These days we hear some people asking (quote) “Should the government control talk radio to make it more 'balanced?”

There are two things immediately evident in that question:
#1. Deliberately orchestrated and manipulated ignorance of the 1^st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States and what it says about (quote) “freedom of speech, and of the press”, and thus also,

#2, ignorance of the fact that Congress is thereby Constitutionally prohibited against making any law for government control of our (quoting the 1st Amendment) "freedom of speech, and of the press".

Now to know and understand what the 1st Amendment statement of (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press" means and applies to now is to first take it in context of the fact that when the Constitution was written in the 18th Century (1700's), the 18th Century version of "mass media" (means of public dissemination of news, information, and views) were establishments which utilized "printing press" technology to physically print news, information, and views on pieces of paper, and thus the 1st Amendment term "the press".

Next, you have to realize that "the press" didn't stay so exclusively defined by and limited to "free speech" dissemination of news, information, and views from such as "word of mouth" to "the printed word", when the telegraph and telegraph technology reached the point by the mid-19th Century (1800's) when the press certainly could and did use it. At that point "the press" as the 19th Century version of "mass media" ceased to be limited to only "the printing press", as it then became a practical necessity for both the press itself and the means of the press to go beyond "the printing press" and include the telegraph and everything involved with it. So then came press telegraphers, telegraphing reporters, and telegraph offices; plus, because telegraph technology then depended upon "wire" technology; "wire services" became available, and that led to the inclusion of "wire services" and "wire service organizations", along with a new popular term "wire" as in "to send/receive a telegram/wire".  

After that, "radio" and radio technology came and was developed by the early 20th Century (1900's) to the point where the press certainly could and did expand into something new called "broadcasting" news, information, and views, etc, through "talking on the radio", instead of being defined by and limited to "the printing press, the telegraph, and newsprint only". Thus, the press did indeed grow to include and be defined by "the press" broadcasting news, information, and views, etc, through both "print" and "talking on the radio" before the phrase "talk radio" came into vogue. 

Since then, with the invention and development of such things as television, and computer/internet-based "new media", etc, "the press" has continued expanding and becoming more than just "the press which prints" and the press which broadcasts news, information, and views through “radio" since, with the invention and development of such things as television and computer-based "new media" entities and technologies, "the press" now includes and is defined by all of those things from "print", to "radio", to TV", to "new media", etc. Thus also we have the fact that those who present news, information, or even views, etc, through such as newspaper, television, radio, and "new media", are called everything from the (quote) "man (or woman) on the street" to "members of the press"/"media personalities", including those at any time and to any extent associated, involved, and/or interacting with such as "print media", television programs and talk shows, "talk radio shows", and "new media" internet outlets.

So altogether, since the days when "the press" was indeed defined by "the printing press" and "words printed on paper" as a "mass media", what we have now is a “press" which has long since expanded into being "the press" which includes newspaper and other forms of print, plus radio, television, and computer internet “old (dominant) media” and "new media" sites, etc.

Therefore the 1st Amendment declaration of (quote) “freedom of speech, and of the press” now applies to and means the following:

We as U.S. citizens, including any of us in, and/or in any way associated/interacting with any part of the press (including radio), for any amount of time, whether “Conservative”, or “Liberal/Socialist”, or “None of the above” “Joe [or Jane] Citizens”, are Constitutionally protected and guaranteed to be free to exercise our (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press" as we choose, and as much as we choose, without government control.

Now one thing, among others, which drives those most determined to have government control of any part of the press, in direct violation of the 1st Amendment, is the fact that now there is finally one major “new kid on the block” in the form of a certain relatively new major Network which has actually managed to become the first major network today to so succeed against the still dominant and verifiably biased media in basically the following two ways:

1. By actually daring to succeed through providing news, information, and views which are unavailable from the still dominant media with their cleverly practiced yet increasingly verifiable agenda-driven bias for which they do such things as omit things as "un-newsworthy", and "slant" everything else they present, etc, and 

2. by thus also becoming the first major Network today to so successfully defeat any and all efforts by the still dominant media to “crush them like a little bug and make them go away!”

Thus indeed the still dominant media are losing their former virtual monopoly and stranglehold on news, information, and views, actually as a consequence of their own formerly unchallenged, arrogant, condescending, biased agenda-driven antics and machinations, all of which are actually fueling the fact that they are actually losing against that certain relatively new major network, and the fact that they are also simultaneously losing readership, listenership, and viewership to other alternative sources including both "talk radio" and “new media” which are indeed succeeding against the still dominant media in the same way as that certain aforementioned major network is. To wit: Those alternative sources are also providing news, information, and views which are unavailable from the still dominant media with their verifiably agenda-driven bias.

