Intelligence agency websites

Just for the hell of it, compare the websites for the Central Intelligence Agency, the British Secret Intelligence Service, and the French Directorate of External Security. Notice that they all have diagonal corners all over the place; what's up with that? Also, the differences in general appearance - the abundance or scarcity of graphics, for example - of each website suggests to me something about the nature of each of the services. Note the top graphic of each page; the British are so smug with their big building at Vauxhall Cross; the CIA has shadows cast on the famous seal - a pretense of a secret organization that also, by the way, continually promotes a massive, high profile (the CIA's old office building has a gift shop for God's sake); and the French with two transparent eyes staring at you, and virtually nothing behind them.

The US-India Nuclear Deal

The circa 1970 Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) is designed to limit the spread of nuclear weapons. 189 countries have signed it, including 5 nuclear powers - the US, UK, France, China, and Russia. All the signatories agree to not spread nuclear technology to non-nuclear states and states that haven't signed the NPT. So, hypothetically, a nuclear state such as the US can't provide nuclear technology to, for example, India, because India hasn't signed the NPT. To do so violates "international law".

Question: Who cares about international law? The only reason that laws as such mean anything is because there are consequences for violating them. There are no such consequences for violating "international law" because there is no international legal authority, just as there should not be.

A better question: How exactly does this nuclear deal between the US and India benefit the US? Other than perhaps creating a stronger bond between us and the "world's largest democracy", it doesn't benefit us at all. It does, on the other hand, create ill-will for us in places like Western Europe because we are at least violating the spirit of the NPT, and it does harm our relationship with Pakistan, India's adversary.

It's all very interesting, indeed

Although I pretend otherwise, I'm a naturally suspicious person, casually questioning people's motives, assuming the very worst. In my real life I actively try giving people the benefit of the doubt precisely because I don't want that suspicion to turn into outright paranoia. I also try not to buy into wacky conspiracy theories: the grassy knoll, 9/11-related, et al. Sometimes bad things just happen, and don't result from a secret, malicious effort...

I got to thinking about all this after visiting the Cunning Realist, who writes of Pat Tillman's death in Iraq, "it's all more than a bit interesting." I'd say so.

Terrorists smuggling weapons

This is all so silly. If terrorists want to bring a WMD into the US, why not just sail it in themselves, on a small civilian boat, into a tiny unpatrolled harbor?

Livermore

More evidence that the mediocre succeed in life - or at least in government.

Cold War Nostalgia

Which stage of Communism is accompanied by Louis Vuitton? Or is this proof that the West won?

An environmentalist at the office

I wish my computer setup looked like this. I guess giant computer monitors don't emit carbons into the atmosphere.

link via Steve Sailer

Vulnerable nukes

This is why we need controls for who comes into our country. One of the real concerns is not that a terrorist might bring a weapon with him into the US, it's that he will simply come here and then use the nuclear or other wmd-type material that's already here against us.

Our border security is atrocious, but so is our security at lots of other places vulnerable to attack.

A Southern Baptist Background

An equally good question might be, "Senator Edwards, why do you think it is proper for you to cite your own sectarian religious background when discussing a national public policy matter?"

[Link]

The Al Gore Principle

Al Gore is just one, aristocrat-like man and therefore can do whatever he wants, such as fly around in private jets and eat endangered species. These activities are obviously only a problem if everyone else does them too. He knows this, in his brilliance, and that's why he lectures us about things like the threat of global warming, sometimes via massive, energy-consuming concerts.

Illegal Cubans

A 20,000 percent increase in the federal tax on cigars is all the more reason for me to continue smoking illegal cigars that aren't taxed anyway.

You don't say!

Here's funny commentary about a lame-o unclassified national intelligence estimate.

Verification in North Korea

North Korea is allowing IAEA inspectors into their country to verify Yongbyon's shutdown, in return for whatever we are this time offering NK in return for their this time shutting down their nuclear program. And then next time we will offer something else in return for the next time NK starts up and then stops its nuclear program. It's a long-term cyclical approach to the US appeasing North Korea.

