It's actually pronounced "Kiribas"? I had no idea.

Americans wouldn't even realize there's another ocean on the other side of the planet, if not for cars and toys! Geesh, even the atheists and secularists can't see farther than from the Atlantic to Israel! It's Kiribati! Thanks, Heather, for not being the usual American!

Heather says that if only the 17 leading industrial nations could agree, climate stabilization targets could be met. Does she really know that? Or is she just parroting something she heard? This whole climate debate cries out for adult supervision by qualified experts who have no skin in the game. To give you some examples of what I mean, here is a nice analysis on the science of mitigation by a couple of engineering faculty at Princeton. And here is a nice critique of some of the science by a professional statistician, with some follow-up testimony before Congress. (I was particularly astonished to learn that climatologists -- who spend their professional lives analyzing climate data from around the world and in the geological record -- are required to have no statistical training to earn their degrees. Unbelievable.) A lot more intelligence needs to be brought to bear on this subject. It doesn't take a genius to see that leading stars of climatology like Michael Mann and Phil Jones and Jim Hansen are not the brightest tools in the shed. Read their emails.

If we continue to put pressure on the Pakistani army to kill Muslims for us, there is a real possibility, according to Tariq Ali, that the army may split. It makes sense. There is great discontent among officers, already. We are flirting with disaster by propping up a corrupt political leader who the majority of Pakistanis believe killed his wife, and insisting that the army do something that is deeply repulsive to a significant part of it. This is the only realistic scenario in which Pakistan's nuclear arms fall into the wrong hands. It really is preposterous to go on about how we are staying in the region to make sure these weapons don't fall into the hands of Al Coyote. Our presence, and our persistent brow-beating of the Pakistani military to get them to kill their brethren, is the most dangerous strategy we could possibly take. It is patently stupid. There must be some other reason we continue to stir this pot. Perhaps it gives us an excuse to maintain military bases on the frontier with China. (Edit) The metaphor for which I was searching is 'hornet's nest', not 'pot'.

Can Heather show a connection to the Taliban being in power in Afghanistan, and the Pakistan military government selling nuclear technology abroad? Is this a non sequitur? Here.

Quoting Baltimoron: Americans wouldn't even realize there's another ocean on the other side of the planet, if not for cars and toys! Geesh, even the atheists and secularists can't see farther than from the Atlantic to Israel!

It's Kiribati! Thanks, Heather, for not being the usual American!

She's still a little bit usual: Kiribati (pronounced /ˈkɪrɨbćs/ ( listen) KIRR-i-bas;[3] Gilbertese: [ˈkiɾibas]).

Very funny book about (mainly) Kiribati.

Maybe it is only me, but Posner looked like he could barely keep a straight face during parts of this diavlog.

"The usual American." You've encountered one of these? Kinda sounds like "the usual Earthling" to me.

Interesting pairing. I wanted to agree with Heather Hurlburt on Obama, but found myself reluctantly agreeing with Eric Posner: the Nobel speech and Afghan policy statements were triumphs of style over substance. When it comes to articulating the principles of American foreign policy nothing much distinguishes Obama from Bush-- except his mastery of English. The nod in the direction of multilateralism is commendable, but what does it mean exactly? Something along these lines: Come on NATO, show us you are good allies by committing more troops to the lost cause of Afghanistan. No one expects Obama to be a Ghandi, but when Posner compares him to Nixon (presumably because he inherits a war from his predecessor) the analogy is hardly one to cheer good liberals.

BornAgainDemocrat said:

Maybe it is only me, but Posner looked like he could barely keep a straight face during parts of this diavlog.

No, I noticed that too. I need to add Posner to the list of "conservatives" on the site who are worth listening to: Lindsey, Frum, Posner. I have no real understanding of Posner, however. He also looks like he's about to fall asleep all the time. He seems deeply cynical to me. One suspects that he is suppressing a derisive smile whenever Heather makes an argument to the effect that countries will find it mutually beneficial to do X, or that giving $100 billion to poor countries is a good deal. I'm not saying that she's wrong, I'm saying that Posner may think that, even if she's right in some sense, countries won't see it that way, or won't be able to act in accordance with this calculus for political or instiutional reasons. He clearly does not like to belabor points, also, which is very refreshing.

Quoting ledocs: BornAgainDemocrat said:

Maybe it is only me, but Posner looked like he could barely keep a straight face during parts of this diavlog.

