First time commenting but long time observer of this site.  I am a fan of Bill Maher and watch his HBO show, "Real Time with Bill Maher" and before that, "Politically Incorrect".  I must admit that I did not see the original airing of Larry King Live with Bill Maher, and I, until just moments ago, did not follow the link in starks email to view the portion of starks call in.  I did, HOWEVER, catch a re-airing of the episode last night, Sunday Feb. 10, and since I had read the subject of starks email, wondered if I could pick out which caller he was.  To might delight, after viewing starks clip just now, I chose correctly!! I was indeed amazed that Bill did not know about the Maine caucus but even more amazed that he commended someone for knowing something he did not.  But to Bill's credit, he did a swift recovery by moving onto something he was knowledgeable about, Super Delegates. 

How great is it that I can read comments about two of my interests in the same place, Inuyasha and Bill Maher, if only just this once.

The doctrine is not part of the constitution, it is not logical extension of First or any other Amendment, it is not even a law, it is just regulation. They can remove it and state whatever reason they want. Something doesn't become unconstitutional because the Federal Communications Commission or President say so.

In the same article it says that Supreme Court have validated this doctrine (1969) and AFAIK this is the institution that have the final saying about what is constitutional and what not. As I said before the purpose of the doctrine is to enhance the free speech not limit it (this is also the spirit of the 1984 ruling, same article).

I'll give you very short example. Imagine a court and imagine what would happen if fairness (doctrine) is not applied in the court room. Imagine what would happen of only one of the sides are allowed to present their case, their arguments and their facts.
It's not hard to imagine that the presenting side would always win.

Advertisement works. People would not vote for candidates they haven't seen. You need a lot of money to get on air. And sometimes the media won't let you broadcast your message even when you pay them ("Fahrenheit 9/11" the anti Iraq-war campaign). Sometimes the media would favor a party and that party would return the favor in form of tax cuts (and vice versa).

2. I think you got me wrong. In the court you have 2 opposing sides. However in politics the parties are not always opposing. They can have mutual (cartel) agreements on many topics. And this is bad. Very bad. E.g. If both parties think that the current health care system is perfect and should not be touched, then this must be the fact. But the fact is that each year about a tens of thousand people die because they cannot afford the treatment they need (including people with health insurance). In theory you can choose party that want change of that system, but if none of the 2 main parties propose that, so you won't have a choice (well, you can move to Canada).
Add the silence or active disinformation/bias of the mass media on this topic and you have pretty horrid situation.

The duopoly party system is usually referred as voting for 2 different heads of a Lernaean Hydra. They may fight which one would be ruling, but they are connected to the same body. It also makes it easier to corrupt the whole political system. You have to "lobby" only 2 candidates.

3. The "throwing my vote" is quite popular refrain. It is self-fulfilling prophecy and is actively preached by these who have most interest in making it reality.
If people have only 2 viable options and they fear to vote for another candidate (no matter the reason) it comes to show that the election process is not really free and democratic, because in real democracy no vote is wasted.

In fact president elections do have very interesting system that _may_ allow candidate who got less than 3% of national votes to decide who the next president would be (even if it is not him/her). The emphasis here is on "may".

USA presidents are elected by Electoral College. This means that people of each state vote for representatives who then vote for president. Usually the winner in a state takes all representatives, but recently 2 states (Maine and Nebraska) adopted proportional vote. Also, total of 24 states force their representatives to vote for the person they have been elected for.

Now let's imagine that Texas is not one of these 24 states or that the candidate himself can directly control his representatives. If Ron Paul runs for president as Libertarian (He's been Libertarian nominee in 1984 elections!), he may manage to win all Texas representatives (He is Texas congressman after all). If Texas adopts proportional vote, then he would need as much as 6-7% to have 2 representatives. Having 2 or more (up to 32 for Texas, from 538 total) representatives would allow him to decide who would be the next president if both major parties have equal number of representatives (the previous 2 elections were pretty close).

I'm giving example with Ron Paul because he is man who have his own consciousness. I want to believe he won't blindly support the Republican party line.

If you don't like the idea of Ron Paul then you could also imagine what would happen if Stephen Colbert tries to run as real president candidate and wins in South Carolina (8 rep).

Finally. I really wish I had great rhetoric skills, but no matter how I try to polish my words I still find that many eye-opening documentaries manage to express these ideas way better than me, in simple words, great examples and with proper fact checking.
That's why I recommend watching documentaries. The must-watch list is : "The Corporation", "The Power of Nightmares", "Fahrenheit 9/11", "WMD – Weapons for Mass Deception", "Hacking Democracy", "Sicko". (I recommend watching "The Colbert Report" from July 19, 2007 with guest Michael Moore, the author of "Sicko" documentary). Recommended list includes "Super Size Me", "The Future of Food", "This Film is Not Yet Rated". I also recommend watching the fictional movie "Rendition" and the based-on-true-story movie "The Road To Guantanamo".

I would like to put my two cents in about public health care. Sadly, overstretched systems such as Canada's and England's get media attention here in the US. Sadly, the fact that most of the industrialized nations in the world have some form of public health care does get any attention. Even sadder, the fact that a lot of these systems work, to a greater or lesser extent does not get any attention either. In the US, Medicare uses 1-2% of it resources in administration, private insurance companies use 18-22% of their resources in administration. I am social worker. There is an awful lot of suffering here that is related to lack of access to health care. The victims of this lack of access are typically the "working poor" not lazy bums as I think is the general impression. I would really like to see the next administration work on this issue.

I agree with Peek-A-Boo re: getting out of Iraq. While I think the foreign policy of this administration has been negligent, disastrous ect (the whole rhetoric is ridiculous- war on terror- you can't fight an idea with a traditional army). There is a reason why dictators exist- and taking Sadaam out caused a power vacuum- now a contained threat is a very real threat- I think that if we just up and left we would be back for WW3.

