Initially posted here: 8-20-01. Most recent update: 3-27-02.  Send this page from You Don't Say to a friend.For those using Microsoft Internet Explorer: Select the "Mail" icon at the top of this window, then "Send Page." For those using Netscape: Select "File" at the top of this window, then "Send Page." |
WHY WAS THIS WEBSITE CREATED? I wrote the book You Don't Say so readers would be exposed to a perspective of liberalism liberals would prefer to keep confidential, namely what they really think. With words from their own mouths and pens, the true nature and intent of liberalism is revealed. It ain't a pretty sight. I began the website You Don't Say to promote my book, but also to provide an extension of it. Now over time the website has evolved a step or two beyond what I initially envisioned. Each month I read dozens of publications -- newspapers, magazines, newsletters, bulletins, occasionally books -- that are not read by the general public. Whenever I see an item I think is particularly interesting and/or newsworthy, and has not been given much or any attention by the mainstream media, I like to post it on this website, usually on the "Government Run Amuck", "Must Read", or "Quickies" pages. So my website has become a condensation of highlights from hundreds of pages of material I look at each month. WHAT ABOUT THE ACCURACY OF THE MATERIAL POSTED HERE? As I mentioned once on my "Thoughts" page, I don't have the time (or patience) to research the items I post, so I can't vouch for their accuracy, and alas, on a couple of occasions inaccuracies have been pointed out to me. As it turns out, I can't vouch for the veracity of the "corrections", either, but I go out of my way to prominently post them nevertheless for all website visitors ("websters", I call them) to see. While my objective is to publish only the truth, I sometimes post editorial pieces (opinion, which may or may not be true), analysis (which often is little more than opinion), and humor (which, while usually incorporating a tinge of truth, is generally mere absurdity). And whenever I can, I give sources, most often the publication where I found the item. Thus, those with a penchant for digging further into the meat of any subject or those demanding more substantiation for any posting have a starting point for their investigations. Although I strive for truth (within the above constraints), I obviously can't attest to the accuracy of what's on my website. Thus, I urge you to view with skepticism everything you read here . . . just as I urge you to view with skepticism everything you read everywhere. And everything you see on TV and hear on the radio and even those concepts and "facts" you've taken for granted as being true. Likewise, I can't vouch for the accuracy of any material posted on any of the hundreds of websites to which I provide links on this website. It is the responsibility of the reader to be critical and skeptical of all he or she encounters. But this is just as it has been from the beginning of time. By the way, when I provide a link to a website or article, does that mean I've read the entire website or article and agree 100 percent with its content? Absolutely not. There is so much material posted on the Internet nowadays, when I find something that sounds interesting I try to read enough of it to satisfy me that as far as I can tell it doesn't seem to contradict my sensitivities. Some material on some websites does rub me the wrong way, but I can't edit websites maintained by others, so on occasion I'll provide a link even though I'm uncomfortable with some portion, even a large portion, of a website's or article's content. Furthermore, every now and then, I'll post information or links to information that is outrageous, ridiculous, or just plain dumb. I assume each visitor to my website is able to determine into which category any posted material falls, based on its content. If you're unable to do this, then just be warned. PERSPECTIVE I openly and proudly admit I have conservative views (note that the liberal mainstream media are unwilling to admit they have liberal views) and I believe an obligation of conservatism is a dedication to truth. (I believe liberals are not so constrained; in fact it seems that an obligation of liberalism is often deceit and deception. But I digress.) Another obligation of conservatism is the rigorous application of logic -- yes, and common sense, too -- in the analysis of all information that comes to my attention. So, when government reports state JFK was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald and Lee Harvey Oswald alone, and I see the Zapruder film showing JFK's head jerked backward toward the rear of the limousine when he is shot, I know that what I've seen and have been told disagree. When someone is shot in the back of the head, the head jerks forward, not back. So I'm forced to conclude that Lee Harvey Oswald did not fire the fatal shot at the President. When the government discounts, then ridicules dozens of eye-witness accounts (which all tend to corroborate one another) of something that looked like a rocket streaking up and then hitting the TWA 800 airplane, I have to ask myself: Are all of the eyewitnesses lying . . . or is it the government? Logic tells me it's the government. More recently, when I learned the FBI has in its possession almost two dozen video tapes of the Oklahoma City Murrah Building around the time it was bombed, yet the agency refuses to make them available to the public, I have to ask why. If the tapes show Timothy McVeigh and only Timothy McVeigh getting out of the Rider truck, why wouldn't the FBI wish to substantiate the contention that McVeigh acted alone? Logic tells me the tapes show something quite to the contrary of what the FBI insists is true. It's not that a single piece of information lets me immediately jump to the conclusion the government is not telling the public the truth, but over time dozens or hundreds of pieces of an information puzzle too often suggest the truth is an enemy of what the government want's the citizens to believe. I had heard dozens of friends state with self assured certainty that FDR knew about the attack on Pearl Harbor long before it occurred. I was unwilling to accept their point of view, however, because I didn't think a respected American, let alone a President, would sit idly by as more than 2000 fellow Americans were slaughtered by Japanese bombs and bullets. Yet, when I read in The New American (June 4, 2001 issue, pages 10-27) what I consider overwhelming evidence substantiating Roosevelt's prior knowledge -- worse, his complicity in the attack -- I'm led to a conclusion I wish would be otherwise. The same goes for the "strange" death of Vice Foster. If indeed Foster used the gun "found" in his hand when his body was discovered in Ft. Marcy Park, and if, as has been stated, he put the barrel of the weapon in his mouth and pulled the trigger, his head would have "exploded" from the caliber and power of the bullet. Yet, paramedics found little to no blood when they lifted Foster's head. That strongly suggests Foster died in some way other than the "official" government story. Then some years after the fact it becomes clear that Foster's car wasn't even in the Ft. Marcy parking lot when his body was found! How could that be? There are lots of explanations, but none that fit what the government has told us. I sense that a lot of folks are aware of some of these facts, but then tell themselves: But the government wouldn't lie to us; the government wouldn't do something so dastardly as intentionally mislead the citizens. If this is the thought process, well, it isn't a thought precess at all. It's emotion overriding a thought process. It's allowing feelings to trump logic. It's willingness to embrace something sweet and wrong rather than what's ugly and right and true. I understand this process because in the past I have subscribed to it. I told myself FDR wouldn't sacrifice American lives to achieve his objective of getting America into World War II. I let the sweet and wrong win over my "thought" process. Now I wish to impose logic and common sense where emotion once reigned. WHAT I'D LIKE TO ACHIEVE This website is about turning off the emotion spigot and turning on the logic spigot. It's not about believing everything you read or hear, or even see. It's about allowing information, often uncomfortable and ugly information, to be considered, given an unbiased, unemotional "hearing." If you read for example that AIDS was a carefully-designed biological-warfare weapon that got loose into the general public, you may choose to disbelieve the report. Fine. Store it away as a "oh, no, I don't think so," but not as a "well, I know that isn't true," unless of course you have a substantial body of information that proves it isn't true to your full satisfaction. If you hear a story that Bob Kerrey did indeed line up innocent Viet Nam citizens and kill them in cold blood, I would hope you wouldn't automatically conclude, "No, he wouldn't do that, so the story must be a lie." Because if you do, then when you come across additional information that might tend to prove he committed such an act (see Accuracy In Media, Report #8, 2001), you'll tend to discard it. It's like saying, "Don't bother me with the truth because my mind's made up." WEBSITE CONFIDENTIALITY I use WebTracker (it's an automatic link to the WebTracker website) to gather statistics about webster visits, such as the number of visitors, the countries of origin, website traffic by hour of the day, identification of websites from which websters linked to You Don't Say, etc. I do not obtain any information which would identify a visitor by name or e-mail address or any other personal identifier. I do not, have not, will not gather any user information for the purpose of selling it to anyone who would wish to use it for any purpose. In addition to the characteristics above, WebTracker (a free service, I might add) also provides counts of webster operating system use, browser use, search engine use, IP address, and a few other characteristics. Again, these parameters are not associated with an identification of you. Most I don't even use. I'm principally interested in visitor counts, country of origin, and "linked-from" website information. Note: As of October 28, 2001, the WebTracker service has been discontinued. It ceased to be a free service and the monthly charge was a little high for my purposes, so I no longer subscribe. POSTING CRITERIA What determines what I post on this website? There are principally four criteria. 1) Items interesting to me and which I believe will be of interest to others. 2) Items which are generally brief. I know time is precious, so I strive for brevity. 3) Items relating to the political condition in the U.S. and the world, or occasionally, items I consider particularly entertaining or significant. 4) Items you aren't likely to see on other websites. What do I generally avoid posting? 1) Current news. There are hundreds of websites that strive to provide the latest, up-to-the-minute news stories. As a one-man operation I could never compete with them. NewsMax.com is a good example. Go there or elsewhere (for example any of the links in the left column on my homepage) for excellent coverage of what's hot, what's breaking, and for in-depth analysis. Come here for unique stories and items, a real change of pace, and of course links to hundreds of valuable websites, many of which reflect solid conservative views. 2) The liberal slant and/or spin on the news. You can get all of that you want on ABC, CBS, NBC, and CNN, and in the mainstream newspapers and magazines. They usually don't give you the conservative perspective on what's going on, so why should I give you the liberal view? Besides, I think liberal bias has been only too well indoctrinated in the public with liberal government schools, liberal media, liberal Hollywood, liberal music, liberal foundations, liberal churches, etc., etc., etc. 3) Deception. As I said before, I respect the truth. I honor the truth. I revere the truth. If there were some way to check everything I post with a simple "truth program," I'd do it. When I find I may have published something in error, I quickly publish a "correction" in a bold and unambiguous way. I don't hide corrections in tiny print on a little-accessed page. ENDORSEMENTS From time to time I recommend books or magazines or videos. With the exception of my own book, of course, I derive no monetary benefit as a result of sales resulting from these recommendations. My endorsement is based solely on a judgement the identified material would be useful, meaningful, and/or valuable to you. I sometimes post links to websites that offer products or services for sale. Such postings are not intended to be an endorsement of any product or service. Rather, I think you'll find the linked websites of interest. In the interest of full information, I should perhaps mention that I have invested in NewsMax. I recommend this website because I believe its content is excellent, not because I'm an investor. COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL If I have improperly used any material that is copyrighted, please let me know. I wish to violate no copyright protections, and if informed of any instances where I have inadvertently published something I should not have published, I'll take immediate corrective action. Inasmuch as I have a couple of copyrighted books myself, I understand the value of copyright laws and I respect these laws. SUMMARY I choose to spend a good deal of time preparing material for this website in hopes you will find it of interest, possible amusement, and hopefully value. I'm honored you choose to take time from your busy life to stop by and view my postings. I wish the best for America and I wish the best for you. Thanks.  The way back home. |