Some people, at Danger Room for example, are more optimistic than I am that North Korea can actually be forever deterred, and further that we should be so confident of this that we can continue our own program of arms control at a full clip.

Trouble with the CTBT is that I'm not entirely certain the US should commit itself to forever refraining from testing nukes. Because we don't know what types of weapons we might want to test in the future, we shouldn't ratify a treaty in the probably vain hope that other, hostile, countries will sign and ratify it in good-faith. The reason, in the first place, that we are concerned about North Korea or Iran possessing nuclear weapons is because we can't trust them. (We're not worried that France, for example, has nuclear weapons, because France can be trusted not to use them against us.) Therefore, if we can't trust North Korea to possess nuclear weapons, on what basis can we trust North Korea if it says it will hold up its end of any bargain or treaty?

The US shouldn't tie its hands in the hope that North Korea will tie its own. Because North Korea has seemingly finally halted its illegal nuclear program is no reason to start trusting them, and its no reason for the US to ratify the CTBT.

Wow

Winston Churchill: who's that?

[via The Corner]

Adventures in Belgian 1930s Racism

There's a story in today's Le Figaro about Belgian comics character Tintin being censored in England. Here's my translation of part of the story from French into English:

From now on, in order to read "Tintin in the Congo" on the other side of the Channel [that's in England], a person must be at least 18 years old.... The reason: it's a decision of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) ... [because some British lawyer thinks] "Tintin in the Congo" suggests that Africans are subhuman, that they are idiots, that they are savages.

[Link to Le Figaro]

"The Adventures of Tintin in the Congo" (the original French version was published in 1931) is one of 24 Tintin comic books, published by a Belgian named Herge, and published beginning in the 1930s and for the next couple decades. This particular book, number two in the series, was for many years not translated into English precisely because it is widely considered racist. It finally was published in the UK, in English, a few years ago, and only now is it being censored.

At that link to the Le Figaro story there's a sample of the comic in question. It depicts Africans as black monkeys, which seems racist to me.

The questions on my mind are, one, should the government have the legitimate authority to limit the sale of items expressing racist sentiments only to those people over 18? And, two, if this story becomes more widely known, will it have any effect on Steven Spielberg's and Peter Jackson's planned Tintin movie trilogy, the first of which is scheduled for release in 2009?

[Tintin movies on Wikipedia]

Bush Delusion Syndrome

Sadly, I'm not surprised by this video clip.

I know many people who were once against nation-building, once against Bush's immigration policies, and so on, and now that they have started working in the Bush White House, they have radically changed their minds. It's not merely the case that they have decided to publicly support the President because they feel it their duty. In fact, it's as though Bush has cast a spell on them, and changed their entire view of the world so that it now conforms with his. He's like the God-King, able to warp and mush the brains of otherwise logical people, and so of course he has supplanted the Constitution as that to which they take their oaths of office.

Maybe some of his critics suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome; but many of his supporters clearly suffer delusions of their own.

Rudy's new ME advisor

Martin Kramer has been named Middle East advisor to Rudy Giuliani. Kramer's got some MAs and a PhD in ME Studies and is affiliated with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, which is populated with both George HW Bush guys and some neocon sorts like Richard Perle (and a bunch of liberals, too). Here's what Kramer had to say on his weblog in Oct 2002 about the prospect for democracy in the Middle East:

Frankly, my eyes glaze over when I hear Condoleezza Rice, James Woolsey, and Tom Friedman wax eloquent on the coming "march of democracy" in the Arab world. (Woolsey to James Fallows in the current issue of The Atlantic: "This could be a golden opportunity to begin to change the face of the Arab world. Just as what we did in Germany changed the face of Central and Eastern Europe, here we have got a golden chance.") As a survivor of the Middle East peace process, which, we were told, would transform Israel, "Palestine," and Jordan into a Benelux, I smell snake oil. Of all the rationales for war, this one is the least substantial and the most ideological, and those who make it cast doubt on whether they fully understand the regional context in which an Iraq war might be fought.

