15A047 Censored by PBS by Jim Davies, 8/5/2015    


I've taken recently to posting comments on the PBS News Hour web site, to offer a counterweight to the uniformly statist bias on that program; and to the editors' credit, a large majority of them have been published.

But some have not, and it's not because they were rude about some other participant, or off topic, for there's no sign of those things. I can only suppose that the ones banned grated too harshly on the sensitivities of Gwen Ifil's team.

So that you can see some of the opinions that this tax-funded broadcaster will not allow, I show below a selection of recent examples. This is the kind of thing the "public" broadcasting system prevents the "public" reading.

 CENSORED  on August 1st, about an informative segment on replacing the ageing US nuclear sub fleet:

"three nuclear-tipped missiles, enough to destroy several major cities and kill millions of people"

There is no way I wish to be part of a system that would kill millions of people in order to preserve Government A instead of Government B. That such a proposition can even be discussed is an obscenity.

No war has ever been fought to protect people. They have all been fought by people, to protect those who govern them - or to extend the power of those who govern them. So it will be with the next one. I cannot think of a better definition of gross immorality than to kill millions of people for such a purpose.

How many nuclear subs does America need? - first, define "America." If you mean the government of America, there is no limit; they need as many as we can be fooled or bullied into buying for them; their lust for worldwide power is insatiable.

But if you mean us the people, who would just like to get on with our own lives and let everyone else do the same, we don't need any at all. I think it was Gorbachev who suggested to Reagan in Iceland that all nukes be scrapped. It's time that suggestion was examined seriously.

 CENSORED  on July 28th, about Trump's entry to the Presidential race:

Trump is making this charade hugely enjoyable, for the first time in decades. All those pompous, complacent asses imagine that once they have shown the Party bosses they will toe their line, they can get coverage and a place in the debates... and along comes The Donald. Ha!

None of them is worth a red cent, including him - I disagree with about half of what he says, at the least. But that is true of all the others as well. He at least makes it amusing.

 CENSORED  on July 25th, about how to stop mass shootings in the US:

Mr Kelly is mistaken to say "we would all agree that keeping guns, dangerous firearms out of the hands of criminals is a good idea." For one, I would disagree.

First, "dangerous firearms" is a truism. There are no firearms that are not dangerous. Also, there are no knives or automobiles that are not dangerous.

Then, come to the word "criminal." That's someone who's broken a government law. To my mind, generally the law is an ass, and those who break it are highly commendable. Sometimes, I grant, the law coincides with what is right and moral, but very often it does not. Preserving one's own property from government confiscators, for example, who use the label "tax collectors", is wholly moral and courageous; but government law defines the resistor as the criminal, not the collector. Likewise, those who use and trade in recreational drugs are perfectly harmless, yet are categorized as criminal.

Even those convicted of serial violence, once they have completed their sentence, have a right to defend themselves.

 CENSORED  on July 8th, about Bill Cosby's use of Quaaludes:

No tricks. He offered, they took. That's consent.

If they wanted to know more about the pills' effect, they could have exercised their vocal chords and asked.

If they didn't, it means they suspected what was coming next and wanted to escape some of the responsibility. By pretending they didn't know, they could have their cake (sex with Bill) and eat it too (nice girls don't.)

 CENSORED  on July 8th, about David Brooks' conflation of charity and government welfare. I offered this five times with different wordings. Refused each time:

As Diana Moses points out below, Mr Brooks didn't actually mention government in what he hoped conservatives would do in terms of expanding their charitable works.

However, he used the term "public." That is very frequently a synonym for "government", as in "public schools", "public works", "public library", "public toilet" etc.

If Brooks was using the terms solely to mean that he wishes social conservatives would do more to encourage individual charity, he'll have the opportunity next Friday to correct the false impression I got.

 CONCLUSION:  PBS News Hour cares for forced redistribution rather than charity (which is the highest of virtues according to 1 Corinthians 13:13); and it presumes that in sexual encounters girls are always helpless victims and guys always wickedly deceptive; that laws define what is good and bad; that politics is a serious matter and not a charade; and that to annihilate vast numbers of people so as to preserve a particular government is morally valid.

That's the zeitgiest, folks; that's what has to change, before a zero government society can take effect. Better get busy.



What the coming free society
will probably be like
How freedom
was lost
How it is being
The go-to site for an
overview of a free society
Freedom's prerequisite:
Nothing more is needed
Nothing less will do

What every bureaucrat needs to know
Have them check TinyURL.com/QuitGov