See what you mean about the GCHQ photos. That "C Block Oakley, Cheltenham - 1950s" picture does not look 50s at all. Those police bollards out the front with the "no waiting" signs on don't look 1950s either.

We can sleep safely in our beds with spies like these.

Anyone who says, "the liberal lemmings of the mainstream media, from CBS to CNN" is just not wired right.

Certainly from a non-US perspective, nearly all US news media ranges from moderate right wing (CNN) to eye-bulgingly right wing (Fox) to psychotically right wing (talk radio).

Liberal? Ha!

You feel more responsibility.

On the birth of your first child, you're not now just responsible for yourself. Your wife stops work, maybe permanently, and you become the sole breadwinner for the (now) 3 of you.

Personally, that made me more aware, not less, of the benefits of the welfare state (in the UK). But you also realize how important having a good job is; you have to have a job. And maybe that makes you a bit more determined and aggressive; a bit more centred on the needs of your family rather than society at large.

As a fully paid-up liberal, I think the trick is in recognizing that liberal policies aimed at benefiting society as a whole also tend do benefit you as a family - a sort of trickle down effect. And, of course, help make the world a better place for your offspring to grow up in.

In the UK House of Commons, all sorts of heckling goes on during a speech, but, interestingly, calling someone a liar is forbidden and the Speaker will immediately call for an apology from the offender which, if not given, will result in expulsion from the House.

The new letters page format is rubbish.

It is cluttered and harder to distinguish where one letter ends and another one starts. Key information like title and name of letter writer is not prominent enough - either the wrong colour or too small a font.

I read a review of it in The Guardian this morning which concluded: "Dan Brown makes Jeffrey Archer look like Dostoevsky".

Or do you mean "I"?

Other people have said it, but it's true that American Democrats would be considered right of centre in western Europe. Even Obama would be considered a right-winger, albeit a highly intelligent and articulate one, with his de facto support for torture, 'preventative detention', American militarism, and so on.

All countries, including in western Europe, have their crackpot political parties and their rather unhinged supporters. The difference seems to be that in America they can get elected and wield real power, whereas in Europe (since WWII certainly) they forever remain on the fringes. Why is this?

Americans are no more clever or stupid than anybody else, so the only thing I can think of is the influence of the American media. They lie.

And, paradoxically, maybe this is down to the much-vaunted American free speech. This is undeniably a good thing but it does mean that the likes of Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, or any wingnut with a lot of money, can pour their lies into the ears of Americans.

In Europe, there are usually laws or restrictions regarding the broadcasting of nakedly partisan untruths like Fox News does. There are exceptions, like the Berlusconi-owned Italian media that is dumbing down a generation of Italians, but, in general, most western Europeans have a better chance of being exposed to facts than many Americans.

And I think that's the main reason why European conservatives accept the reality of global warming.

Post-Cold War, "Germany, now reunited, and Japan were still U.S. client-states". Apparently. Do they know this? And worryingly, do Americans believe this?

And with "unilateral market access", "Japan and West Germany had been told to make cars". Unilateral? The US doesn't export to Germany and Japan? Really? It might just be that German and Japanese cars tend to be better than American ones, of course.

And: "When other countries try to wipe out our industries by cheating, why can't we retaliate?". What is this rubbish?

Michael Lind tells some truths, but some of his pronouncements I find quite disturbing, even more so if it's true that this is what the American foreign policy establishment believes.

The US does what it does because it thinks it's in its own interests - nobody else's. Just like other countries.

America is not the world's policeman for any altruistic motive. It maintains a military presence in many and various parts of the world because it perceives that to be to America's advantage. It may also be to others' advantage as well but that is secondary - a win-win situation is, after all, politically more acceptable.

Even though militant Islamism has replaced the Soviet Union as the main excuse for US militarism abroad, the US's self-proclaimed role is bound to be challenged more and more with the rise of countries like China, India, Brazil, the expansion of the EU, and so on. But these will be economic threats not military ones.

I just don't think it's viable for the US to persist with this global policeman role. As more and more countries develop their economic muscle, they're going to be less likely to cooperate with the US if they feel there's nothing in it for them.

The US has got to get used to a different way of working.