No, I noticed that too. I need to add Posner to the list of "conservatives" on the site who are worth listening to: Lindsey, Frum, Posner. I have no real understanding of Posner, however. He also looks like he's about to fall asleep all the time. He seems deeply cynical to me. One suspects that he is suppressing a derisive smile whenever Heather makes an argument to the effect that countries will find it mutually beneficial to do X, or that giving $100 billion to poor countries is a good deal. I'm not saying that she's wrong, I'm saying that Posner may think that, even if she's right in some sense, countries won't see it that way, or won't be able to act in accordance with this calculus for political or instiutional reasons. He clearly does not like to belabor points, also, which is very refreshing.

Project much? I went back and looked at the last two segments to check BAD's observation, and found that no, Posner was being respectful and playing it straight. If I may offer my own projection, he

Quoting Francoamerican: Interesting pairing.

I wanted to agree with Heather Hurlburt on Obama, but found myself reluctantly agreeing with Eric Posner: the Nobel speech and Afghan policy statements were triumphs of style over substance. When it comes to articulating the principles of American foreign policy nothing much distinguishes Obama from Bush-- except his mastery of English. The nod in the direction of multilateralism is commendable, but what does it mean exactly? Something along these lines: Come on NATO, show us you are good allies by committing more troops to the lost cause of Afghanistan. No one expects Obama to be a Ghandi, but when Posner compares him to Nixon (presumably because he inherits a war from his predecessor) the analogy is hardly one to cheer good liberals.

Posner said Obama reminds him of Nixon on foreign policy. Does that mean just in inheriting a war, or would it also be his interest in opening dialogs with enemies in the interest of mutual benefits, e.g., N. Korea?

Quoting look: Project much? I went back and looked at the last two segments to check BAD's observation, and found that no, Posner was being respectful and playing it straight. If I may offer my own projection, he is a very respectful, realistic, kind-hearted individual. His half-smile was just his normal expression of polite interest. And his 'falling asleep' look is due to his eye-lid configuration and looking down at the camera. Jeeze, do I have to explain everything? His willingness not to belabor points only reinforces my take.

I share these impressions.

Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb Pakistan
Bomb, bomb, bomb... bomb Pakistan What a warmonger. This was a good diavlog. Love Eric Posner. Hurlburt is lovely as well, and I love it when she gets lawyer-ed into making the same arguments the Bush administration made.

Look said:

Posner was being respectful and playing it straight. If I may offer my own projection, he is a very respectful, realistic, kind-hearted individual. His half-smile was just his normal expression of polite interest.

Certainly possible. I'm not convinced by this "projection," but I admitted that I don't have a good take on Posner. One would have to know him reasonably well, I think, to know how to interpret the half-smile. It's not obvious that the less benign interpretation, the one tending towards derision, is wrong. I think what the half-smile means is, "OK, I see where this is going, we're not going to add much here if I persist, we've both made our points, let's move on. (But, by the way, your point of view is a bit credulous.)" Also, I don't think that my "projection" is inconsistent with Posner having a healthy respect for Hulbert. My guess is that he would not consent to the diavlog if he did not.

Quoting bjkeefe: I share these impressions.

Me too. More later, of course.

Quoting look: Posner said Obama reminds him of Nixon on foreign policy. Does that mean just in inheriting a war, or would it also be his interest in opening dialogs with enemies in the interest of mutual benefits, e.g., N. Korea?

Or more importantly, the opening to China? Maybe. Nixon's foreign policy (détente) was guided by a man far more knowledgeable (and intelligent?) than any of Obama's foreign policy advisers---Henry Kissinger, who was hated by both the far right (the future neo-cons) and the far left (people like Hitchens). But Kissinger was also the main architect of Nixon's Vietnam policy: Bomb the Vietcong into submission.

Quoting Francoamerican: Or more importantly, the opening to China? Maybe. Nixon's foreign policy (détente) was guided by a man far more knowledgeable (and intelligent?) than any of Obama's foreign policy advisers---Henry Kissinger, who was hated by both the far right (the future neo-cons) and the far left (people like Hitchens). But Kissinger was also the main architect of Nixon's Vietnam policy: Bomb the Vietcong into submission.

Well, I was alluding to the fact that Nixon opened China, and was thinking that Posner was comparing Obama in trying to open N. Korea, Iran, etc. But are you saying that Obama is following in Nixon's China footsteps by going to China?