Music to my ears. Maybe there is hope for Rudy's FoPo yet.

[Kramer Blog]

PS: I have an amusingly frustrating second-hand story about Richard Perle from the Reagan years, which I may decide to relate to you people at a future date... but since I don't know how accurate it is, or whether anyone will care, I might just keep it to myself.

Out-of-context Sensationalism

That's what Walid Phares over at Counterterrorism Blog is calling the new flurry of public and media interest in terrorist attacks against America. He writes,

I am not being sarcastic here but there is something strange about how we proceed in analyzing the Jihadi war against democracies and America, and how we break news to the public. On the one hand, the overwhelming majority of the academic elite, many in the political establishment and most of the mainstream media are desperately trying to demobilize their audiences by claiming that all what we see "is just a mirage." And on the other hand, the same media tells us that al Qaeda could be "attacking us this summer" because of a graduation, a Pastor's report, tactics we learned from London, doctors-turned-Jihadis, and summer times. With all these ingredients, the debate on Terrorism seems to be swinging between total denials on the one hand and blurry vision on the other hand.

This summer and any other summer, and all other seasons by the way, are Jihadi times. We need to adapt to this reality for as long as this conflict is on. For al Qaeda and its allies, as well as the Khomeinists are on the path of war. And when they are in that mode, nothing should surprise us.

Bingo. Because we suddenly have new evidence of the already-existing threat doesn't mean a new threat has suddenly emerged. There are terrorists in America, there are terrorists in other parts of the world. There are terrorists everywhere, at all times, plotting against us. That doesn't mean we should live our lives in constant fear, and it also doesn't mean we should give up trying our best to counter that threat.

What it does mean is that people who want to concern themselves with these sorts of developments - the emergence of terrorist graduation videos, and pastors who converse with terrorists - also have to try to realize this fact: even if no one hears the tree fall, the tree will still make a sound. Just because we were previously unaware of some terrorist cell in America doesn't mean that cell wasn't still here. Just because we only just got hold of a video depicting the terrorist graduation doesn't mean there weren't previous terrorist graduations. The world is full of stuff we know nothing about until well after the fact, if at all. That includes terrorists and their evil doings, and every time we get some new piece of evidence we shouldn't start panicking.

[Counterterrorism Blog]

Department of Homeland Clownery

What is this gut-feeling business?

U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said in Chicago on Tuesday that the nation faces a heightened chance of an attack this summer.... he indicated his remarks were based on "a gut feeling" formed by past seasonal patterns of terrorist attacks, recent al-Qaida statements, and intelligence he did not disclose.

Uh huh. Seasonal. Heightened in the summer. Is September 11 in the summer? Maybe this Chertoff, instead of giving us his summer "gut" assessment should do something useful, such as making the organizational structure of DHS sensible.

Security Clearances

Don Surber writes,

The Hill will report on Tuesday that the Senate will allow the Pentagon to give security clearances to felons, drug addicts and the mentally incompetent.

What's happening here is the DoD is calling Congress's bluff. As far as I'm aware, every member of Congress has a compartmented security clearance, and we know that place is itself filled with felons, drug addicts and the mentally incompetent. Why should some nobody congressman get access to sensitive info, but not people who have actually already gone through a Defense Department hiring and vetting process?

I'd bet my security clearance that we can't trust the lot of 'em in Congress. Aside from out-and-out leaking info to the press, let's say, hypothetically, that Joe Schmoe Representative from Nowheresville has to vote on some FoPo bill, but he doesn't have any idea what's going on in the relevant national intel estimate or whatever. (And, he probably doesn't have time to go and read it anyway, but that's another story.) This congressman is an idiot, and his staffers might be a little more knowledgable about the subject. But his staffers aren't cleared for the info, only he is. Does that mean he's going to keep the info confidential, try to sort it out himself, and then go and vote based on nothing? Maybe.

