Take a look at this summary account of the reporting on Bush's torture legislation:

Amazingly, only the LAT fronts a substantive account of what the detainee bill actually says. The paper focuses on the provision denying alleged terrorists the right to contest their imprisonment, explaining that the restriction generated so much controversy in the Senate because the "privilege of habeas corpus holds a venerated place in English and U.S. law." The LAT traces Supreme Court jurisprudence on the "great writ" and actually cites the relevant clause in the Constitution. (Apparently finding a copy of that old document was the sort of reportorial heavy lifting that eluded the other papers.) In short, the LAT's lead avoids getting caught up in the parliamentary minutiae and electoral politics that ensnare the NYT and the Post for a second straight day. (The NYT is so lost in the weeds that its lead makes the appallingly naive claim that "the president had to relent on some major provisions" of the bill.) For all the strengths of the LAT's account however, the one must-read piece on the detainee legislation is the Post's thoughtful legal analysis, which the paper inexplicably stuffs deep in the A section.

So let's review the bidding. To get any kind of substantive reporting on the loss of habeus corpus, the single most important legal concept in western law and the cornerstone of liberty, you not only have to read the newspaper (or seek out relevant blogs), and THEN you have to read the right newspaper, and THEN you may have to go deep in the "A Section" to find it. Notice I left out TeeVee with it's 30 second stories that likely would leave viewers more bewildered than informed.

Is it any wonder we're losing our freedoms? Democracy and freedom are impossible without a well informed public. Is the public misinformed by the media or simply apathetic, or both?

I've been thinking about where all this is heading. It's conventional wisdom that Democracy and freedoms such as those enjoyed in America for the past 200 plus years are only possible in regions where there's a certain level of social, economic and cultural affluence. So, for example, bringing Democracy to Darfur is likely to be virtually impossible. When you are hungry, you don't give a rip about who's in power, you simply want whoever will feed you.

But how about this? Is Democracy a viable institution in the highly affluent society, the other end of the spectrum? I've been watching the HBO series "Rome" lately. It seems that when societies become overindulged, they lose their moral and value compasses. We certainly seem to be losing ours while we live in unsustainable homes, drive unsustainable vehicles and consume consume consume in a mass of overindulgence.

Maybe we've lost our capacity for freedom and deserve a fascist oligarchy? The next election will be yet another temperature check on the body politics capacity, willingness, to sustain freedom as we march down the road to dictatorship.