So now the still dominant media are realizing that they are losing their virtual monopoly and stranglehold on news, information, and views, etc; so of course they are basically "screaming bloody murder" like spoiled children accustomed to having their dominance and power remain virtually unopposed, and so they are basically "throwing a temper tantrum" accordingly as if (A) they haven’t had a virtual monopoly and stranglehold on news, information, and views, and haven't been unfairly squelching and overwhelming alternative sources; (B) as if they aren’t still the dominant media trying to save what remains of their dominance and virtual monopoly, and (C) as if they, the still dominantly huge and entrenched media, who "wrote the book", as the saying goes, on unfairly squelching and overwhelming alternative sources of news, information,m and views, are the ones being unfairly squelched and overwhelmed by comparatively tiny and far from dominant alternative sources, including a comparative few in radio.

So now, contrary to both the Constitution and reality, the still dominant media, and others, are pretending and demanding as if they need “Big Brother” (the Federal Government) to “step in” and make law such things as their so-called “Fairness Doctrine” for government control of radio, in direct violation of the 1^st Amendment, in order to make still comparatively small, few, and far from dominant alternative sources of news, information, and views, such as "talk radio", “shut up and let them talk”, even though they know that they are still so dominant, and thus doing so much more of the "talking", that they still have most people relying on them for their news, information, and views…all of which, you should see by now, makes all of their pretending and demanding government control of radio both diabolically laughable and Unconstitutional. 

Yet here we are now today with far too many people proposing, and even demanding government control of radio, when the fact is that any such law for government control of any part of the press is in direct violation of our 1st Amendment prohibition against government control.

So of course any such law is no way for us to remain free people, in a free country, with (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press (including talk radio)", but of course any such effort for any such government control, including the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", most certainly is a way to kiss (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press" goodbye and so descend further down into becoming yet another Socialist/Totalitarian country with government control of the press, a.k.a. "mass media", which includes radio.  

So how do we stop such an effort for government control?

Well for one thing, hopefully there are enough people to alert others and help stop such efforts for government control of our (quoting the 1st Amendment) "freedom of speech, and of the the press", such as the so-called "Fairness Doctrine", including those who can help alert the people through remembering and telling people about being in school in the U.S. and learning, until recent years at least, about Socialist/Totalitarian countries where there is indeed such government control of their press (including radio) through laws which are also claimed to be a "countermeasure" against “imbalance” and "lies”, etc, and how our government didn’t control our press (including radio) here then, and how that would never happen here in the U.S. because of our Constitutionally guaranteed and protected (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press", which, as correctly stated both then and now, includes radio.

Meanwhile, both we and those whom we alert must all defeat any efforts for government control of our freedom of speech and any part of the press, including radio, because any such efforts are quite clearly and obviously in blatant and direct violation of our 1st Amendment prohibition against government control of our (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press", and we must all insist and see to it that Congress obey our 1st Amendment prohibition against government control of our (quote) "freedom of speech, and of the press" by refusing to make any law for government control, including the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" for government control, and thus "preserve, protect, and defend" what remains of our Constitutional 1st Amendment "freedom of speech, and of the press", which includes "talk radio", without government control.

People ask the question: How small of a car is too small?

As this involves the ultimate comparison between the both real and potential value of a human life vs. that of a gallon of fuel (or any other liquid, solid, or gas, for that matter), this is one of those times when, like the saying goes, (quote) “It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to come up with the ultimately right and true answer to this question”

Indeed this is one of those times when getting the ultimately right and true answer to this question is no more difficult and complicated than that illustrated by Thomas Jefferson when he said (Quote): “Present a problem to a ploughman (plowman), and a professor; the former will decide it as well, and often better than the latter, because he has not been led astray by artificial rules".

For example: All it really requires is to have enough common sense to understand a basic law of physics which can be stated as follows: “In a collision, the greater (larger and heavier) of two masses will prevail".

In other words, for example, in a collision involving a brand new BMW Mini Cooper and a brand new Ford Escape, the reason why the relatively small Ford Escape and its’ occupant(s) will most likely come out better than the even smaller Mini and its’ occupant(s) has absolutely nothing to do with so-called “unfair advantage” and everything to do with the basic law of physics as stated above, (quote) “the greater of two masses will prevail”, no matter how "stiff" or “tough” or anything else the “engineers” may try to make the bodywork or anything else about the BMW Mini Cooper, or any other smaller of any two vehicles involved in collisions.

Of course some, such as auto engineers, auto manufacturer's marketing divisions, and dealership salespeople, will strive to insist to the contrary against such a basic law of physics in order to sell smaller cars, and so engage in all sorts of efforts to overcome or otherwise contradict that law and conjure-up any “data” accordingly, similar to a number of [quote] “modern, up-to-date” people who insist the earth is flat, presenting any amount of specious (having the ring of truth or plausibility but actually fallacious) claims as if to prove it is flat, and declaring that any information to the contrary is a [quote] "deliberate campaign of misinformation", but nevertheless the basic law of “the greater of two masses will prevail” still remains true, as does the earth’s practically spherical shape.

So, how small of a car is too small?