[Don Surber]
[The Hill]

The Vietnam Comparison

Professor Bainbridge - I found him via Andrew Sullivan - is looking at an examination of whether the Vietnam war was "winnable". He also compares that war to Iraq.

[Professor Bainbridge]

This reminds me that a few weeks ago at one of these big-time peace conferences here in the District, old Robert Strange McNamara stood up during a panel's question period and told everyone what he thinks about nuclear weapons ("we don't need them"). I recall that he was behind the JFK administration's "no cities" nuke policy, so obviously he has always had an opinion about nukes. But, on the other hand, this is the guy who advised Kennedy when we got involved in Vietnam, and subsequently, he was advocating during the Johnson administration that the US escalate our presence in the country. Based on all this, I wondered when I saw him and I still wonder now, "why does anyone actually care what this guy has to say about anything?"

Some people do seem to care what he thinks. There was, after all, a recent movie about him and the "Fog of War" that apparently clouded his judgment during the 1960s. Other than his retrospective thoughts on his collosal failure as advisor to the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, I simply don't much value his opinions, and certainly not on the efficacy or necessity of the American nuclear arsenal. His thinking both then and now doesn't strike me as too sound.

[McNamara on Wikipedia]
[Fog of War movie]

Uh huh

No kidding:

EXCLUSIVE: NEW INTELLIGENCE SUGGESTS AN AL QAEDA CELL MAY BE IN THE UNITED STATES OR ON ITS WAY, SOURCES TELL ABC NEWS

What kind of "news" is this, anyway? And what sort of "intelligence" that suggests this can be considered new? I had assumed that everyone else assumed there were already terrorist cells in America, currently plotting our destruction. Do National Review and ABC News mean to suggest that there aren't already terrorists here? Maybe this is a joke.

[National Review]

Ron Paul Spam

Somebody noticed that Ron Paul supporters seem to surf the internet during the day, defending Ron Paul on weblogs, so he started writing blog posts just to attract these people and drive up his total number of visitors. The LA Times, taking note of this, also noted that some Ron Paul supporters are good-natured folk. I, believe it or not, was already aware of this; in fact, I happen to personally know at least one Ron Paul supporter, and he is a swell guy (and not totally nuts).

[10 Reasons Ron Paul Is Not Libertarian Enough]
[LA Times]

Re: Powell and Cicero

News like this, the possibility that our "surge" in Iraq might actually be working, is precisely the sort of thing that might conceivably change my opinion about the war. But, thus far I'm still against the war, because I think a few successes here or there won't matter a hill a beans in this crazy, mixed-up world.

I've opposed the war from the beginning, not on moral grounds, but on practical ones. The war in Iraq, its stated and apparent goals, simply don't seem attainable - or frankly worth our while - based on the way I see the world. Sure all corners of the world becoming democracies is a nice idea; real democracies are less likely to violate people's rights, are more reliable diplomatic partners. The list of reasons for preferring democracies over other forms of government is endless. But I simply don't think the United States is capable of bringing about such real democracies via our military.

My understanding of Colin Powell's worldview leads me to believe that he sees the Iraq war in similar terms. The relative morality of waging such a thing is secondary to the consideration that the goals of the war can't be met, and thus the war itself isn't in the interests of the United States. Assuming all of this to be the case, that Powell opposed the war for this reason, it therefore means that Powell cares about the fate of the United States, and would want to be in a position to affect the course of the war and the overall policy decisions of the Bush administration.

The President waged the war in Iraq despite Powell's objections. Because he cared, in 2003, about the fate of the United States, which was entering a war with which he didn't agree, Powell was correct to remain as Secretary of State. It was honorable to remain in a position with the potential ability to affect the course of the war. The war, according to this line of thinking, wasn't immoral, and by Powell remaining a party to it, wasn't doing something dishonorable. If, on the other hand, the war were immoral and Powell privately objected to it, but publicly supported it, that would surely be another story.

