No blogging for a week or so.

I’m moving up “this”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/2010/m-rubin-on-iran post and “this”:http://www.totalwonkerr.net/2011/m-rubin-crs-and-this-blog post, in case anyone cares about why this blog went offline for a bit. I think false charges need to be responded to, so I wanna make these a touch more prominent. If you don’t care, please read Josh’s stuff because it’s more interesting.

I am not speaking for anyone or anything except myself.

Unrelatedly, here is, I believe, the shortest music video ever:

Their drummer once told me a pretty funny story about the police searching their van in NC.

*Update:*

Elevated from comments:

“[Rubin wrote something about me a]nd named zero factual errors [in anything I have written]. FAIL.”

*Later Update:*

No one from Brutal Truth had anything to do with this blog post or, to my knowledge, any USFG products.

Paul will be inactive for awhile, but I’m back. Sort of.

It was good to get a break from blogging — so good, in fact, that I’m going to make a conscious effort _not_ to return to previous form. Really. I mean it. It’s amazing how much else you can get done when you don’t blog. I have a number of things to accomplish in the next couple of months, so please don’t expect an immediate return to the torrid pace of yore.

But I’m back.

I’m not blogging for the moment, but the blog is back online. If people could refrain from misrepresenting its contents, that would be welcomed.

So it’s come to this.

I have never made a secret of the fact that I work for CRS and have this blog. I never talk about CRS on here because CRS has nothing to do with this blog. I mean nothing. At. All.

But Michael Rubin has now “made an issue”:http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTQyMzc1MWIwOWExMTE5YWU0ODVhZWMzYjNmNTE4Njk of my day job. In fact , he impugns my integrity and implies that I should be fired. I think that’s kind of uncool. In any case, I now feel compelled to say a few things.

He says:

bq. Back to Paul Kerr, this should set the record straight. I am surprised that Congressional Research Service analysts not only blog, but also engage in hackery which appears motivated by either partisanship or a desire to advocate policy rather than analyze. From now on, I certainly would take with a grain of salt CRS reports on non-proliferation if they are authored by Kerr and would question why CRS hires bloggers. Granted, the blog is not on a CRS website (although Kerr’s interjections into other blogs suggests he spends much CRS time involved with blogs) but the many partisan links provide a window into the confluence of Kerr’s analysis and politics and should concern any staff member who expects the Congressional Research Service to uphold its reputation for straightforward analysis. CRS should not stand to legitimize analysis formed more by blogger groupthink than by careful reading and fact.

Rubin can read my stuff however he wants. I would welcome feedback from him. But let me be clear about a few things: I am not motivated by partisanship or politics. The work I do is good; if there are ever any inaccuracies I would be happy to correct them, but you won’t find many of those. I do work for both Republicans and Democrats alike and they all seem pretty happy with the results. If they weren’t, I would definitely hear about it.

A few other things:

* On this blog, I do not take policy positions on anything in my portfolio. In fact, I was careful not to do so in my post about Rubin’s oped.

* Despite what Rubin implies, I do not blog or comment on blogs at work. I do read some blogs at work as part of my job.

* The links on this site are not to partisan websites. There’s a reason for that.

* CRS hired me, as far as I know, because I worked for ACA for 5 years and CSIS for 2 years. I also had a blog, which, I guess, means they hired a blogger. But that’s not the part of my cv they focused on, I’m pretty sure.

* Neither Josh nor I write anything about Congress or politics. There’s a reason for that.

I actually agree with Rubin when he says “CRS should not stand to legitimize analysis formed more by blogger groupthink than by careful reading and fact.” If any of my analysis is ever informed by anything other than “careful reading and fact,” I imagine I will be looking for a new line of work.

Have a nice Friday.

*Update:* Michael and I exchanged friendly emails on this subject. I got no hard feelings.

Too much else is going on at the moment…

I’ll be out of pocket for most of the week, what with “various activities”:http://www.armscontrolwonk.com/2243/carnegie-conference-happy-hour and the “Festival of WMD Terrorism”:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plagues_of_Egypt.

Surely, you must have other sources of amusement, no?

Posting might be even lighter from me during the next week or so.