I think I found the problem with our messed up political situation!  Perhaps this is exactly the 43% who voted for Bush?  I think not- its probalby relatively evenly distributed between ALL parties, but still- it goes to my point about "Baby Huey" america- all power with no navigation.  I read about 2-6 books a month, not counting to the kids- (would take it over 40, we read at least one book every night) and I bet you all do too.  But the great unwashed?  Or the idle rich?  Scary.

43% Don't Do This Even Once a Year

Fully 43 percent of American adults didn't read a single book in 2002. That's the astonishing word from a new report titled "Reading at Risk" from the National Endowment for the Arts that concludes the number of non-reading adults increased by more than 17 million between 1992 and 2002, reports The Associated Press. The drop in reading was widespread across most demographic groups: men and women, young and old, black and white, college graduates and high school dropouts. Why? Blame it on the Internet, television, and movies.

Read something! Anything! Buy almost any book your heart desires and get it a great discount.

"We have a lot of functionally literate people who are no longer engaged readers," NEA chairman and poet Dana Gioia told AP. "This isn't a case of 'Johnny Can't Read,' but 'Johnny Won't Read.'" Only 47 percent of American adults read literature, which is defined as poetry, plays, and narrative fiction, compared with 54 percent a decade ago. In addition, those who read any book at all in 2002 fell to 57 percent, down from 61 percent in 1992.

Surprise! American's favorite leisure-time activity is...

"I think what we're seeing is an enormous cultural shift from print media to electronic media, and the unintended consequences of that shift," Gioia explained to AP. Even with "Harry Potter" mania and Oprah Winfrey's wildly successful book club we're still not reading as much as we used to. Perhaps scariest of all is the trend for the future. The decline in reading was greatest among young people ages 18 to 24 where only 43 percent had read any literature in 2002, down from 53 percent 10 years earlier.

-- Modified on 7/9/2004 8:49:37 PM

Mr. Lane read my Warren Commission report and found all the lies and half truths and discrepancies in the report. I noted to him that "The American People do not read." As it is, as it was, as it will be.

I mean, 40 years ago, even the American people would have solved the Bushes in a heartbeat. Thank goodness for Rupert Murdoch, the father of Corporate Media.

I read extensively.  I have thirteen years of post-high school education.  I voted for Bush because he is the lesser of two evils.  My taxes are already ridiculously high, and I know Medicare and Social Security will not exist by the time I am old enough to qualify for them.  My profession desperately needs tort reform, which the dems won't even allow to come to the floor for an honest vote.
 The Dems will repeal the tax cuts, add more taxes, waste the money on social programs that don't work, and further bias the system toward trial lawyers.  I simply don't want that.
 Don't assume voting for Bush means you are ignorant.  That reflects an intolerance of dissenting opinions and an arrogance that are not becoming.

particularly in light of those on the far Left championing Michael Moore's rantings.

Unfortunately, the comment to which you respond demonstrates the typical arrogance of the Left, an arrogance which is perhaps most substantively demonstrated by the arrogant belief that government (headed by Liberals, of course) knows best how to spend the fruits of our labors.

Glad to hear you are informed- sorry to hear that your deicision making skills are somehow still weak. Respect your choice- simply think you are willing to let too much stuff go.

tort reform is a bitch.  Dems are too in Lawyers pocket- GOP would have business totally unfettered to screw who they want.  The answer will only come from the left when fatigue sets in.

Your taxes are only high because you get so little in return.  I prefer Europe style where govt takes a lot of cash  but gives services that are good.

At least in my field (medicine).  Do you want to wait at least two years to have a simple, painful hernia fixed?  You'd have to in England (unless you are rich and can go the private hospitals).  Do you know that thousands of Canadians flock across the border to get operations in Seattle, Detroit, etc.., so they won't die while waiting to have their heart operations?  Why do our 'evil' businesses lead the world in discovery of new health care treatments?  We make the discoveries and the world benefits (you simply don't see such innovation in socialized medical systems because there is no incentive to develop 1000 drugs to find the ONE that will make it to market).  China routinely rips off our patented drugs.
 And Sen. Edwards may be a fine human being, I do not know. What I do know is that he is a personal injury trial lawyer who made his MILLIONS from malpractice suits.  How can we expect honest tort reform from this ticket?  
 And finally, PLEASE DON'T BE SO SMUG TO ASSUME THAT THOSE WHO DON'T ARRIVE AT THE SAME CONCLUSIONS AS YOU ARE 'WEAK' OR UNINFORMED.  I EXPECT MORE FROM THE 'TOLERANT' LEFT.

I am a cynic.  I think the government usually f*cks up what it tries to help.  I think LBJ's social welfare programs were well-intended, yet they did little to help the lower class, IMHO.  In medicine, most government red tape hinders, not helps, me care for patients.  I guess with time and experience, I have very little faith in the government to improve my life or even others.  So I end up looking at the smaller picture, the micro environment in which I live.  At least I can influence that level of things.  For example, I treat many underpriveledged patients who have been refused by other doctors in town.
 It is like the old saying, "IF YOU ARE YOUNG AND A CONSERVATIVE, YOU HAVE NO HEART.  IF YOU ARE OLD AND A LIBERAL, YOU HAVE NO BRAIN."

I am also a Libertarian, who believes that most of what government gets involved with, it does so with extreme inefficiency.

But George Bush has spent us into the largest deficit in history.  It appears to me that you've accepted the myth that since Bush cut your taxes, he is anti government.  That's nonsense, because he has not in any way, shape or form, cut government spending to match those tax cuts.  What he HAS done is transferred the burden of paying for his spending from you and I, to our children.  

And the WAY he has cut taxes and continued spending is simply to shift the payment burden more onto the lower middle class, and to shift the entitlement programs more toward his lobbyist buddies in the energy and pharmaceutical industries, and away from subsidizing public education programs, and, ironically enough, away from veterans (well, he wasn't really a veteran, and Kerry was, so I guess that's predictable).