When in Rome, and everywhere else

I've been getting a great deal of questions about the essential sights and tastes when visiting Italy as of late. After going through my usual run down ( Giolitti in Rome, Cibreo and Antico Noe in Florence) I have been sending everybody here, to EATDRINKSLEEPWELL.

Traveller has "the boot" wired as well comprehensive reviews and recommendations for a few spots stateside. He's always updating and his taste in food and entertainment is unparalleled if you're looking to enjoy authentic, regional cuisine with the locals and get a real sense d'Italia.

When in doubt, look to Cicero

My old friend Cicero came to mind as I was reading over Charlie's post about Colin Powell this morning. The Roman orator once stated that "Ability without honor is useless." Cicero died, honor and virtue intact, for defending the republic. I cannot say as much for Powell's honor and credibility. If he had indeed been against this war he should have done the honorable thing and resigned. I understand Charlie's point here:

"By remaining in the administration he was in a far better position to try and influence policy - unsuccessful as he was - than if he had left his post. Imagine, if you will, in our run-up to the War, in the post-9/11 fervor, Powell suddenly announcing that he was against Bush's FoPo and resigned. Would he retain influence over the administration? Would Surber and Reynolds think more or less of him in that scenario than now?"

Its an argument of American pragmatism, but being pragmatic isn't always the right course of action. Should it matter what Surber and Reynolds think of him at the moment? History is always kind to people who stand up for their convictions in the face of conflict. That is true Patriotism and I have a hard time identifying Powell as someone with a sense of some.

Fuzzy Illogic

Via Andrew Sullivan, an Intellectual Conservative asks many questions of the Iraq Warriors;

Does victory mean toppling Saddam? Done. Does victory mean ensuring Iraq doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction? Done. Does it mean a stable and Western style democracy in Iraq? Good luck with that. Does it just mean a stable but perhaps not democratic Iraq? Good luck with that as well. Does it mean modernizing and westernizing all of the Middle East? Does it mean stamping out all vestiges of "Shari'a-observant Islam" or more crudely put, wiping out "Islamo-fascism." Most War on Terror supporters I have talked to cannot give a coherent answer.

Of course they can't give a coherent answer. Their thinking up till this point has been totally incoherent. It's all fuzzy and feel good. It's not about setting clear and goals that are possibly attainable. The Iraq was wasn't about Saddam (cause sure he was a mass murderer and jerk and he wanted to kill GHW Bush, but there are lots of mass-murdering jerks who want to kill our presidents). It wasn't about the threat of WMDs falling into terrorists's hands (cause if it were then the Bush administration would be better-funding Nunn-Lugar stuff.) This crusade won't be victorious until the whole world is a democracy. And therefore, the crusade will never end.

And it's just plain nuts.

Of course we should care about human rights, and of course democracy is a better form of government than the others, but agreement with those principles doesn't necessitate that we go to war with every damn place that is different from our own. We have a finite amount of resources - money and soldiers - and we need to figure out how to best allocate it. This way doesn't seem to be working too well... so maybe we should stop it.

[Andrew Sullivan]
[Intellectual Conservative]

Good for Powell

Colin Powell says that he spent more than 2 hours, in the run-up to the Iraq war, trying to talk Bush out of it. Good for him, but it obviously didn't do much good. The reason that he was chosen to make the administration's case for war in front of the UN, way back in 2003, was precisely because there was wide speculation that he was against it. A war like this one just doesn't coincide with a traditional Realist's sort of thinking.

Now that the war is an unmitigated failure, and Republican sentaors, among others, are speaking out against it, Powell has apparently decided to join in. He said in Aspen that he was against the war from the beginning, as we all suspected or knew that he was.

People like Don Surber and Glenn Reynolds and Ross Douthat think this inconsistency - between Powell's private beliefs and his public statements in 2003 - tarnishes his credibility. It seems to me that as Secretary of State it was Powell's job to defend the President's policies, whether he agreed with them or not. He was being loyal, just as he should have been.

