In the remaining wake of the presidential debates, a lot of misunderstanding has been made about Mitt Romney's part involving reducing government money going to PBS.
If one truly thinks about what he said, what I think it means is that by removing obscenely large amounts of money that the government has been granting to PBS, it will actually keep it being PBS. Keep it being public broadcasting and not government broadcasting.
It is a prime example of keeping something in the hands of the public and to keep it from becoming a political propaganda machine.
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test?
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive...
- In our opinion: Don't 'Army-ize' local police...
- Lois M. Collins: 'She asked for it' subverts...
- John Hoffmire: To feed the world, we must...
- Letter: Singles solution
- Classical liberalism offers sole durable...
- Charles Krauthammer: The jihadi logic
- My view: Utah, where do you stand on... 96
- W. Bradford Wilcox: The new progressive... 46
- Letter: Bush dilemma 2.0 42
- In our opinion: Don't 'Army-ize' local... 29
- George F. Will: Obama needs Congress to... 27
- Can you pass the U.S. citizenship test? 27
- In our opinion: How committed are... 26
- John Hoffmire: To feed the world, we... 22