The Fairness Doctrine is making a comeback. Could be coincidence; you decide.

It's nothing new; the idea of government controlling the content you hear on the radio has been around since 1949, when the Federal Communications Commission instituted this act. Things have changed a lot since then - in the world and in radio technology.

The premise behind the Fairness Doctrine is fairly straightforward, according to the FCC. Older, analog technology limited the number of stations because frequencies were rare. Therefore, government considered the stations and their licensure as "public trustees," and wanted to offer the public the fairness that contrasting viewpoints finds inherent, especially when it came to discussions that were considered controversial.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has expressed strong support for the revival of the Fairness Doctrine, which would force radio stations to provide equal time to radio commentary when it is requested.

In the last session of Congress Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., authored a bill to outlaw the Fairness Doctrine that never saw the light of day, thanks to the speaker and her cohorts. In the past couple of years Speaker Pelosi has made it clear of her intentions to "aggressively pursue" the revival of this idea.

Not that Americans would ever have the fortitude to stand up to the federal government (can you say "stimulus package"?). There was a time when this argument of fairness, while invalid, still seemed rational to those of a liberal ilk.

For example, in the mid-1970s in Anchorage there were four radio stations. Now there are about two dozen, and with digital technology there is the potential for dozens more.

People have access to thousands of stations from around the world thanks to satellite technology. They can access these stations from their computers and even their phones.

The "rarity" argument is as obsolete as the technology of the 1940s. But government, as often is the case when finding their premise obsolete, refuse to bow out of our lives gracefully. Rather, they stick around in a weak attempt to justify their continued existence in yet another overreach into the private sector.

In other words, just charge us a fee for the use of the public airwave and leave us be, thank you very much.

When this act was brought forward, the idea was that we needed the government to referee radio content to ensure that differing views were heard. Keep in mind that in the 1940s, radio was at the center of the media universe and a powerful force to be reckoned with. Television was yet to materialize in American households. Some remember War of the Worlds being translated into a real-time catastrophic event.

It would be difficult, one would sense, for the federal government to put forward a valid argument that they must police our airwaves today. But argue they will.

It seems that political commentary has gotten under the skin of our dear Democratic legislators like Nancy Pelosi and Barbara Boxer. Conservative talk radio is such a threat we have found even our new president recently urging his fellow Americans not to listen to the likes of Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh.

Why radio? First Amendment rights are something we in America still take serious, so politicians run to what they think they can control through regulation. Combine that with the fact that right-wing conservative talk radio has become the darling of the marketplace in AM radio all across this nation.

It can't really be controversial content in a broad sense that is at issue, for one only has to cast a cursory glance at the porn fest that we refer to as Hollywood to find enough vile content to last a lifetime and beyond.

Hollywood has no lack of controversy; you can espouse all that is profane, vulgar, irreverent and violent, all to the delight of its viewing audience. You can say or display virtually any abhorrent, decadent and depraved attitude, but we aren't trying to promote fairness in Hollywood are we? Should we be required to air the Andy Griffith Show right after an episode of the Soprano's?

Take newspapers as another example; who can deny the New York Times or Washington Post list to the liberal portside when it comes to how they report the news? Why isn't the government demanding equal time over there?

What about recent movies and their portrayal of the military in a negative light. Why isn't that being regulated as they were during previous war-time eras?

We could take a peek at the Internet, but that would ruin everyone's day. Suffice it to say that anything imaginable and a whole lot that shouldn't be is proudly displayed on YouTube for your viewing pleasure.

So why a resurrection of the Fairness Doctrine? Simple, it's called political commentary. Liberal Democrats, while relishing in the muck and mire with the rest of America for what passes as entertainment and enlightenment, utterly foam at the mouth when political satire is proffered for our consumption.

Must be a conspiracy, after all, the 37 people who listened to Al Franken couldn't possible be wrong. Could they?