A friend says that my writings here are not always explicit enough to make my point. After an e-mail discussion, we both learned something.

He did not realize that the links in my article were meant to provide “the missing links” in the arguments. That is, to add some credibility, I scour the Internet looking for information and stories that discuss the pros and/or cons what I’m saying. The main purpose of providing these links is to adhere to the Dave Barry Approach To Journalism; that is, to show “I am not making this up.”
I say “scour” because I try to avoid leftist or other citations that I know conservative, and sometimes moderate, people will shrug off. (It is, after all, a law of conservatism that arguments which go against you are best handled by argumentum ad hominem when there is no other way to refute them, or when such refutation would require intellectual work.)

However, my friend rightly points out that sometimes these truly become “missing links.” And, again, this happens because I try to use sources which cannot be easily shrugged off even by the O’Reilly’s of the world. CNN, ABCNews and the like do not often report stories that could make the Bush administration look bad. One can only guess why. So when one does manage to slip through—and, trust me, they do and I try to link them—they often don’t seem to stay put. Then the links I used to build my argument become orphans like so many bank accounts since Bush began to wage his war on America.

Therefore, my posts will probably get a little longer and I won’t spend quite as much time scouring for links that are only going to disappear. So try this trick, if you dare: When there is a link, check out the story, if it’s still around. If it’s not, see what you can find yourself before you shrug your shoulders and yell, “Bravo, Bush! Give them Iraqis and faggots hell!” Start with simple questions: “Why is the budget deficit so much more now than it was before Bush came to power?” or “Why doesn’t he ever address problems that don’t have to do with giving money to large businesses?” or even “When is he actually going to talk to us without using homilies?” (Conservatives: Look, just look it up, okay?)

Anyway, it seemed I should point out the change in my anticipated writing style. Besides, maybe you’ve read and old post and said, “Where’s the missing link?” Now you know.