By remaining in the administration he was in a far better position to try and influence policy - unsuccessful as he was - than if he had left his post. Imagine, if you will, in our run-up to the War, in the post-9/11 fervor, Powell suddenly announcing that he was against Bush's FoPo and resigned. Would he retain influence over the administration? Would Surber and Reynolds think more or less of him in that scenario than now?

Powell would've been accused of trying to undermine the war effort! He would have been blasted as a traitor if he had gone public with his anti- Iraq war views whether he had stayed in the administration or left it in disgust.

I can't tell you how many people work for the State Dept. who are liberal Democrats, who must surely intensely dislike the Bush administration's views of the world, but they continually publicly defend the Bush administration. Because it is their job.

Wasn't this what part of the Plame nonsense was about anyway? She was a CIA analyst. Was it her job to actively work against the White House? Or should she have worked basically in support of the Executive Branch as per her job description?

[Don Surber]
[Ross Douthat]

Wasp frugality d'italiano

I found these wonderful examples of international thrift and style over at The Sartorialist. Its because of gentlemen like this that I am proud of my first name. The tailoring is impeccable and guess what? It was his father's suit before him. Check the collar detail and go grab a pen and paper. Broken in clothing should be earned, not purchased, even if it takes more than one generation.

I think it might be time to invest in a three-button linen suit...finally something to wear the spectators with.

Fun illiteracy facts!

According to the CIA World Factbook,

[O]ver two-thirds of the world's 785 million illiterate adults are found in only eight countries (India, China, Bangladesh, Pakistan, Nigeria, Ethiopia, Indonesia, and Egypt); of all the illiterate adults in the world, two-thirds are women; extremely low literacy rates are concentrated in three regions, South and West Asia, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the Arab states, where around one-third of the men and half of all women are illiterate (2005 est.)

[The World Factbook]

C'est merde!

I just discovered this clip of the French version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire" via somebody or other. The question in the clip is, "What revolves around the Earth?" The answer, of course is "La Lune" (yet, when asked by this idiot contestant, more than half the audience thinks it is The Sun! - I hope they were trying some sabotage) ... watch as we learn that les French are not so much smarter than les Americains:

Reasons of State!

Erik at No Pasaran points to a front page interview in Le Monde about the movie, The Good Shepherd (which is called Raisons d'Etat in France). The interview's with lefty Larry Johnson (whose creds are that he worked for State and CIA for a while, runs the "No Quarter" blog, and would probably agree with the statement, "George W Bush is the worst president ever," although to my knowledge he's never actually said that).

Here's a quote from Mr Johnson (which I'm translating from French into English):

The film avoids answering the crucial question which is who really directs the CIA.... [it's not] a sort of savage animal alone and without a master.

I don't get this criticism. The movie does repeatedly suggest that Kennedy was directing the Bay of Pigs deal, and the CIA guys were responsible, not for the the decision to invade, but merely the actual execution of it. The movie also makes clear that while the CIA guys feel some sort of moral and professional guilt over the failure, it is Kennedy who is actually responsible for it.

Larr (as his friends might call him) is quite critical of the movie, praising it only on technical grounds. He says the CIA "history" presented on film isn't accurate; who honestly expected it would be?

From what I remember of the movie, it paints a pretty sympathetic portrait of the agency; every time Matt Damon and company take some morally questionable action it is only in response to some Soviet aggression. According to the movie, the Soviets are clearly the bad guys, and the Americans are just trying to keep up. I can't figure out why Le Monde is highlighting the movie on its front page, since it doesn't seem to reflect much on current world events -- it's certainly less critical of American FoPo than, for example, various George Clooney efforts have been. The US has intelligence agencies. Big deal. So does everyone else. What am I missing?

Links:
[No Pasaran]
[Le Monde]
[No Quarter]

Killers in disguise

Via the Corner, we learn this from The Independent:

Britain's border controls were condemned as "non-existent" today after it was claimed that the suspected murderer of a policewoman fled the country by disguising himself as a veiled Muslim woman.

