Jason, you are confused. But fortunately for you, it is a confusion that stems from an ignorance of facts. Such a confusion is easily addressed: do a little research.

Compile a list of openly gay actors - as you did not mention even one in your posts, I wonder if you know of any.

Compile a list of "gay" roles - since these are mostly non-lead roles, it could take you a while. But you'll learn a lot while doing the research.

Then re-read your concern-trolling posts.

Then try thinking. Critical, analytical thinking.

You may find (and I emphasize the "may," because for all I know you could have the intellect of a jackrabbit with traumatic brain injury) that your previous "logic" is flawed in its premise.

I promise you that if you will do the work suggested above, you will find yourself enlightened - your thoughts and opinions on the matter will alter. You may even be able to come back to this letters section and post a sensible follow-up.

I emphasize the "may."

Support for the Fairness Doctrine is demonstrative proof that lefties are just as censorious of challenging speech and ideas as any right-winger. While few will be as forthright in their support of oppressing speech as "John762" or "Chris W," most are lukewarm in their opposition to the doctrine, feebly explaining that it will never happen, that it's unconstitutional, or that it's a chimera, a non-existent problem.

American liberals love to hate talk radio. As much as they decry Rush Limbaugh and his broadcast progeny, American liberals would be lost without right-wing talk radio. It is the obnoxious vehemence of talk radio that has helped define, for better or worse, contemporary liberalism. Without their greatest enemy, liberals would find themselves lost in the wilderness, lacking leadership to guide them and missing any passion to drive them.

It's true that Limbaugh and his ilk have little, if anything, to worry about. For years Democrats have whined that their ideas don't get traction or even a fair hearing among the public because of the "echo chamber" of right-wing talk radio. With the re-introduction of the Fairness Doctrine, there would be a Congressional mandate of broadcast time for the opposition.

For this reason alone, the doctrine will never again see the light of day. Congressional Democrats oppose reintroducing the Fairness Doctrine because then they'd have no excuse for their lack of response to Congressional Republican tactics.

It's mildly amusing to watch liberals once again dance to the tune called by conservatives, even though the liberal wing of American politics has achieved electoral dominance. I get the typical 'spitting in the wind' response from Tukla, who apparently can't detect that the *only* reason people here support the return of the Fairness Doctrine is to get rid of Rush Limbaugh & talk radio. I'm not reading anything into it - the letter-writers are stating it plainly.

Get over you hatred of other Americans, simply because they disagree with you. I don't like Freepers, but I'm fair-minded enough to recognize that their partisan sniveling and ranting is very much the same as the sniveling and ranting you'll catch here in the Salon page.

But poor Tukla can't see that, and neither can any of the fellow haters of this forum. They desire even more government intrusion, more government control - they don't trust the government, yet they want the government to decide what is and is not "fair" in the broadcast media. They are deeply in in love with the idea of the Nanny State, and thus deeply committed to it in principle. Unable to think, research, or speak for themselves, they desire a powerful government to come in and make things easier.

Me? I can think for myself - I don't need to government to enforce fairness. Me? I can read newspapers, magazines, and can even go online to find opposing ideas. Me? I can listen to Rush Limbaugh, laugh at his idiocy, become sad that there are people who believe his every word is truth. Ditto Al Franken, bu the way, or any of the media-heads that either liberals or conservatives place atop an altar.

I don't expect Tukla and the other myopic twit "liberals" to get it - they're just neo-cons in different clothing, after all, determined to grow government large enough to force their ideas down everyone's throats. Since they are all apparently unaware not only the history of the Doctrine, but also its historical and potential legal effects, there is nothing I expect from this crowd but knee-jerk partisan reaction. I'm not trying to convince any of you here - I'm old enough to know the stupid and the doomed can't be convinced of anything.

I oppose the reintroduction of the Fairness Doctrine because I'm not stupid enough to believe the federal government can decide what's "fair." I oppose it because I see blogs and letters columns where no government has enforced "fairness" or "balance," yet opposing voices are equally heard. I also oppose the corporate domination of the media, by the way, and find it appalling what actually appears on television disguised as "news."

But giving the federal government the power to dictate what ideas do and do not appear on broadcast media? That's a little much for me.

Sept. 11, 2001. Terrorists attack World Trade Center and Pentagon. Numerous officials state, "No one could have seen this coming." Later it is revealed that on Aug. 6, 2001, President Bush received a memo titled, "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US."

Aug. 29. 2005. Hurricane Katrina devastates the Gulf Coast of Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama. Much of New Orleans floods when the levees are overcome by flood waters resulting from the storm. Though days of warnings had gone unheeded by both officials and citizens - and the storm had first reached land six days earlier before growing to Category 3 status - later Pres. Bush and others state, "No one could have seen this coming."

Economic Crisis of 2008....

Bigotbigot.

A shadu la ilaha illa Allah.

...that claptrap like this keeps getting published?