I'm sure someone already said this, but I don't have time to skim the comments ...

Think Progress also noted that Charles Krauthammer took credit for the idea of a "league of democracies"

http://dailydoubt.blogspot.com/2008/03/mccains-dog-whistle-politics.html

Via Think Progress

Yesterday in an foreign policy address in Los Angeles, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called for the United States to create and lead a “League of Democracies” in order to “harness the vast influence of the more than one hundred democratic nations around the world to advance our values and defend our shared interests.”

Numerous media outlets interpreted McCain’s speech as a call for “cooperation” and “collaboration” with allies and the rest of the world, “drawing a sharp contrast to the past eight years under President Bush.” But last night on Fox News, conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer revealed the true meaning behind McCain’s “League of Democracies”:

KRAUTHAMMER: Well, I like the idea of the league of democracies, and only in part because I and others had proposed it about six years ago. What I like about it, it’s got a hidden agenda. It looks as if it’s all about listening and joining with allies, all the kind of stuff you’d hear a John Kerry say, except that the idea here, which McCain can’t say, but I can, is to essentially kill the U.N.

I'm guessing Krauthammer's neoconservative "league of democracies" would look something like the Delian League under the control of Athens.

At its height the Delian League numbered some two hundred members which met annually on Delos. Athens was its undisputed leader and gradually used the alliance as a springboard for its own imperial ambitions. By 454, when the League's treasury was transferred to Athens and used to fund monuments of imperial splendor such as the Parthenon, it had become an empire in all but name. Five years later a permanent peace was made with the Persians and its very reason for existing was no longer valid, but by then most of the alliance had already lost its autonomy to Athens

Just to emphasize:

The "League of Democracies" apparently would work kinda like the invasion of Iraq did with the "coalition of the willing."

It sounds great and like its a rejection of the Bush unilateralism but its neoconservative dog whistle for getting rid of or making the UN obsolete while giving us more of what we've already seen in Iraq.

I would see about having a copy of the book sent to Emory psychologist and HuffingtonPost blogger Drew Westen. Westen's recent book - The Political Brain - compliments the subject matter of yours.

In it, Westen argues that Republicans have mastered the art of making emotional appeals and narratives that bypass rational thought where as Democrats try to shrug off the constant smears and stick to facts and figures. Westen draws upon his own cognitive research to argue that this has been disastrous for the Democrats who need to get rid of their campaign strategists and start hitting back at Republians when they engage in these slimy tactics.

Here's a review of it from Susan G at Daily Kos

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/6/24/102023/968

Its fairly obvious that the Founders would never have expected that the Bill Of Rights would protect citizens from the violation of their rights by armed forces. Indeed, the whole point of the Bill of Rights is to make it clear that the President can use the military to serve a police state function.

And the Founders also intended for the press to cover important issues like Obama not being good at bowling.

"Let us tenderly and kindly cherish ... the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution." - John Adams, "A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law" (1765)

1. "I have thought it my duty to exhibit things as they are, not as they ought to be" - Alexander Hamilton

2. People like McCardle need to be sent a copy of The Elements of Journalism since they have a remedial understanding of how journalism is supposed to work.

http://www.journalism.org/resources/principles

5.It must serve as an independent monitor of power

Journalism has an unusual capacity to serve as watchdog over those whose power and position most affect citizens. The Founders recognized this to be a rampart against despotism when they ensured an independent press; courts have affirmed it; citizens rely on it. As journalists, we have an obligation to protect this watchdog freedom by not demeaning it in frivolous use or exploiting it for commercial gain.

...

7. It must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant

Journalism is storytelling with a purpose. It should do more than gather an audience or catalogue the important. For its own survival, it must balance what readers know they want with what they cannot anticipate but need. In short, it must strive to make the significant interesting and relevant. The effectiveness of a piece of journalism is measured both by how much a work engages its audience and enlightens it. This means journalists must continually ask what information has most value to citizens and in what form. While journalism should reach beyond such topics as government and public safety, a journalism overwhelmed by trivia and false significance ultimately engenders a trivial society.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/03/framing_iraqi_deaths.php

Last year AP-IPSOS surveyed Americans and asked them to estimate how many Iraqi civilians had died in the war. They grossly underestimated the number, with the median estimate being just 9,890. The Atlantic has now published Megan McArdle's latest anti-Lancet screed, where she argues that it would be better if the Lancet studies had not been published at all because they make people more willing to accept higher estimates of Iraqi deaths. Yes, for war-advocate McArdle, the big problem is that people's estimates of Iraqi deaths are too high.