspapers, then there would be MORE negative views on Obama. As the old saying goes, "even bad news is good news" in the news business. There have been attempts by various news organizations to go out on a limb when it comes to the President, speaking out against him, but these are few and far between. Why the left lean & shyness about doing their duty as the Fourth Estate in America? They fear losing access to the President, White House & the rest of the government. Obama & company have PROVEN they will take action (like a petulant child) against anyone they perceive is against them. Just ask the Florida reporter (from 2008).

Mike, I agree that Paul is finished (although he's too stubborn to quite) and that you will get a lot of flack. (I sure did - http://www.imperfectparent.com/topics/2012/01/19/gop-field-may-narrow-but-real-choice-shrinks-to-none/). But I have been thinking (and reading all the comments from several articles by Paul supporters. What about VP Ron Paul? This way supporters would get Paul in a position to do all the work he keeps saying he wants done, but not as President (which would never work, no matter what his supporters say, because of all the other issues he is not capable of dealing with). Just a thought.

If Jim DeMint endorses anyone, especially before the SC primary, he will have lost all respect from me. None of these candidates are really worthy of an "endorsement" from anyone, least of all such a popular conservative as DeMint. By that I mean that they should stand on their own without having someone else SPIN them for the voting public. Stand on your own record without having another public figure speak for you - or get out of the race. We don't need another "popular" choice for President. Look at how that worked out in '08 - Obama. To quote SP, "how's that hopey, changey thing working out for ya!?" GOP candidates need to put out what they stand for, what they won't stand for and how they've can back it up with past action. Or get out!

FYI, here is the link to that "Obamanalysis" in the magazine. http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/obama-on-the-couch-2011-11/

I don't know, I kind of like the misspelling. "Hitler's Third RICHe" Most of those in power are getting people to hate the rich (or even moderately wealthy). Yet THEY themselves are pretty well set. Like multi-millionaire Obama, maybe they are acting out on some self loathing thing. (There as a neat thing in the Nov 14 issue of New York Magazine that showed all of the President's possible psychosis. )