Quoting ledocs: Look said:

Certainly possible. I'm not convinced by this "projection," but I admitted that I don't have a good take on Posner. One would have to know him reasonably well, I think, to know how to interpret the half-smile. It's not obvious that the less benign interpretation, the one tending towards derision, is wrong. I think what the half-smile means is, "OK, I see where this is going, we're not going to add much here if I persist, we've both made our points, let's move on. (But, by the way, your point of view is a bit credulous.)" Also, I don't think that my "projection" is inconsistent with Posner having a healthy respect for Hulbert. My guess is that he would not consent to the diavlog if he did not.

But that's not the same as derision, which is a serious charge. Even if you interpret him as conveying '[you]...are a bit credulous,' that does not mean he was being derisive. He and Hurlburt both know they are on opposite sides of the fence. If you go to the top of the page, and click 'heads' in the orange icon, you can find all of Posner's vlogs. Here's one that features the same close-up camera view: http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/19150

But that's not the same as derision, which is a serious charge. Even if you interpret him as conveying '[you]...are a bit credulous,' that does not mean he was being derisive.

You're right, although I think what I said initially was that he was sublimating or suppressing a derisive smile. So what I meant by that, I think, is that it's an ironic smile that might become derisive if certain constraints were removed. And my reason for thinking that is the deep cynicism that I detect, along with the world-weariness of the eyes. But all of this could be wrong, I know him only from bhtv. Anyway, I'll revise my formulation to "ironic half-smile."

Quoting look: Well, I was alluding to the fact that Nixon opened China, and was thinking that Posner was comparing Obama in trying to open N. Korea, Iran, etc. But are you saying that Obama is following in Nixon's China footsteps by going to China?

No. It was a misunderstanding. I thought you were alluding to something Nixon did with regard to N.Korea of which I was unaware. Has Obama done anything significant? There were already openings to NK under Clinton and even Bush II.

Neo-cons, like Irving Kristol, were far right? Really?

Quoting Lyle: Neo-cons, like Irving Kristol, were far right? Really?

On foreign policy he was hawkish. On domestic issues I suppose it is unfair to call the neo-cons the far right. They were (are?) neither libertarians nor religious conservatives.

Quoting ledocs: You're right, although I think what I said initially was that he was sublimating or suppressing a derisive smile. So what I meant by that, I think, is that it's an ironic smile that might become derisive if certain constraints were removed. And my reason for thinking that is the deep cynicism that I detect, along with the world-weariness of the eyes. But all of this could be wrong, I know him only from bhtv. Anyway, I'll revise my formulation to "ironic half-smile."

If you are correct, that ironic half-smile went on and on and on. But we'll keep and eye on him, and if he reads the comments, he should know he's on notice...heh. Anyway, he strikes me as a wonderful guy.

Quoting Francoamerican: No. It was a misunderstanding. I thought you were alluding to something Nixon did with regard to N.Korea of which I was unaware. Has Obama done anything significant? There were already openings to NK under Clinton and even Bush II.

Okay, yes, Clinton and Bush II played ball, though I think if China hadn't been in the background striking down the notion, Bush II would have bombed the original nuclear-test site. But as far as my claim that, as Nixon went to China as a wedge against the Soviets, Obama seems interested in advancing co-operation based on the mutual self-interest of other nations, examples being kow-towing to Kim by sending a former president to rescue wayward journalists, attempting softball with Iran, and engaging Russia, which has resulted in access to troop supply-routes.

Quoting Lyle: Neo-cons, like Irving Kristol, were far right? Really?

Put me down as a political junkie who doesn't completely understand the left-right continuum. Was Kristol originally Trotskyist? Which is left? Then was a liberal (individual liberty) Dem in the 70s? Then accepted the term neo-con when it was coined for him? Does anyone think that it's better to think of the contiuum as a circle where far left and far right eventually coincide?

Quoting look: Does anyone think that it's better to think of the contiuum as a circle where far left and far right eventually coincide?

Yes (starting at paragraph 3).

They were hawkish liberals... or better anti-communist, anti-Soviet liberals.

Yes, some were self-described Trotskyists... really they were liberals who were hawkish about the Soviet Union. They were a group of intellectual liberals who had been or became anti-communists when the Left started to apologize for the likes of the Soviet Union and other communist states.

Look, You think neo-cons are far right?

Quoting Lyle: Look,

You think neo-cons are far right?

No. From what I understand, they were not actually socially conservative or religious, but allied with the Religious Right as a matter of convenience. From what I gather, their PNAC is liberal internationalism with a side of Zionism.

Yep, got you.