Hey, I just want to hear more about your intriguing theory of "relative democracy". Is it different than the democracy we had 10 years ago? 30 years ago? a century ago? Also, is it any different than anybody else's democracy? Say England, for instance? Or Sweden?

And how do we get it from "relative democracy" to whatever kind of democracy you think we should have? Do we add a little socialism? or a smidgeon of totalitarianism?

I've always thought the founding fathers did a pretty good job setting things up (except for that one nasty little line in the Constitution about "for the public good" that liberal nitwits have invoked in everything from the aforementioned midnight basketball leagues to a federally mandated pension plan for those who favor a starvation diet). Not perfect but pretty good. Inside of two hundred years we became the biggest economic, political, cultural, military and industrial power in the world. And it seems everybody still wants to come here. And I mean everybody.

Excuse me, but your theory of "relative democracy" sounded to me like some know-it-all blowhard with a gigantic bug up his ass who just like to whine. To be honest, you ought to be happy with your relative democracy, because I'm pretty sure real democracy--where other peoples' voices carry as much weight as your own--just wouldn't be your cup of tea.