Is Ron for abrupt pull out- or is that simplifying his position?

Oh well its not like I can vote anyway!

PS. Who is the cute kid? 

yeah..i didnt get what u said at all politics confuse me that and im a 14 yr old freshman…so that might play a part in it as well XD. u semm like a very VERY smart person starks-sama. XD

Thank you for commenting back. I really do enjoy these discussions. I have a question for you. Have you read the fairness doctrine? I read the history of it on wikipedia. Like I said before, I prefer simple definitions of things so I can make my own conclusions.

A couple of observations.

1. The fairness doctrine was deemed by the FCC themselves to restrict the news media rather than enhance it. "In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote, in the Syracuse Peace Council decision. The FCC stated, "the intrusion by government into the content of programming occasioned by the enforcement of [the Fairness Doctrine] restricts the journalistic freedom of broadcasters … [and] actually inhibits the presentation of controversial issues of public importance to the detriment of the public and the degradation of the editorial prerogative of broadcast journalists," and suggested that, due to the many media voices in the marketplace, the doctrine be deemed unconstitutional" Quote from wikipedia. I find it hard to want a document like that reinstated. Bringing the fairness doctrine back has been attempted at least twice and both times it failed to be considered constitutional.

2. I completely understand each party having it's own agenda. This would definitely be the case in the news situation I was recommending. That is what I was counting on, actually. Correct me if I'm wrong, but consider this. My thoughts were: like a parent looks at the story of the broken lamp from both children’s views and is able to get very close to the real story, so we as the citizens can look at both parties extremes and get close to the best course of action to support. It is true this would not be a perfect scenario. I am open to better ones, I just haven't heard any yet.

3. "I think I’ve said that before but having 2 parties is only 1/2 worse than having one party." I'm not quite sure what you mean by this. Are you saying that one party is better than two? I am predominantly Republican, but would not like to be lumped with either side. However, I would not ever wish to have only one party. The beauty of Democracy shines in the very fact that we have two parties. Eliminate one and you have eliminated Democracy. Each party represents a choice for the people to make. The opposing parties are the way Americans can choose the future of America.

I have actually known of at least 3-4 candidates for each election, but I don't remember names. I figure that once the majority rules on two main candidates, it would almost be throwing my vote away to vote for the others, even if-in my opinion-they were better choices.

About fairness doctrine. The Fairness doctrine says you should broadcast more not less, so the government is not limiting you, it forces you to expand. When government want to control the media it usually wants only its view point to be heard and not the opposite, so in a sense it is contradicting the Fairness doctrine. Sudden change of this magnitude is much easier to spot if there is fairness than if there is not. Actually nobody noticed when the government (using FCC as proxy) managed to influence the biggest media companies and made all this warm up for the Iraq War. I recommend you to watch the documentary "Weapons of Mass Deception".

Yes there is a lot room for abuse, however fairness is one of the few items that cannot be self-regulated via free market. The most balanced and respected media in the world is BBC and it is entirely government founded television. I've also heard that USA Public National Television is very well balanced, but is extremely boring.

Now, why not to have a predominately Republican/Democrat news coverage? I think I've said that before but having 2 parties is only 1/2 worse than having one party. Both parties have same agenda on number of topics. Covering only their point of view simply hides a huge clusters of possible opinions and valid view points, sometimes even the truth.

Have you ever heard that there are more than 2 candidates for president on the real elections? Can you say the name of at least one such candidate from any election in the past (without searching the net)?

Thanks for the site. I don't have cable or good tv access, so sites work a lot better for me. The info on the fairness doctrine was a good read, however I understand why it was deemed unconstitutional. Letting part of the federal government decide what "unbiased coverage" on a government issue is could have even worse results than we have now. Also, his solution is to readress the fairness doctrine. Honeslty, I wouldn't trust the media any more than I do now if it was the federal government that decided on what to air. I think biased reporting is only natural and is ok on the news as long as the other bias is covered as well. Why not have a predominately Republican and a predominately Democrat news coverage on every political issue?

Any thoughts anyone?

About media coverage. I just recently found that there used to be something called Fairness_Doctrine. I read about it here (http://www.bsalert.com/news/354/A_Primer_On_The_Fairness_Doctrine_How_We_Screwed_Up.html) I think it is still good read.

Starks, I tend to disagree about the universal health care. I'm sure you've watched "Sicko", it is must watch documentary. All health insurance companies make profit by refusing treatment to paying customers, I don't think you need that kind of free market.

THANKS FOR THE SPOILER!!!! I CANT WAIT TO READ IT IN ENGLISH!!!!!  OOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!! DUDE THIS CHAPPIE LOOKS SOOOOO GOOD!!!!

HAHA MY COMMENT SOUNDS SO LAME!!! I JUST FELT LIKE TYPING RANDOM STUFF TO SEE HOW "OFFICIAL" I COULD SOUND….OBVIOUSLY THAT DIDNT WORK!!! HAHAHA!!  IM SUCH A LOSER!! IM NOT GOOD AT TRYING TO MAKE MY POINT…I DO EVERYTHING but MAKE MY POINT!!

*laughs to self* wow i'm so wierd…*sighs* …well yeah….i took a quiz a few days ago and it said i should vote for Ron Paul, but i didnt know half the answers i put…haha…but im all for Mitt Romney….

Whats up with that too?  Last night it said that Mitt Romney like OFFICIALLY  had:  Nevada, Utah, Maine, Michigan, and another one [i cant remember] and just this morning it said hes only got 3 states so far and im like "WHAT?!"…it confuseded me….oh well a lot of stoof confuses meh!!

Oh and by the way I just got my permit yay !