Put it in Bullets!

I agree with my colleague Jack that the CIA and the intelligence community, generally suffers from an incredible lack of technological foresight, or, even aesthetic inspiration. The CIA's official web presence is characterized by early 90's hyper linked, visibly highlighted text and difficulty of navigation. What the CIA needs is the sort of fluidity and "flash," interactivity of white.gov, a site that previously suffered the same sort of aesthetic and functionality ailments. Whereas picture less, visibly hyper linked text was previously the norm, it is no longer so and the CIA's website must reflect accordingly.

Furthermore, the CIA and the other reviewed intelligence website-the Office of the Intelligence Director, are fatigued from the same problem that the majority of other governmental agencies and departments face, which is an over emphasis on written text. Most Americans do not want to wade through paragraph after paragraph of written text cascading in the glory of the agency---put the shit in bullet points, something that will simultaneously reduce website clutter and appeal to the Adderal attention spans of our citizenry.

The intelligence community as portrayed in "Three Days of a Condor," another film that I practically fell out of my chair in boredom while watching, can be said to be rather accurate. Depictions of inter-departmental and agency suspicions and politicking are largely the types of behavior that have been reportedly at play within said institutions. While certainly dealing with issues of utmost national security, these agencies and organizations still rely on human occupation which is "dog eat dog."

I was not awake nor alert enough to capture the concluding blog answer. Again, the sheer lack of physicality in the plot, combined with wretched soundtrack music and a general feeling of fatigue, precluded me from capturing the entirety of the film in any way that I could honestly state its impact.

Corey S. Dutra

QUICK. someone update the Incredibly Cold-War Intelligence Websites!

Question #1:

Three Things I learned from the websites that Dr. Meiers Listed:

1. The link to the games in the “CIA for Kids” section suck. (https://www.cia.gov/kids-page/games/index.html) I mean, if I was an easily persuadable kid, I wouldn’t give two shits about word finds or any other namby-pamby “games”, I would want to see a waterboarding simulator. I guess the DHS website for kids makes up for it with muppets.
2. Both the websites supplies have terrible graphics and are difficult to navigate. It looks like they haven’t been updated since the Cold War. They obviously do not care if the “Intelligence Community” bores the majority of the population, and I’m sure they would be happy if “Joe 6-Pack” didn’t even know that they existed.
3. The “intelligence” website says more by not saying very much at all.




Question #2: How is the U.S. intelligence community depicted in The Three Days of the Condor

Poorly, but that’s what makes the movie so fun. I don’t really care if the CIA has a CIA within itself, or if Robert Redford’s level of ass-kickin’ has been enhanced, I don’t care, what I care about is that the film accomplished everything that a film is supposed to accomplish, which is to be entertaining. It’s fun to think about the conspiracies that are hatched and carried out under our noses, and it’s fun to see them dramatized on the big-screen, but that’s all it is, fun. Do I think that the Intelligence Community operates in the fashion exhibited within the film? No. Do I think it could happen? Maybe, but I handle this thought with the same disgust that I handle Ron Paul supporters. Does the Intelligence Community deserve the treatment it received in the film? Why not, when an organization operates with extreme security it is only natural for people to ponder the extremes of the philosophy that is partially hidden by the agency itself, and Hollywood is the perfect tool for it.

Question #3: Is the warning given by the Cliff Robertson character Higgins to the Robert Redford character Turner at the end of the film accurate or not?

I’m sure it is. Maybe not the exact details, but I’m sure that Turner is a marked man. Even if the New York Times were to print the story, I’m sure that the Intelligence Community (at least in this film) would do everything to silence the matter, including the murder of Turner. However, this is thinking that the story will be printed which we are not guaranteed is a possibility. Turner’s big mistake was revealing his cards too early. Turner should not have told Higgins what he was going to do, he should have let it come as a surprise, now Higgins has the opportunity to reach the editors of the Times before the article is printed. For this reason, we know that Turner’s luck may finally have run out. There have been many instances of characters within the Intelligence Community commenting on Turner’s luck as the only thing that has gotten him so far, and now we can concur that as the film finishes, so too will Turner’s life.


Jack Gustafson