Police reportedly believe that Mustaf Jamma, a prime suspect in the fatal shooting of Pc Sharon Beshenivsky, used his sister's passport and wore a full niqab to evade checks at Heathrow airport.

Shadow Home Secretary David Davis insisted there should be an urgent inquiry.

My reaction: There should, of course, be an inquiry into why people are allowed to pass through security stations while wearing disguises. It's absurd that anyone might expect Customs or Border agents to identify people without being able to see their faces. I recall from a while back a flurry of commentary and counter-commentary about whether Muslim women should be allowed to hide their faces on drivers license photos. I thought at the time, and still think now, that such an idea is akin to allowing people to wear gloves while being fingerprinted.

Absurd!

Religious practice, in my view, should not be hindered when it does not interfere in the good course of our society. We shouldn't hassle religious people when they are minding their own business. But when a religious practice is disrupting society in the most basic of ways -- knowing who is whom -- then it needs to be halted.

Links:
[NRO's Corner]
[The Independent]

True TV Facts!

The TVs in the West Wing that I've seen (with the exceptions of the quad-tvs, and the ones in Tony Snow's office) are tuned to the Fox News Channel. Meanwhile, across town at Foggy Bottom, the internal TV doohickie system at the State Department shows CNN International.

The State Department was, as far as I recall, the only IC agency that contributed to the Iraq War NIE that emphatically stated Iraq did not have a WMD program -- or something along those lines.

Clearly, the TV channel that one watches does not in and of itself make him right or wrong in his estimations about the world. The TV channel one watches is, however, part and parcel of his general view and understanding of the world; it is a direct result, I'd bet, of a pervasive culture in an agency of the federal government.

The questions are these: do people who have a better understanding of the world around us watch CNN International? Or does watching CNN International (as opposed to Fox News) help provide one with a better understanding of the world? Or is all this totally unrelated to the fact that the State Dept. in the run-up to the war was correct and all the other intelligence agencies were evidently wrong?

Minor celebrity sighting

The other day, I was in the Baja Fresh at Dupont Circle. I saw a Peter Beinart -looking fellow walk by jabbering about the Republican base, but I figured it must not have been 'em because the New Republic's offices are practically on the other side of town. (Why would someone travel forever to get Baja Fresh in the middle of the day?) But now I've just realized that Beinart is at the Council on Foreign Relations, whose offices are in Dupont.

It all makes sense now.

Of flag-flyers and patriots

Andrew Sullivan says of a Pew survey's results,

Flag-flyers are more likely to be better educated; white; Republican; and northeastern or midwestern rather than southern or western.

That's me! Also from Sullivan on the survey:

And there's been a ten percent drop in Republican patriotism in the last four years.

Fleeting patriotism isn't much of a patriotism at all, if you ask me (regardless of how disappointing the president may have become).

[Andrew Sullivan]
[Pew]

Weblogs I sometimes read

The Capitolist - message board for Congressional staffers who probably think "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" is sappy and therefore unbearable to watch. They feign being jaded by "the system" because they had miserable childhoods.

Wonkette - DC gossip and remarks that aren't as snide as they ought to be.

NRO - Neocons and John Derbyshire.

Cunning Realist - A cunning Realist (I gather in the foreign policy sense of the word).

Andrew Sullivan - I think I saw him in Dupont the other day, but didn't say anything to him, cause he wasn't walking beagles and so I assumed it wasn't actually he (or him - or whatever).

more links later...

Why

The other weekend, I'd gone up to NYC. One night I'm sitting at Dorrian's (not wearing a blue blazer) and my friend, his girlfriend, and my girlfriend all suggest I start a blog.

This is that blog.

It may come as a shock to you people who know me that I have opinions -- but I do. If you are one of those people (who know me) keep your shock to yourselves. If you figure out who I am don't ruin my fun by outing me. The whole point of my keeping this blog pseudonymously written is so that it doesn't interfere with my real life.

Enjoy! (Or don't enjoy; I don't really care either way.)